Human Appropriation of NPP (HANPP)
An accounting framwork for analysing land use
processes in the Earth system
Karlheinz Erb
Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna
in collaboration with: H. Haberl, V. Gaube, S. Gingrich, C. Plutzar,
F. Krausmann, W. Lucht, A. Bondeau, et al.
GEOSS support for IPCC assessments
Geneva, Feb. 3, 2011
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 1
ERC Start Grant 263522 LUISE
Overview
• Background: the integrated land system & the current
mainstream state-of-the-art in LULC science
• The framework „Human Appropriation of Net Primary
Production“: conceptual background & method
• Results: Global HANPP 2000
• Examples: global production-consumption link, global
bioenergy potentials
• Conclusions: data requirements, gaps, challenges and
opportunites
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 2
State-of-the-art of LU science
From current mainstram land-use research...
+
Ecosystems
Society
...towards an integrated understanding of land use
–
–
–
–
Classification systems creating nominal-scale data
Focus on land cover (biophysical structures, ecological systems)
Focus on forest / non-forest dynamics
Strategy: increasing spatial resolution
+
+
+
+
Focus on society-nature interactions
Broad range of land uses
Continuous (rational) scales
Explicitly addressing a wide range of spatial scales
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 3
Bridging disciplinary boundaries:
the integrated land system
Outputs - Benefits
Ecosystems
Society
Inputs - Investments
Steffen et al. Science 1998
Matthews et al. 2000
CO2
GPP
management
Socio-economic system
Respiration
NPP
new
Plant
biomass
old
Medium-Term
C-Storage
e.g. Soil C
Input
Economic Processing
Output
Stocks
Long-Term
C-Storage
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 4
HANPP – the ‚human appropriation of net
primary production‘
Potential NPP
Outputs - Benefits
dNPPLC
Actual NPP
Change
induced
through
land
use
managed
ecosystem
Ecosystems
natural
ecosystem
Society
HANPP
Inputs - Investments
NPPh
NPP remaining
after harvest
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 5
Data integration
NPP0: LPJ-DGVM
NPPact
Non-used areas
Irrigation
Degradation
NPPh
Erb et al., J of Land Use Science, 2007
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 6
Result: Global HANPP 2000
NPPLC%:
Productivity changes
Land
use activities
due
to land
coversions
Built-up
land
<< 10% >>
4%
Biomass consumption
Human
induced
fires
7%
Other uses
11,1%
Industrial
Wood
6,2%
Forest
11%
Food
13,7%
Seed
0,7%
Market feed
8,4%
Fuelwood
9,8%
Grazing
HANPP%:
land
29%
Aggregated
effect of
land use and
harvest
<< 24% >>
Cropland
49%
Grazing,
fodder
50,0%
Source: Haberl et al PNAS 2007
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP
framework | Hamburg
2010 | 7
Krausmann
et| February
al., 10,2008
Summary of results HANPP 2000
• Global HANPP amounts to 24% of NPP0 (aboveground
30%)
• Agriculture is the most important driver:
– Cropping and grazing contribute 3/4 of global HANPP.
– Feeding of livestock consumes 2/3 of the total amount of biomass
used by humanity
• Considerable regional variation of HANPP, mainly
depending on
– Consumption level (per capita HANPP in industrialized countries
is about twice that of developing countries)
– Population density
– Technology: yields
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 8
HANPP data integration: ‚old‘ and ‚new‘ challenges
Area
Ecosystems
Socioeconomic
Systems
Land cover
Land use
e.g. Modis
GLC2000
Globcover
e.g. Census statistics:
agriculture, forestry,
grazing, settlements
CONSISTENCY
33
2,5
2,5
[1961 ==1]1]
[1961
22
Flows
Area
Area
Yield
Yield
Production
Production
e.g. national economic data
(SNA)
! CONSISTENCY !
1,5
1,5
Ecosystem flows
Inputs - Outputs
11
DGVMs: GPP, NPP,
Respiration, water,
nutrients 0,5
0,5
(Census) Statistics:
agriculture, forestry,
grazing
CONSISTENCY
Socioeconomic models
00
1950
1950
1960
1960
1970
1970
1980
1990
1990
2000
2010
2020
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 9
The HANPP framework: Data integration
• Consistency
– extents and flows: yields [=flow per area and year]
– Prioritizing: correspondence of (national) land use census
statistics and the (national) spatial extent more important than the
accuracy of spatial information. But: how to deal with flawed
census data?
•
Comprehensiveness
– all ‘relevant’ land use types, inclusive “non-land-use” areas:
– 100% of each gridcell
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 10
Applications
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 11
Example I
Linking ecosystem impacts and socio-economic drivers
HANPP
Ecosystem Impacts
Socio-economic drivers
6,0
5,0
productivity
losses
harvest
losses/damages
3,0
2,0
eHANPP consumption
conversion
losses
1,0
Erb et al. 2009
[t DM/cap/yr]
4,0
0,0
HANPP
NPPh
Used extraction
Final
consumption of
biomass
Source: Erb et al, EE 2009a, Erb et al., 2009b
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 12
Example I
Linking ecosystem impacts and socio-economic drivers
Source: Erb et al,EE 2009
Difference of „production“ and „consumption“ of „embodied HANPP“
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 13
Example I: Conclusions
•
A considerable flow: international “transfer” = 1.7 PgC/yr in 2000 [global
deforestation: ~1.5 PgC/yr], increasing
•
Large, densely populated countries, which do not yet participate, will soon
do so (e.g. China, India)
•
Drivers AND consequences of land use are global. No simple causal
chains between drivers and associated impacts
•
Sustainability challenge:
– High degree of international interdependence (vulnerability, resilience)
– high risk of shifting the environmental burdens to distant locations and
withdrawing it from environmental legislation
– markets will not minimize burdens, as many ecosystems services have no
price
–  need for global monitoring and management of biomass demand & supply
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 14
Example II
Global bioenergy potentials
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 15
A scoping study: Explore the scale and option space
on basis of HANPP analyses
Systematic combination of
existing (e.g. FAO)
assumptions and 2 – 4
modulations on developments
until 2050 of:
• diets (4)
• livestock efficiency (2)
• agricultural yields (4)
• cropland expansion (2)
 64 combinations (scenarios)
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 16
Results: Feasibility Analysis: 43 of 64 scenarios
“feasible”
Not
feasible
Probably
feasible
Feasible
Highly
feasible
For „feasible“ scenarios: bioenergy potential
1) on „free“ cropland
2) on high-quality grazing land
3) crop residues
Source: Erb et al., 2009c
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 17
Results
160
Primary energy supply
140
Energy crop area [km²]
120
[EJ/yr]
(2.1 – (6.3) – 10.9 mio. km²)
100
80
60
40
20
0
14
Primary crops
Residues
Histogramm: feasible scenarios
Energy crop yield [gC/m²/yr]
12
10
[#]
8
6
4
2
Source: Erb et al., forthcoming
Haberl et al., 2010, COSUST
Haberl et al., 2011, Biomass & Bioenergy
0
20-40 40-60 60-80
80100
100120
120140
140160
160180
180200
Karlheinz Erb | The
HANPP framework
| Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 18
Bioenergy
potential
[EJ/yr]
Example II: Conclusions
• Feeding a growing world population is – in principle - possible
with ecologically sound agricultural production. Dietary levels will
be most important.
• Energy crop potentials – ‚conventional wisdom‘ needs to be
reconsidered: Sustainability constraints are decisive:
– Conservation / biodiversity
– Subsistence agriculture, food security, etc.
– GHG balance
• Climate change impacts are poorly understood but could be
strong
• Bioenergy and globalization: Largest bioenergy potentials in
Subsaharan Africa and Latin America: Caution – problem shifting!
• ‚Cascade utilization‘ – focus on recycling, re-use and efficiency
improvement of biomass flow-chains
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 19
Conclusions: HANPP studies illustrate
• Link land use – land cover is complex: no easy look-up
table.
• Spatial seggregation between appropriation and
consumption: Issues of scale, governance: drivers as well
as consequences of land use are global. Important for the
construction of causal chains
• Future biomass demand-supply: Options/potentials for
sustainable biomass utilization are limited – requires
integrated perspectives
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 20
Data challenges...
•
Land-use assessments require land-cover and additional (‚socio-economic‘)
information
•
Many socio-economic drivers, mechanisms, processes of LU (change) and
their impacts are not (yet) well documented. Basic research (still) required.
List of EHV not ready yet.
