The impact of land use change on the carbon stocks associated with soil and vegetation in South Korea

Economics of Climate Change and Low Carbon Growth Strategies in Northeast Asia Republic of Korea’s 2nd NATIONAL WORKSHOP 15 October 2010 Grand Ambassador Seoul, Seoul, Korea

2010.10.15

Chan PARK*, DongKun LEE*, MyungKyoon LEE** *Seoul National University, **Keimyung University
1

Introduction

2

Background & Objectives

Introduction

Land–use changes(LUCs) affect not only greenhouse gas emissions but also the carbon stocks associated with soil and vegetation

It is important to account for the dynamics of LUC in carbon stock change modeling

Countries may charge carbon uptake to the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector as carbon credits

In spite of an increase in attention to carbon-sink management in climate change negotiations and in academic studies, the role of future LUC in carbon stocks is uncertain in South Korea Estimating the effects of LUC on carbon stocks in South Korea between the years of 2005 and 2030
Smith et al.(2008)

3

Scope

Introduction

Focusing : effect of land-use change on carbon stocks

Simulated land–atmosphere C flux (NBE) results from the difference between terrestrial net primary production (NPP), and C releases from heterotrophic respiration (Rh), biomass burning, losses from land-use conversions, and human appropriation of biomass due to combined effects of climate variability,

Zaehle et al., 2007

climate change, increasing atmospheric [CO2], and landuse changes

4

Methodology

5

Overview
Land-use change scenarios
Expert Review

Methodology

Land-use change modeling
Land change modeler

Land-use changes
2005 vs 2030

Carbon stock changes
Vegetation(Biomass), Soil

6

LUC scenario
Methods for Developing Scenarios

Methodology

The LUC scenarios used in this study are based on the four IPCC SRES scenarios

Based on the social economic assumptions associated with the SRES storylines, we modified and complemented our LUCs scenarios according to socio-economic conditions in South Korea

We received comments from experts including individuals who had taken part in a study on climate change (two economists, two experts on land-use policy, and an expert on LUC modeling)

7

LUC scenario
Storyline
Scenarios Storylines

Methodology

A1 Scenario

- Cropland and forest are most likely to be urbanized - Regulations protecting greenbelt areas are lifted to accommodate economic growth and the expansion of private property - The control of cropland development is relaxed due to the improvements in agricultural productivity Urbanization progresses at the same level Grassland and forest are more likely to change into cropland (food security) Forest area decrease as they change into grassland, urban area, and cropland Greenbelt and agricultural development regions are kept at present level Urbanization progresses at a lower level More cropland and grassland areas are changed into forest (A/R CDM) Grassland and forest areas are changed into cropland (bio-energy) Development controls preserved greenbelt, and cropland areas are kept at present level

A2 Scenario

B1 Scenario

B2 Scenario

- There is little new urbanization - Land-use changes into forest occur mainly on marginal cropland areas - Development regulation for protecting cropland areas are kept (food security)

8

LUC Modeling
Methods for LUC modeling
 

Methodology

We used Land Change Modeler (LCM) component of the IDRISI 15.0 We established Land-use transition probabilities by analyzing correlations between past land usage and suspected driving factors

We predicted future land-use changes by applying these factors to existing land-use patterns

We also used the multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network method to generate land-use transition probabilities

These transition rules were ultimately applied to existing land-use patterns by employing a cellular automaton technique

This method of LUC modeling had demonstrated a good performance in previous regional studies of South Korea

9

LUC Modeling
Driving Factors
  

Methodology

Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) Scenario-specific population Topographic elevation, slope, distance from roads, and distance from built-up areas

Constrained Factors Greenbelts, national parks, the Demilitarized Zone, the baekdudaegan, wetlands, conservation forests, waterfronts, agricultural development regions, forest resource conservation areas, water source conservation areas, and wild animal and plant protection areas

