Scenario-based estimation of catchment carbon storage: linking multi-objective land allocation with InVEST model in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape

Abstract

This study performed a scenario-based land allocation in a mixed agriculture-forest landscape in northern Iran to investigate how different land use policies contribute to changes in carbon storage. In pursuit of this goal, a temporal profile of the trade-off between the region’s land use land cover (LULC) classes was produced using Landsat image of the year 2016. The weighted linear combination procedure was also used to map the suitability of land for agriculture, forest, urban, and rangeland based on ecological and socio-economic criteria. The suitability maps were analyzed through the Multi-Objective Land Allocation procedure under five scenarios with differing areas devoted to each LULC to generate different patterns of LULC distribution in the region. In addition, the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) model was used to estimate the potential of LULC classes in carbon storage. The amount of carbon storage differed significantly between the scenarios, ranging from 1.29 tons/ha/year when the majority of the land was devoted to agriculture (76% of the area) to 5.40 tons/ha/year when the landscape was dominated by forest (77% of the area). The extreme conditions presented in this research may not be as likely to occur, but opens a dialog between different stakeholders and informs of a probable trend of ecosystem service loss due to agricultural land expansion.

Key words： multi-objective land allocation; carbon storage; InVEST model; Iran

References

1 Armenteras D, Murcia U, González T M, Barón O J, Arias J E (2019). Scenarios of land use and land cover change for NW Amazonia: impact on forest intactness. Glob Ecol Conserv, 17: e00567

2 Asadolahi Z, Salmanmahiny A, Sakieh Y (2017). Hyrcanian forests conservation based on ecosystem services approach. Environ Earth Sci, 76(10): 365

3 Asadolahi Z, Salmanmahiny A, Sakieh Y, Mirkarimi S H, Baral H, Azimi M (2018). Dynamic trade-off analysis of multiple ecosystem services under land use change scenarios: towards putting ecosystem services into planning in Iran. Ecol Complex, 36: 250–260

4 Berg C, Rogers S, Mineau M (2016). Building scenarios for ecosystem services tools: developing a methodology for efficient engagement with expert stakeholders. Futures, 81: 68–80

5 Boone R B, Conant R T, Sircely J, Thornton P K, Herrero M (2018). Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Glob Change Biol, 24(3): 1382–1393

PMID

6 Cabral P, Feger C, Levrel H, Chambolle M, Basque D (2016). Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: a first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France. Ecosyst Serv, 22: 318–327

7 Chang N B, Parvathinathan G, Breeden J B (2008). Combining GIS with fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a fast-growing urban region. J Environ Manage, 87(1): 139–153

PMID

8 De Felice F, Petrillo A, Saaty T (2016). Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making for Strategic Decisions—Application of the Ahp Method in Environmental Engineering: Three Case Studies. Paris: BoD–Books on Demand

9 de Souza Medeiros A, Malta Ferreira Maia S, dos Santos T C, de Araújo Gomes T C (2020). Soil carbon losses in conventional farming systems due to land-use change in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 287: 106690

10 Fahey T J, Woodbury P B, Battles J J, Goodale C L, Hamburg S P, Ollinger S V, Woodall C W (2010). Forest carbon storage: ecology, management, and policy. Front Ecol Environ, 8(5): 245–252

11 Grêt-Regamey A, Celio E, Klein T M, Wissen Hayek U (2013). Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan, 109(1): 107–116

12 Gao Z, Cao X, Gao W (2013). The spatio-temporal responses of the carbon cycle to climate and land use/land cover changes between 1981–2000 in China. Front Earth Sci, 7(1): 92–102

13 Hansen M C, Potapov P V, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova S A, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman S V, Goetz S J, Loveland T R,Kommareddy A (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160): 850–853

14 He C, Zhang D, Huang Q, Zhao Y (2016). Assessing the potential impacts of urban expansion on regional carbon storage by linking the LUSD-urban and InVEST models. Environ Model Softw, 75: 44–58

15 Irina L T, Javier B P, Teresa C B M, Eurídice L A, Luz María del Carmen C I (2019). Integrating ecological and socioeconomic criteria in a GIS-based multicriteria-multiobjective analysis to develop sustainable harvesting strategies for Mexican oregano Lippia graveolens Kunth, a non-timber forest product. Land Use Policy, 81: 668–679

16 Jiang W, Deng Y, Tang Z, Lei X, Chen Z (2017). Modelling the potential impacts of urban ecosystem changes on carbon storage under different scenarios by linking the CLUE-S and the InVEST models. Ecol Modell, 345: 30–40

17 Khormali F, Ayoubi S, Kananro Foomani F, Fatemi A (2012). Tea yield and soil properties as affected by slope position and aspect in Lahijan area, Iran. Int J Plant Prod, 1(1): 99–111

18 Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Anderson S, Sutton P (2017). The future value of ecosystem services: global scenarios and national implications. Ecosyst Serv, 26: 289–301

19 Kucsicsa G, Popovici E A, Bălteanu D, Dumitraşcu M, Grigorescu I, Mitrică B (2019). Assessing the potential future forest-cover change in Romania, predicted using a scenario-based modelling. Environ Model Assess, 25:471–491.