– Links to MaB (UNESCO), LTER-LTSER
•
The spatial and temporal scales of natural and socioeconomic processes are
different
– Increasing spatial resolution is only a partial solution: the gain in detail allows to
better describe LC, but contextual information is required to assess LU; social
systems are not organized in grids
•
Move beyond the S-o-A in LU-LC data:
 consistency and comprehensiveness
 abandon “hybrid”, ambiguous legends
 complement “dominance” classes or “discrete” classification schemes with
continuous parameters. Gradients are equally important, for LC and LU
 move beyond “agriculture”, “deforestation”, and “urban” land use
 land management is key
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 21
... and opportunities
Data gaps/deficits are ubiquitous:
• missing socio-economic data
• flawed, incomplete census data
...and RS can contribute
– forestry (used vs. unused forests, forest degradation)
– grazing (intensity, spatial pattern of grazing, biomass harvest through
grazing; effects of grazing)
– cropland fallow (where, frequency)
– rural infrastructure
– soil/vegetation degradation (where? how much land? how intensive?)
– ()NPP, ()Biomass stocks
 yield the mutual benefits of combining RS data and “ground data”
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 22
The End
Thank you for your attention!
Further information/maps/data:
http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 23
ERC Start Grant 263522 LUISE
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 24
Explore the scale and option space: a NPP
perspective
NPP0
Solid consistent empirical databases for 2000
•
NPPact
Land use: Consistency between pixels (5
min, 10x10 km) and statistical data at
country level (cropland and woodlands
according to FAO, FRA und TBFRA).
Erb et al. 2007. J. Land Use Sci. 2, 191-224
•
Harvest
National biomass balances : Production
and consumption of biomass: Feed
balances, processing losses, trade, incl.
trends 1960-2000.
Krausmann et al. 2008. Ecol. Econ. 65, 471-487.
•
HANPP: Spatially explicit integration of
NPP flows (LPJ-DGVM) and
anthropogenic biomass flows (5 min,
10x10 km).
Haberl et al., 2007. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 1294212947.
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 25
Grazing
• livestock grazing is the largest fraction of the global biomass harvest
(32%), a major driver of the human transformation of terrestrial
ecosystems
• Statistics comprise only market feed – no information on grazed
biomass available. “Grazing Gap” must be modelled as difference
between demand & market feed supply
• very loose
relation of land use and land cover (occurs in almost all
8
ecosystems
(hampers application of remote sensing techniques)
7
[10^6 tDM/yr]
6
• Census statistics
are of
limited
Grazing
Gap practicability, inconsistent,
5
heterogenous
definitions (e.g. artificial grasslands vs. natural
4
Crop residues
grasslands)
3
2
1
Fodder Crops
Market feed
Feedstuff demand
Source: Krausmann et al. Ecological Economics 2008
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 26
Data Gap: grazing land
‚Result‘ Remaining area = Grazing land
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 27
0
Meyer and
Turner 1992
Olson et al
1983
White et al
2000
Erb et al.
2007
Ajtay et al
1979
Whittaker and
Likens 1973
FAO 2004,
Klein
Goldewijk
2007
Klein
Goldewijk
2001
Ramankutty
et al., 2008
[mio km²]
Estimates on global grazing lands
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 28
Grazing land
1E+07
Russ Fed.
Grazing land (subtractive approach)
1E+06
1E+05
India
Norway
Finnland
Egypt
China
Brazil
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Western Sahara
1E+04
1E+03
1E+02
1E+01
1E+00
1E-01
1E-01
1E+00
1E+01
1E+02
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
1E+06
1E+07
FAO permanent pasture
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 29
consequences of land use: Biodiversity
Species richness is well correlated with NPPt – indirect support for
HANPP/biodiversity hypothesis
1000
800
Number of Species
breeding bird species richness
100
10
600
400
200
2
Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X
 = 0.708
2
Adj. R = 0.69
1
0.1
1
0
10
NPPt [MJ/m²*a]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
NPPt [gC/m²/yr]
Case study 1: Correlation between
NPPt and autotroph species
richness (5 taxa) on 38 plots sized
600x600 m, East Austria
Case study 2: Correlation
between NPPt and breeding bird
richness in Austria, 328 randomly
chosen 1x1 km squares.
Case study 3: Correlation
between NPPt and vertebrate
richness in the Americas, 10,000
randomly chosen 5min gridcells
Haberl et al., 2004, Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir.
102, p213ff
Haberl et al., 2005. Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir.
110, p119ff
Haberl et al., forthcoming
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 30
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 31
Karlheinz Erb | The HANPP framework | Hamburg | February 10, 2010 | 32