Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorMcElwee, Pamela
dc.contributor.authorCalvin, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Donovan
dc.contributor.authorCherubini, Francesco
dc.contributor.authorGrassi, Giacomo
dc.contributor.authorKorotkov, Vladimir
dc.contributor.authorLe Hoang, Anh
dc.contributor.authorLwasa, Shuaib
dc.contributor.authorNkem, Johnson
dc.contributor.authorNkonya, Ephraim
dc.contributor.authorSaigusa, Nobuko
dc.contributor.authorSoussana, Jean‐Francois
dc.contributor.authorTaboada, Miguel Angel
dc.contributor.authorManning, Frances C.
dc.contributor.authorNampanzira, Dorothy
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Pete
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-23T06:43:25Z
dc.date.available2021-09-23T06:43:25Z
dc.date.created2020-09-02T16:08:47Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Change Biology. 2020, 26 (9), 4691-4721.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1354-1013
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2780615
dc.description.abstractInterlocked challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation require transformative interventions in the land management and food production sectors to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen adaptive capacity, and increase food security. However, deciding which interventions to pursue and understanding their relative co-benefits with and trade-offs against different social and environmental goals have been difficult without comparisons across a range of possible actions. This study examined 40 different options, implemented through land management, value chains, or risk management, for their relative impacts across 18 Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that a relatively small number of interventions show positive synergies with both SDGs and NCPs with no significant adverse trade-offs; these include improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, integrated water management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced soil erosion, salinization, and compaction, fire management, reduced landslides and hazards, reduced pollution, reduced post-harvest losses, improved energy use in food systems, and disaster risk management. Several interventions show potentially significant negative impacts on both SDGs and NCPs; these include bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and some risk sharing measures, like commercial crop insurance. Our results demonstrate that a better understanding of co-benefits and trade-offs of different policy approaches can help decision-makers choose the more effective, or at the very minimum, more benign interventions for implementation.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.titleThe impact of interventions in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goalsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionsubmittedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderThis is the authors' manuscript to an article published by Wileyen_US
dc.source.pagenumber4691-4721en_US
dc.source.volume26en_US
dc.source.journalGlobal Change Biologyen_US
dc.source.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/gcb.15219
dc.identifier.cristin1826865
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 286773en_US
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 294534en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpreprint
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel