Climatic Change

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 247–257 | Cite as

A Decision Matrix Approach to Evaluating the Impacts of Land-Use Activities Undertaken to Mitigate Climate Change

  • Lara M. Kueppers
  • Paul Baer
  • John Harte
  • Barbara Haya
  • Laura E. Koteen
  • Molly E. Smith

Abstract

Land-use activities that affect the global balance of greenhouse gases have been a topic of intense discussion during ongoing climate change treaty negotiations. Policy mechanisms that reward countries for implementing climatically beneficial land-use practices have been included in the Bonn and Marrakech agreements on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. However some still fear that land-use projects focused narrowly on carbon gain will result in socioeconomic and environmental harm, and thus conflict with the explicit sustainable development objectives of the agreement. We propose a policy tool, in the form of a multi-attribute decision matrix, which can be used to evaluate potential and completed land-use projects for their climate, environmental and socioeconomic impacts simultaneously. Project evaluation using this tool makes tradeoffs explicit and allows identification of projects with multiple co-benefits for promotion ahead of others. Combined with appropriate public participation, accounting, and verification policies, a land-use activity decision matrix can help ensure that progressive land management practices are an effective part of the solution to global climate change.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Botkin, D. B. and Keller E. A.: 2000, Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet, Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  2. Breshears, D. D. and Allen, C. D.: 2002, 'The Importance of Rapid, Disturbance-Induced Losses in Carbon Management and Sequestration', Global Ecol. Biogeog. 11, 1–5.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P.: 1998, Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P.: 1993, 'Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach', J. Risk Uncertainty 7 , 177–197.Google Scholar
  5. Gregory, R. and Slovic, P.: 1997, 'A Constructive Approach to Environmental Valuation', Ecol. Econ. 21, 175–181.Google Scholar
  6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2000, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2001a, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., http://www.ipcc.ch/.Google Scholar
  8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 2001b, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., http://www.ipcc.ch/.Google Scholar
  9. Klooster, D. and Masera, O.: 2000, 'Community Forest Management in Mexico: Carbon Mitigation and Biodiversity Conservation through Rural Development', Global Environ. Change 10, 259–272.Google Scholar
  10. Lal, R. and Bruce, J. P.: 1999, 'The Potential of World Cropland Soils to Sequester C and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect', Environ. Sci. Pol. 2, 177–185.Google Scholar
  11. McDaniels, T. L. and Roessler, C.: 1998, 'Multiattribute Elicitation of Wilderness Preservation Benefits: A Constructive Approach', Ecol. Econ. 27, 299–312.Google Scholar
  12. Moss, R. M. and Schneider, S. H.: 2000, 'Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to Lead Authors for a More Consistent Assessment and Reporting', in Pachauri, R., Taniguchi, T., and Tanaka, K. (eds.), Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
  13. Noble, I. and Scholes, R. J.: 2001, 'Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol', Clim. Pol. 1, 5–25.Google Scholar
  14. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): 1998, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Third Session, Held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add. 1, (The Kyoto Protocol), http://www.unfccc.de/resource/protintr.html.Google Scholar
  15. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): 2001, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, Held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add. 2, (The Marrakech Accords), http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a02.pdf.Google Scholar
  16. Vine, E. L., Sathaye, J. A., and Makundi, W. R.: 2000, 'Forestry Projects for Climate Change Mitigation: An Overview of Guidelines and Issues for Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification and Certification', Environ. Sci. Pol. 3, 99–113.Google Scholar
  17. Von Winterfeldt, D.: 1987, 'Value Tree Analysis: An Introduction and an Application to Offshore Oil Drilling', in Kleindorfer, P. R. and Kunreuther, H. C. (eds.), Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks-from Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 349–385.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lara M. Kueppers
    • 1
  • Paul Baer
    • 2
  • John Harte
    • 1
    • 2
  • Barbara Haya
    • 2
  • Laura E. Koteen
    • 2
  • Molly E. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyU.S.A.
  2. 2.Energy and Resources GroupUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyU.S.A

Personalised recommendations