Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 390–401 | Cite as

More than carbon stocks: A case study of ecosystem-based benefits of REDD+ in Indonesia



During the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15), Parties agreed that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing ‘removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests’ (REDD+) in developing countries through positive incentives under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was capable of dealing with global emissions. As REDD+ seeks to lower emissions by stopping deforestation and forest degradation with an international payment tier according to baseline scenarios, opportunities for ecosystem benefits such as slowing habitat fragmentation, conservation of forest biodiversity, soil conservation may be also part of this effort. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate ecosystem-based benefits of REDD+, and to identify the relationships with carbon stock changes. To achieve this goal, high resolution satellite images are combined with Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to identify historical deforestation in study area of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The carbon emissions for the period of 2000–2005 and 2005–2009 are 2.73 × 105 t CO2 and 1.47 × 106 t CO2 respectively, showing an increasing trend in recent years. Dring 2005–2009, number of patches (NP), patch density (PD), mean shape index distribution (SHAPE_MN) increased 30.8%, 30.7% and 7.6%. Meanwhile, largest patch index (LPI), mean area (AREA_MN), area-weighted mean of shape index distribution (SHAPE_AM), neighbor distance (ENN_MN) and interspersion and juxtaposition index (IJI) decreased by 55.3%, 29.7%, 15.8%, 53.4% and 21.5% respectively. The area regarding as positive correlation between carbon emissions and soil erosion was approximately 8.9 × 103 ha corresponding to 96.0% of the changing forest. These results support the view that there are strong synergies among carbon loss, forest fragmentation and soil erosion in tropical forests. Such mechanism of REDD+ is likely to present opportunities for multiple benefits that fall outside the scope of carbon stocks.


