Search

Abstract Projection of land use and land‐cover change is highly uncertain yet drives critical estimates of carbon emissions, climate change, and food and bioenergy production. We use new, spatially explicit land availability data in conjunction with a model sensitivity analysis to estimate the effects of additional land protection on land use and land cover. The land availability data include protected land and agricultural suitability and is incorporated into the Moirai land data system for initializing the Global Change Analysis Model. Overall, decreasing land availability is relatively inefficient at preserving undeveloped land while having considerable regional land‐use impacts. Current amounts of protected area have little effect on land and crop production estimates, but including the spatial distribution of unsuitable (i.e., unavailable) land dramatically shifts bioenergy production from high northern latitudes to the rest of the world, compared with uniform availability. This highlights the importance of spatial heterogeneity in understanding and managing land change. Approximately doubling the current protected area to emulate a 30% protected area target may avoid land conversion by 2050 of less than half the newly protected extent while reducing bioenergy feedstock land by 10.4% and cropland and grazed pasture by over 3%. Regional bioenergy land may be reduced (increased) by up to 46% (36%), cropland reduced by up to 61%, pasture reduced by up to 100%, and harvested forest reduced by up to 35%. Only a few regions show notable gains in some undeveloped land types of up to 36%. Half of the regions can reach the target using only unsuitable land, which would minimize impacts on agriculture but may not meet conservation goals. Rather than focusing on an area target, a more robust approach may be to carefully select newly protected land to meet well‐defined conservation goals while minimizing impacts to agriculture.

Abstract Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. We review the literature on bioenergy use for climate change mitigation, including studies that use top‐down integrated assessment models or bottom‐up modelling, and studies that do not rely on modelling. We summarize the state of knowledge concerning potential co‐benefits and adverse side effects of bioenergy systems and discuss limitations of modelling studies used to analyse consequences of bioenergy expansion. The implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and how bioenergy alters energy systems and land use. Depending on previous land use, widespread deployment of monoculture plantations may contribute to mitigation but can cause negative impacts across a range of other sustainability criteria. Strategic integration of new biomass supply systems into existing agriculture and forest landscapes may result in less mitigation but can contribute positively to other sustainability objectives. There is considerable variation in evaluations of how sustainability challenges evolve as the scale of bioenergy deployment increases, due to limitations of existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence alternative uses of biomass and land. Integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance co‐benefits and minimize adverse side effects can reduce the risks of large‐scale deployment of bioenergy. Further, conservation and efficiency measures for energy, land and biomass can support greater flexibility in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Abstract Land scarcity is increasing over time, driven by complex multisector dynamics. The impacts of land scarcity on the economy and environment are multi‐faceted and regional, so any action to convert land will contain inherent tradeoffs. These impacts are complicated by the deeply uncertain evolution of the various sectors influencing land scarcity. A need therefore exists to provide multi‐metric and multi‐sector assessments that are robust to myriad uncertainties. Land conservation effectively limits the supply of productive land, while biofuel consumption increases the demand and competition for that land, and how these dynamics individually and jointly propagate to economic and environmental impacts is an important open question. To address this, we adopt the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) that has representations of various important systems including the climate, macroeconomic, energy, agriculture and land, and water resources systems. Various scenarios of increased land demand (from biofuels) and decreased land supply (from conservation) under various socioeconomic scenarios drawn from the SSPs were simulated using GCAM. We find that while biofuel consumption and land conservation reduce carbon emissions, this comes at the cost of higher food prices, reduced crop production, and increased water withdrawals. Additionally, some regions experience these tradeoffs more severely than others and are more heavily impacted from the same biofuel mandate or by an additional percent of protected land. These and other findings highlight the importance of multisector modeling frameworks that capture many cross‐sector linkages, and acknowledge the important uncertainties confronting the human‐Earth system when making any analysis of land scarcity impacts.