10

Carbon stock changes
Sink and Source

Methodology

Sink

Stem volume increment, Afforestation

Source

Deforestation, Decomposition

Sink/Source

Net change in soil carbon stocks

11

Carbon stock changes
Calculation methods

Methodology

Changes in carbon stock were calculated by considering the changes in both the biomass associated with forest vegetation and carbon in the soil

While both are affected by LUC, the former are also affected by natural growth

 

Soil stock change = soil carbon stock (2005) – soil carbon sock (2030) Biomass stock change = stem volume increment + afforestation – deforestation – decomposition of litter

Stock change = soil stock change + biomass stock change

12

Carbon stock changes
Calculation methods

Methodology

Annual growth rate of stem volume (KFRI, 2006) (㎥/ha) Coniferous forest Deciduous forest Mixed forest

Annual growth rate of Stem volume

5.68

3.45

4.56

Coefficient for carbon stock calculation by vegetation type (KFRI, 2006) Stem Density (ton/㎥) Coniferous forest Deciduous forest Mixed forest 0.47 0.80 0.635 Biomass Expansion Factor 1.651 1.720 1.685 Carbon Fraction of Biomass 0.5 0.5 0.5

13

Carbon stock changes
Calculation methods

Methodology

When the forest was converted to other land uses, we assumed that vegetation will completely deforested and 60% of living biomass like litter and roots will decay.

Accumulated decrease in branches and roots carbon stocks (Lee et al., 2001) Before After Biomass change (/ha) Coniferous forest Crop -34 Grass -41 Other -49 Deciduous forest Crop -74 Grass -79 Other -89 Crop -53 Mixed forest Grass -58 Other -68

To estimate carbon accumulation in soil, the methods of Lee et al. (2001) were employed with distinctions drawn among four types of land use

Soil carbon stock by land use type (Lee et al., 2001) Forest Soil carbon(Ct/ha) 67.9 Paddy field 60.5 Upland field 45.9 Grassland 45.9 Other 11.5

14

Result

15

LUC results
Future land use

Result

The scenarios differ in LUC change, particularly the conversion of forest and cropland to other land-use types

Area
16

Increasing Rate

LUC results

Result

1999

A1

A2

B1

B2

(A1) Urbanization occurs primarily on low, flat land, occasionally replacing agriculture. Already-urbanized areas at the outskirts of Seoul and other major metropolitan areas are especially susceptible to urbanization

 

(A2) Development tends to occur in the suburbs (B1) Fewer cropland areas near Seoul are urbanized, and urbanization focuses on major cities throughout the country

(B2) Urbanization extends from both large cities and small towns, while urbanization in more rural areas tends to change into cropland or forest

17

Carbon stocks change
Carbon stock in living biomass

Result

Predicted increases in biomass and carbon accumulation due to tree growth in forest, which remains as a forest area, are shown as below

337.0 MtC is predicted to accumulate in the forest, which remains as a forest area, from 2005 to 2030 in B2 scenario

Accumulated carbon stock in living biomass in forest land remaining forest land (2006~2030) Coniferous forest A1 Area (1000 ha) Stem volume increment (1000 ㎥) Accumulated carbon stock (1000 TC) A2 Area (1000 ha) Stem volume increment (1000 ㎥) Accumulated carbon stock (1000 TC) B1 Area (1000 ha) Stem volume increment (1000 ㎥) Accumulated carbon stock (1000 TC) B2 Area (1000 ha) Stem volume increment (1000 ㎥) Accumulated carbon stock (1000 TC) 2,527 358,973 139,293 2,563 363,901 141,205 2,543 361,240 140,173 2,592 368,139 142,850 Deciduous forest 1,618 139,608 96,061 1,629 140,556 96,714 1,629 140,531 96,697 1,639 141,352 97,261 Mixed forest 1,553 177,121 94,925 1,572 179,278 96,081 1,561 177,945 95,366 1,586 180,859 96,928 Total 5,700 675,702 330,279 5,764 683,735 334,000 5,734 679,716 332,236 5,818 690,350 337,039

