Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/33914
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHorsburgh, Nicolaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTyler, Andrewen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMathieson, Scoten_UK
dc.contributor.authorWackernagel, Mathisen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLin, Daviden_UK
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-02T01:01:02Z-
dc.date.available2022-02-02T01:01:02Z-
dc.date.issued2022-03-15en_UK
dc.identifier.other114486en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/33914-
dc.description.abstractEcological Footprint and biocapacity accounting is a widely-used ecological accounting framework which tracks human demand against the biosphere’s rate of regeneration. However, current national assessments do not yet include carbon-dense peatlands, hindering the evaluation of peatland biocapacity contributions. Also, the economic efficiency of peatland restoration is understudied and needed to inform land use decisions. We provide the first assessment of Scotland’s biocapacity and add peatlands as a novel land type. We then project the biocapacity impacts in 2050 of current peatland restoration targets and various alternative management scenarios. Finally, we estimate the cost per tonne of greenhouse gas abated of various peatland restoration scenarios, and compare this with estimates of afforestation mitigation costs from the literature. Our results show that Scotland’s per-person biocapacity exceeds the UK average by a factor of three. However, despite covering 25% of land area, peatland biocapacity increases Scotland’s biocapacity total by only 2%, while the Carbon Footprint of degraded peatlands increases Scotland’s ecological deficit by 40%. Current peatland restoration targets of the Scottish Government are estimated to reduce the national ecological deficit by only 9% in 2050. The cost-effectiveness of peatland restoration is context-dependent, and extremely cost-effective methods are applicable to peatland areas far exceeding current government restoration targets. Our findings provide land managers with evidence in favour of increased peatland restoration, both in terms of boosting biocapacity, and economic cost- effectiveness.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevier BVen_UK
dc.relationHorsburgh N, Tyler A, Mathieson S, Wackernagel M & Lin D (2022) Biocapacity and cost-effectiveness benefits of increased peatland restoration in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 306, Art. No.: 114486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114486en_UK
dc.rightsThis article is available under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) and permits non-commercial use of the work as published, without adaptation or alteration provided the work is fully attributed. For commercial reuse, permission must be requested.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectPeatland restorationen_UK
dc.subjectBiocapacityen_UK
dc.subjectCarbon footprinten_UK
dc.subjectLand useen_UK
dc.subjectMitigationen_UK
dc.subjectCost-effectivenessen_UK
dc.titleBiocapacity and cost-effectiveness benefits of increased peatland restoration in Scotlanden_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2022-02-01en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114486en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid35065363en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleJournal of Environmental Managementen_UK
dc.citation.issn0301-4797en_UK
dc.citation.volume306en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailnicola.horsburgh@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date20/01/2022en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationScottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGlobal Footprint Networken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGlobal Footprint Networken_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85123028324en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1791431en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-0005-1575en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-0604-5827en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2879-9320en_UK
dc.date.accepted2022-01-11en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-01-11en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2022-02-01en_UK
rioxxterms.apcpaiden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorHorsburgh, Nicola|0000-0002-0005-1575en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTyler, Andrew|0000-0003-0604-5827en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMathieson, Scot|0000-0003-2879-9320en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWackernagel, Mathis|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLin, David|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2022-02-01en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/|2022-02-01|en_UK
local.rioxx.filename1-s2.0-S0301479722000597-main.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source0301-4797en_UK
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
1-s2.0-S0301479722000597-main.pdfFulltext - Published Version2.87 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.