REDD+ carbon ecosystem-based benefits deforestation Indonesia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulhadi R, Kartawinata K, Sukardjo S, 1981. Effects of mechanized logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest at Lempake, East Kalimantan. The Malaysian Forester, 44(2): 407–418.Google Scholar
  2. Benitez-Malvido J, 1998. Impact of forest fragmentation on seedling abundance in a tropical rain forest. Conservation Biology, 12(2): 380–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chander G, Markham B L, Helder D L, 2009. Summary of current radiometric calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+, and EO-1 ALI sensors. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113(5): 893–903. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Congalton R G, Green K, 1999. Assessing the accuracy of re motely sensed data: Principles and practices. The Photogrammetric Record, 25(130): 204–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9730.2010.00574_2.xGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon R K, Brown S, Houghton R A et al., 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science, 263(5144): 185–190. doi: 10.1126/science.263.5144.185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1993. Forest Resources Assessment 1990: Tropical Countries. Rome: FAO Forestry Paper, 112.Google Scholar
  7. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2001. State of the World’s Forests 2001. Rome: FAO, 30.Google Scholar
  8. Field C B, Behrenfeld M J, Randerson J T et al., 1998. Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science, 281(5374): 237–240. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5374.237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foody G M, Mathur A, 2004. A relative evaluation of multiclass image classification by support vector machines. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 42(6): 1335–1343. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2004.827257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foody G M, 2002. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80(1): 185–201. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frielinghaus M, Vahrson W G, 1998. Soil translocation by water erosion from agricultural cropland into wet depressions (morainic kettle holes). Soil and Tillage Research, 46(1-2): 23–30.Google Scholar
  12. Geneletti D, 2004. Using spatial indicators and value functions to assess ecosystem fragmentation caused by linear infrastructures. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 5(1): 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2003.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giordano F, Marini A, 2008. A landscape approach for detecting and assessing changes in an area prone to desertification in Sardinia (Italy). International Journal of Navigation and Observation, 2008 (1): 1–5. doi: 10.1155/2008/549630Google Scholar
  14. GOFC-GOLD (Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics), 2009. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries: A Sourcebook of Methods and Procedures for Monitoring, Measuring and Reporting. GOFC-GOLD Report version COP14-2. Alberta, Canada: GOFC-GOLD Project Office, Natural Resources Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Hairiah K, Sitompul S M, 2000. Assessment and Simulation of Aboveground and Belowground C Stocks and Dynamics. Bogor, Indonesia: Science and Policy Workshop on Terrestrial Carbon and Possible Trading under the CDM, IC-SEA, BIOTROP.Google Scholar
  16. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2000. Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry. Special Report of the IPCC. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies for the IPCC.Google Scholar
  18. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In: Solomon S (eds.). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson R D, Slater P N, Pinter P J, 1983. Discrimination of growth and water stress in wheat by various vegetation indices through clear and turbid atmospheres. Remote Sensing of Environment, 13(3): 187–208. doi: 10.1016/0034-4257(83)90039-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanninen M, Murdiyarso D, Seymour F et al., 2007. In Forest Perspectives No. 4: Do Trees Grow on Money? The Implications of Deforestation Research for Policies to Promote REDD. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  21. Kenneth G R, George R F, Glenn A W et al., 1991. RULSE revised universal soil loss equation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(1): 30–33.Google Scholar
  22. Lal R, 1995. Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: Lal R (eds.). Soils and Global Change. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, 131–142.Google Scholar
  23. Lal R, 1998. Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 17(4): 319–464. doi: 10.1080/07352689891304249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larocque G R, Bhatti J S, Boutin R et al., 2008. Uncertainty analysis in carbon cycle models of forest ecosystems: Research needs and development of a theoretical framework to estimate error propagation. Ecological Modelling, 219(3–4): 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurance W F, Bierregaard R O, 1997. Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lu D, Mausel P, Brondízio E et al., 2002. Assessment of atmospheric correction methods for Landsat TM data applicable to Amazon basin LBA research. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(13): 2651–2671. doi: 10.1080/01431160110109642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lu H L, Liu G F, 2010. Trends in temperature and precipitation on the Tibetan Plateau, 1961–2005. Climate Reseacch, 43(3): 179–190. doi: 10.3354/cr00909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markham B L, Barker J L, 1986. Landsat MSS and TM post-calibration dynamic ranges, exoatmospheric reflectances and at-satellite temperatures. EOSAT Landsat Technical Notes, 1: 3–8.Google Scholar
  29. Martinuzzi S, Gould W A, Ramos González O M et al., 2008. Mapping tropical dry forest habitats integrating Landsat NDVI and topographic information. Revista de Biología Tropical, 56(2): 625–639.Google Scholar
  30. Mather P M, 1999. Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed Images: An Introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  31. McGarigal K, Marks B J, 1994. Fragstats: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure (Vesion 2.0). Corvallis: Forest Science Department, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  32. Melillo J M, McGuire A D, Kicklighter D W et al., 1993. Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature, 363(6426): 234–240. doi: 10.1038/363234a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morgan R P C, 1986. Soil Erosion and Conservation. London: Longman Scientific and Technical, Longman Group UK Limited.Google Scholar
  34. Murdiyarso D, Wasrin U R, 1995. Estimating land use change and carbon release from tropical forests conversion using remote sensing technique. Journal of Biogeography, 22(4–5): 715–721. doi: 10.2307/2845974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murtedza M, Chuan T T, 1993. Managing ASEAN’s forests (Chapter 4). In: Seda M (ed.). Environmental Management in ASEAN. Singapore: ISEAS Publication, 111–140.Google Scholar
  36. Noordwijk M, Hairiah K, Sitompul S M, 2000. Reducing uncertainties in the assessment at national scale of C stock impacts of land use change. In: Macandog D B (ed.). Proceedings of the IGES/NIES Workshop on GHG Inventories for Asia-Pacific Region. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 150–163.Google Scholar
  37. Oyedele D J, 1996. Effects of Erosion on Soil Productivity of Selected Southwestern Nigerian Soils. Nigeria: Department of Soil Science, Obafemi Awolowo University.Google Scholar
  38. Page S E, Siegert F, Rieley J O et al., 2002. The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature, 420(6911): 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Renard K G, Foster G R, Weesies G A et al., 1991. RUSLE: Revised universal soil loss equation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(1): 30–33.Google Scholar
  40. Renard K G, Foster G R, Yoder D C et al., 1994. RUSLE revisited: Status, questions, answers, and the future. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 49(3): 213–220.Google Scholar
  41. Renard K G, Foster G R, Weesies G A et al., 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Washington D.C.: USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook.Google Scholar
  42. Schweithelm J, 1998. The Fire This Time: An Overview of Indonesia’s Forest Fires in 1997/98. Indonesia: World Wide Fund for Nature.Google Scholar
  43. Sizer N, Tanner E V J, 1999. Responses of woody plant seedlings to edge formation in a lowland rainforest, Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 91(2–3): 135–142. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00076-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van der Knijff J M, Jones R J A, Montanarella L, 1999. Soil Erosion Risk Assessment in Italy. Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  45. Vezjak M, Savsek T, Stuhler E A, 1998. System dynamics of eutrophication processes in lakes. European Journal of Operations Research, 109(2): 442–451. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5122(98)00036-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wahyunto, Wahyu Wahdini, Hasyim Bekti et al., 2007. Assessment of Carbon Stock and Emission from Peat Land. Bogor, Indonesia: Indonesian Centre for Agricultural Land Resources Research and Development and World Agroforestry Centre, in press.Google Scholar
  47. Wischmeier W H, Smith D D, 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses to Conservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook (No. 537). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  48. WRI (World Resources Institute), 2008. CAIT: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agricultural Ecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heli Lu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Weiyang Yan
    • 2
  • Yaochen Qin
    • 2
  • Guifang Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Natural Resources and Environmental ScienceHenan UniversityKaifengChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions of Ministry of EducationHenan UniversityKaifengChina

Personalised recommendations