18

Carbon stocks change
Carbon stock in living biomass

Result

In all the LUC scenarios, coniferous forests accumulate a large amount of carbon as a result of both tree growth and geographic expansion

 

However, deciduous trees are more effective in reducing carbon The amount of accumulated carbon stocks by afforestation over 25 years could be calculated as shown as below

Carbon stock by afforestations is largest in B1 scenario due to land conversion to forest was done mainly in the B1 scenario

Accumulated carbon stock in living biomass in land converted to forest land(2006~2030) A1 (1000 TC) B1 (1000 TC) 28,787 B1 (1000 TC) 32,548 B2 (1000 TC) 31,519

19

Accumulated carbon stock

22,450

Carbon stocks change
Accumulated decrease in living biomass
 

Result

Carbon emissions resulting from commercial cutting are greatest in A1 In the case of scenario B1, carbon emission is relatively higher than scenario A2 and B2 since they have larger transition area of forest land.

Accumulated decrease in carbon stocks in living biomass due to deforestation(2006~2030) Coniferous forest Deciduous forest Mixed forest A1 Deforestation area (1000ha) 303 82 129 Stem volume increment (1000㎥) 21,537 3,550 7,367 Accumulated Stem volume (1000㎥) Decrease in carbon stock (1000 TC) Deforestation area (1000ha) Stem volume increment (1000㎥) Accumulated Stem volume (1000㎥) Decrease in carbon stock (1000 TC) Deforestation area (1000ha) Stem volume increment (1000㎥) Accumulated Stem volume (1000㎥) Decrease in carbon stock (1000 TC) Deforestation area (1000ha) Stem volume increment (1000㎥) Accumulated Stem volume (1000㎥) Decrease in carbon stock (1000 TC) 44,750 17,365 268 19,073 39,630 15,378 287 20,404 42,395 16,451 239 16,955 35,228 13,670 10,154 6,987 71 3,076 8,798 6,054 72 3,088 8,833 6,078 62 2,678 7,660 5,271 19,137 10,256 110 6,288 16,335 8,754 122 6,955 18,067 9,682 97 5,498 14,282 7,654

Total 514 32,454 74,041 34,608 449 28,437 64,763 30,186 481 30,447 69,295 32,211 398 25,131 57,170 26,595

A2

B1

B2

20

Carbon stocks change
Accumulated decrease in branches and roots

Result

Scenario A1 showed the highest carbon dioxide source in living biomass like branches and roots

Accumulated decrease in branches and roots carbon stocks (2006~2030) A1 A2 B1 From To (1000 TC) (1000 TC) (1000 TC) Cropland 1,753 1,542 1,987 Grassland 905 815 323 Coniferous forest Others 850 754 975 Cropland 905 771 892 Grassland 563 531 204 Deciduous forest Others 476 379 608 Cropland 1,037 886 1,223 Grassland 617 562 237 Mixed forest Others 583 456 642 Total 7,689 6,694 7,092

21

B2 (1000 TC) 1,792 471 364 917 327 188 1,052 338 221 5,670

Carbon stocks change
Net change in soil carbon stocks

Result

Soil carbon was the highest in scenario B2 and lowest in scenario A1
Carbon Stock Carbon Stock (2005) (1000 TC) (2030) (1000 TC) 87,867 68,192 50,851 39,465 422,014 442,480 8,588 18,612 12,209 12,824 581,573 87,867 68,193 50,851 39,465 422,014 462,389 8,588 13,393 12,209 10,759 594,199 87,867 70,609 50,851 40,863 422,014 469,570 8,588 9,501 12,209 9,708 600,251 87,867 74,487 50,851 43,107 422,014 472,714 8,588 8,635 12,209 8,094 607,037 Net Change (1000 TC) -19,675 -11,386 20,466 10,024 615 44 -19,675 -11,386 40,375 4,804 -1,449 12,669 -17,258 -9,988 47,556 913 -2,500 18,723 -13,381 -7,744 50,701 47 -4,115 25,508