20 Kuznichenko S, Buchynska I, Kovalenko L, Gunchenko Y (2019). Suitable site selection using two-dtage GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis. In: International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology. Berlin: Springer, Cham: 214–230

21 Lal R, Lorenz K, Hüttl R F, Schneider B U, Von Braun J (2013). Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in the Biosphere. Dordrecht: Springer

22 Liang Y, Liu L, Huang J (2017). Integrating the SD-CLUE-S and InVEST models into assessment of oasis carbon storage in northwestern China. PLoS One, 12(2): e0172494

PMID

23 Liu J, Zhang G, Zhuang Z, Cheng Q, Gao Y, Chen T, Huang Q, Xu L, Chen D (2017). A new perspective for urban development boundary delineation based on SLEUTH-InVEST model. Habitat Int, 70: 13–23

24 Lyu R, Mi L, Zhang J, Xu M, Li J (2019). Modeling the effects of urban expansion on regional carbon storage by coupling SLEUTH-3r model and InVEST model. Ecol Res, 34(3): 380–393

25 Malczewski J (2000). On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Transactions in GIS, 4(1): 5–22

26 Mekonnen A, Tolera M (2019), Carbon stock estimation along altitudinal gradient in Sekele-Mariam dry evergreen montane forest, north-western Ethiopia agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries, 8: 48

27 Nelson E, Sander H, Hawthorne P, Conte M, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Manson S, Polasky S (2010). Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLoS One, 5(12): e14327

PMID

28 Otukei J R, Blaschke T (2010). Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf, 12: S27–S31

29 Pareta K, Pareta U (2011). Forest carbon management using satellite remote sensing techniques: a case study of Sagar district (MP). International Scientific Research Journal, 3(4): 335–348

30 Sahle M, Saito O, Fürst C, Demissew S, Yeshitela K (2019). Future land use management effects on ecosystem services under different scenarios in the Wabe River catchment of Gurage Mountain chain landscape, Ethiopia. Sustain Sci, 14(1): 175–190

31 Sallustio L, Quatrini V, Geneletti D, Corona P, Marchetti M (2015). Assessing land take by urban development and its impact on carbon storage: findings from two case studies in Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54: 80–90

32 Senior RA, Hill JK, Edwards DP (2019). Global loss of climate connectivity in tropical forests. Nat Clim Chang, 9: 623–626

33 Sharp R, Chaplin-Kramer R, Wood S, Guerry A, Tallis H, Ricketts T H (2014). InVEST user’s guide: integrated valuation of environmental services and tradeoffs. In: Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, The Nature Conservancy & WW Foundation Stanford

34 Tallis H T, Ricketts T, Guerry A D, Wood S A, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D (2013). InVEST 2.5. 3 User’s Guide. The natural capital project. Stanford, (Available at Stanford website, last accessed February, 2020)

35 Thompson J R, Lambert K F, Foster D R, Broadbent E N, Blumstein M, Almeyda Zambrano A M, Fan Y (2016). The consequences of four land-use scenarios for forest ecosystems and the services they provide. Ecosphere, 7(10): e01469

36 Turner K G, Anderson S, Gonzales-Chang M, Costanza R, Courville S, Dalgaard T, Dominati E, Kubiszewski I, Ogilvy S, Porfirio L, Ratna N, Sandhu H, Sutton P C, Svenning J C, Turner G M, Varennes Y D, Voinov A, Wratten S (2016). A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecol Modell, 319: 190–207

37 Vahidnia M H, Alesheikh A, Alimohammadi A, Bassiri A (2008). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process in GIS application. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci, 37(B2): 593–596

38 Zarandian A, Baral H, Stork N E, Ling M A, Yavari A R, Jafari H R, Amirnejad H (2017). Modeling of ecosystem services informs spatial planning in lands adjacent to the Sarvelat and Javaherdasht protected area in northern Iran. Land Use Policy, 61: 487–500

39 Zhang J, Ge Y, Chang J, Jiang B, Jiang H, Peng C, Zhu J, Yuan W, Qi L, Yu S (2007). Carbon storage by ecological service forests in Zhejiang Province, subtropical China. For Ecol Manage, 245(1–3): 64–75