IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp198-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying key factors for mobilising under-utilised low carbon land resources: A case study on Kalimantan

Author

Listed:
  • Goh, Chun Sheng
  • Junginger, Martin
  • Potter, Lesley
  • Faaij, André
  • Wicke, Birka

Abstract

Mobilising under-utilised low carbon (ULC) land for future agricultural expansion helps minimising further carbon stock loss. This study examined the regency cases in Kalimantan, a carbon loss hotspot, to understand the key factors for mobilising ULC land via narrative interviews with a range of land-use actors and complementary desktop analyses. The factors were broadly categorised into economic, agro-ecological, institutional and cultural factors, which were perceived as opportunities and/or barriers by different land-uses and stakeholders (with different business models), and can vary across regencies. Generally, oil palm was regarded by most interviewees as an economic opportunity, reflecting that there were no other more attractive options. However, oil palm may also be limited by various factors. For example, labour availability may greatly limit the actual amount of land that can be mobilised in many regencies due to low population density. These economic factors were interlinked with the agro-ecological factors, such as soil quality, which was often regarded as the reason of low economic attractiveness. The other two categories, institutional and cultural factors, are more subtle and complex, involving socio-political elements across the hierarchy of authorities. Understanding these factors requires understanding the relationships between different stakeholders and their histories. Past analyses on ULC land largely focus on a single crop or end-use. This study shows that mobilisation of ULC land has to depart from analysing the specific conditions within individual regencies, especially considering the views of multiple land-use actors on different land-use options and business models. Future research is recommended to assess available land-use options and business models by investigating how they are affected by each of the factors identified here and accounting for the policy targets set by individual regencies (e.g. economic development or food security) and the preference and capability of local actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Goh, Chun Sheng & Junginger, Martin & Potter, Lesley & Faaij, André & Wicke, Birka, 2018. "Identifying key factors for mobilising under-utilised low carbon land resources: A case study on Kalimantan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 198-211.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:198-211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717300054
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luca Tacconi & Frank Jotzo & R. Grafton, 2008. "Local causes, regional co-operation and global financing for environmental problems: the case of Southeast Asian Haze pollution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, March.
    2. James Roshetko & Rodel Lasco & Marian Angeles, 2007. "Smallholder Agroforestry Systems For Carbon Storage," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 219-242, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, 2022. "The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 245-262, June.
    2. Jonathan Newby & Rob Cramb & Somphanh Sakanphet, 2014. "Forest Transitions and Rural Livelihoods: Multiple Pathways of Smallholder Teak Expansion in Northern Laos," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Purnomo, Herry & Shantiko, Bayuni & Sitorus, Soaduon & Gunawan, Harris & Achdiawan, Ramadhani & Kartodihardjo, Hariadi & Dewayani, Ade Ayu, 2017. "Fire economy and actor network of forest and land fires in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 21-31.
    4. Dimitrios Konstadakopulos, 2009. "Cooling the earth? The changing priorities of EU–Asia technology cooperation," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 345-366, June.
    5. Giovanna Giusti & Patricia Kristjanson & Mariana C. Rufino, 2019. "Agroforestry as a climate change mitigation practice in smallholder farming: evidence from Kenya," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(3), pages 379-394, April.
    6. Nicky R. M. Pouw & Hans-Peter Weikard & Richard B. Howarth, 2022. "Economic analysis of international environmental agreements: lessons learnt 2000–2020," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 279-294, June.
    7. Wise, Russell M. & Cacho, Oscar J., 2008. "Bioeconomic meta-modelling of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6772, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Ermias Aynekulu & Marta Suber & Meine van Noordwijk & Jacobo Arango & James M. Roshetko & Todd S. Rosenstock, 2020. "Carbon Storage Potential of Silvopastoral Systems of Colombia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-12, September.
    9. Berna Edoardo Berionni, 2013. "Regionalizzare la tutela dell?ambiente? Verso una sostenibilit? su scala regionale: il caso dell?UE e dell?ASEAN," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 107-128.
    10. Howes, Stephen & Wyrwoll, Paul, 2012. "Asia’s Wicked Environmental Problems," ADBI Working Papers 348, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    11. Stephen Howes & Paul Wyrwoll, . "New Challenges to the Export Oriented Growth Model," Chapters, in: Zhang Yunling & Fukunari Kimura & Sothea Oum (ed.), Moving Toward A New Development Model For East Asia-The Role of Domestic Policy and Regional Cooperation, chapter 3, pages 55-120, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    12. Emily Anderson & Hisham Zerriffi, 2012. "Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 741-757, December.
    13. Tamara L. Sheldon & Chandini Sankaran, 2016. "Transboundary Pollution in Southeast Asia: Welfare and Avoidance Costs in Singapore from the Forest Burning in Indonesia," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 960, Boston College Department of Economics.
    14. Tamara L. Sheldon & Chandini Sankaran, 2019. "Averting Behavior Among Singaporeans During Indonesian Forest Fires," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 159-180, September.
    15. Venkatachalam ANBUMOZHI & Ponciano S. INTAL, Jr., 2015. "Can Thinking Green and Sustainability Be an Economic Opportunity for ASEAN?," Working Papers DP-2015-66, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    16. Helena Varkkey, 2014. "Regional cooperation, patronage and the ASEAN Agreement on transboundary haze pollution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 65-81, March.
    17. Rico Kongsager, 2018. "Linking Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation: A Review with Evidence from the Land-Use Sectors," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:198-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.