Net change in soil carbon stocks between 2005 and 2030 Area (2005) Area (2030) Land Use (1000 ha) (1000 ha) Paddy field 1,452 1,127 Upland field 1,108 860 A1 Forest 6,215 6,517 Scenario Grassland 187 405 Others 1,062 1,115 Total Paddy field 1,452 1,127 Upland field 1,108 860 A2 Forest 6,215 6,810 Scenario Grassland 187 292 Others 1,062 936 Total Paddy field 1,452 1,167 Upland field 1,108 890 B1 Forest 6,215 6,916 Scenario Grassland 187 207 Others 1,062 844 Total Paddy field 1,452 1,231 Upland field 1,108 939 B2 Forest 6,215 6,962 Scenario Grassland 187 188 Others 1,062 704 Total 22

Carbon stocks change
Summary

Result

The results of the carbon stock change were strongly influenced by the conversion rate of abandoned agricultural areas to forest

Summary of accumulated carbon stock change in the four scenarios (2006~2030). A1 2030 (1000 TC) Stem volume increment Vegetation Afforestation① Deforestation② Litter③ Soil Soil Carbon Stock④ Direct carbon loss due to LUC (②+③+④) Net change of Carbon stock due to LUC (①+②+③+④) Total accumulated carbon stock (average annual increment in carbon stock) 330,279 22,450 -34,607 -7,689 44 -42,252 -19,802 310,477 (12,419) A2 2030 (1000 TC) 334,000 28,787 -30,186 -6,694 12,669 -24,211 4,576 338,576 (13,543) B1 2030 (1000 TC) 332,236 32,211 -32,548 -7,092 18,723 -20,917 11,294 343,530 (13,741) B2 2030 (1000 TC) 337,039 26,595 -31,519 -5,670 25,508 -11,681 14,914 351,953 (14,078)

23

Carbon stocks change
Economic value

Result

Carbon reductions associated with the B2 scenario can be equated with an economic gain of $825 million than A1 over 25 years

Taking into account social and economical constraints, however, a smaller amount of C sequestration will more likely to occur

According to the report by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy (1989), an afforestation program is becoming more attractive mitigation option to decision makers

Effect of LUC on carbon stock and economic value (millions of dollars/yr) Direct effect of LUC Net change of Carbon stock A1 -19 269 A2 4 289 B1 11 291 B2 14 304

24

Conclusion

25

Summary & Remarks

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated the importance of LUC as a major factor, affecting both carbon sources and carbon sinks

Based on LUC projections, we anticipated carbon reduction levels of 12.5 MtC and 14.1 MtC, each year for soil and vegetation

The B1 scenario seems to be the most suitable for the future low-carbon society (LCS) images, since it has the highest carbon reduction.

The high release of carbon associated with deforestation of old-growth forest and the potential for carbon sequestration associated with cropland abandonment

 

In land-use policy, it is necessary to break out existing paradigms Policy should be shifted from the expansion of urban areas for the economic growth to improvement of available land through renewal of existing urban areas and increase spatial efficiency

26

Reference

27

Reference

Ahn S (2005) An Econometric Analysis on the Costs of Carbon Sequestration in Korea. Korea Environment Institute.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change.

Korea Forest Research Institute (1996) Korean people and Carbon dioxide, 126.

Korea Forest Research Institute (2006) Development of GHGs Emission Inventory System for climate change convention.

Lee D, Park C (2009) The Analysis of Potential Reduction of CO2 Emission in Soil and Vegetation. Journal of The Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology. 12(2): 95-105.

Lee K, Son Y, Kim Y (2001) Greenhouse Gas Inventory in Land-Use Change and Forestry in Korea, Journal of Forest Energy. 20(1)"F53-61.

Smith P, Fang C, Dawson JJC, Moncrieff JB (2008) Impact of Global Warming on Soil Organic Carbon, Advances in Agronomy, 97: 1-43.

28