Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
DOI | 10.1111/gcb.14878 |
Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? | |
Smith, Pete1; Calvin, Katherine2; Nkem, Johnson3; Campbell, Donovan4; Cherubini, Francesco5; Grassi, Giacomo6; Korotkov, Vladimir7; Anh Le Hoang8; Lwasa, Shuaib9; McElwee, Pamela10; Nkonya, Ephraim11; Saigusa, Nobuko12; Soussana, Jean-Francois13; Angel Taboada, Miguel14; Manning, Frances C.1; Nampanzira, Dorothy15; Arias-Navarro, Cristina13; Vizzarri, Matteo6; House, Jo16; Roe, Stephanie17,18; Cowie, Annette19; Rounsevell, Mark20,21; Arneth, Almut20 | |
2019-12-14 | |
发表期刊 | GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY |
ISSN | 1354-1013 |
EISSN | 1365-2486 |
出版年 | 2019 |
文章类型 | Article;Early Access |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | Scotland; USA; Ethiopia; Jamaica; Norway; Italy; Russia; Vietnam; Uganda; Japan; France; Argentina; England; Germany; Australia |
英文摘要 | There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as "land challenges"). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO(2)eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing-up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges. |
英文关键词 | adaptation adverse side effects co-benefits demand management desertification food security land degradation land management mitigation practice risk management |
领域 | 气候变化 ; 资源环境 |
收录类别 | SCI-E |
WOS记录号 | WOS:000502467300001 |
WOS关键词 | GREENHOUSE-GAS MITIGATION ; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ; SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION ; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT ; ORGANIC-CARBON ; NEGATIVE EMISSIONS ; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ; LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS ; TROPICAL FORESTS ; URBAN SPRAWL |
WOS类目 | Biodiversity Conservation ; Ecology ; Environmental Sciences |
WOS研究方向 | Biodiversity & Conservation ; Environmental Sciences & Ecology |
引用统计 | |
文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/225329 |
专题 | 环境与发展全球科技态势 |
作者单位 | 1.Univ Aberdeen, Inst Biol & Environm Sci, Aberdeen, Scotland; 2.Pacific Northwest Natl Lab, Joint Global Change Res Inst, College Pk, MD USA; 3.United Nations Econ Commiss Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 4.Univ West Indies, Mona, Jamaica; 5.Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Dept Energy & Proc Engn, Ind Ecol Programme, Trondheim, Norway; 6.European Commiss, Joint Res Ctr, Ispra, Italy; 7.Yu A Izrael Inst Global Climate & Ecol, Moscow, Russia; 8.Minist Agr & Rural Dev MARD, Hanoi, Vietnam; 9.Makerere Univ, Dept Geog, Kampala, Uganda; 10.Rutgers State Univ, Dept Human Ecol, New Brunswick, NJ USA; 11.IFPRI, Washington, DC USA; 12.Natl Inst Environm Studies, Ctr Global Environm Res, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; 13.French Natl Inst Agr Environm & Food Res INRA, Paris, France; 14.Natl Agr Technol Inst INTA, Nat Resources Res Ctr CIRN, Inst Soils, Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina; 15.Makerere Univ, Dept Livestock & Ind Resources, Kampala, Uganda; 16.Univ Bristol, Sch Geog Sci, Bristol, Avon, England; 17.Univ Virginia, Dept Environm Sci, Charlottesville, VA USA; 18.Climate Focus, Berlin, Germany; 19.Univ New England, Livestock Ind Ctr, DPI Agr, NSW Dept Primary Ind, Armidale, NSW, Australia; 20.Karlsruhe Inst Technol, Atmospher Environm Res, IMK IFU, Garmisch Partenkirchen, Germany; 21.Univ Edinburgh, Inst Geog, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Smith, Pete,Calvin, Katherine,Nkem, Johnson,et al. Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?[J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY,2019. |
APA | Smith, Pete.,Calvin, Katherine.,Nkem, Johnson.,Campbell, Donovan.,Cherubini, Francesco.,...&Arneth, Almut.(2019).Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?.GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY. |
MLA | Smith, Pete,et al."Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?".GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY (2019). |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。
修改评论