Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon 
fluxes

Hansis, Eberhard; Davis, Stevens J.; Pongratz, Julia

doi:10.1002/2014GB004997

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Please note that a newer version of this item is available:
https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_2060579_7

DetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons37296

Pongratz, Julia
Emmy Noether Junior Research Group Forest Management in the Earth System, The Land in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

gbc20309.pdf
(Publisher version), 2MB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., & Pongratz, J. (2015). Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 29, 1230-1246. doi:10.1002/2014GB004997.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0028-7F41-5

Abstract

Accounting for carbon fluxes from land use and land cover change (LULCC) generally requires choosing from multiple options of how to attribute the fluxes to regions and to LULCC activities. Applying a newly developed and spatially explicit bookkeeping model BLUE (bookkeeping of land use emissions), we quantify LULCC fluxes and attribute them to land use activities and countries by a range of different accounting methods. We present results with respect to a Kyoto Protocol-like "commitment" accounting period, using land use emissions of 2008-2012 as an example scenario. We assess the effect of accounting methods that vary (1) the temporal evolution of carbon stocks, (2) the state of the carbon stocks at the beginning of the period, (3) the temporal attribution of carbon fluxes during the period, and (4) treatment of LULCC fluxes that occurred prior to the beginning of the period. We show that the methodological choices result in grossly different estimates of carbon fluxes for the different attribution definitions. ©2015. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.