the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Uncertainties in carbon emissions from land use and land cover change in Indonesia
Abstract. Indonesia is currently one of the three largest contributors of carbon emissions from land use and land cover change (LULCC) globally, together with Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, until recently, there was only limited reliable data available on LULCC across Indonesia, leading to a lack of agreement on drivers, magnitude, and trends in carbon emissions between different estimates. Accurate LULCC should improve robustness and reduce the uncertainties of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from Land Use Change (ELUC) estimation. Here, we assess several cropland datasets that are used to estimate ELUC in Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) and Bookkeeping models (BKMs). Available cropland datasets are generally categorized as either census-based such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) annual statistical dataset, or satellite-based such as the Mapbiomas dataset, which is derived from Landsat Satellite images. Our results show that census-based and satellite-based estimates have little agreement on temporal variability and cropland area changes. In some islands, they show spatial similarity, but differences appear in the main islands such as Kalimantan, Sumatra and Java. These differences lead to spatio-temporal uncertainty in carbon emissions. The different land cover forcings (census-based vs satellite-based) in a single model (JULES-ES) result in ELUC uncertainties of about 0.08 [0.06 to 0.11] PgC/yr. Furthermore, we found that uncertainties in ELUC estimates are also due to differences in the carbon cycle models in DGVMs, as DGVMs driven by the same land cover dataset show differences in ELUC estimates of 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr with 95 % confidence level and range [-0.04 to 0.35] PgC/yr. This is consistent with other product such as BKMs that estimates 0.14 [0.12 to 0.15] PgC/yr with both steady trend. We also compare emissions with those from the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI) product. The NGHGI estimates (based on BUR3; periodic official government report on Greenhouses Gas to UNFCCC) have much lower carbon emissions (0.06 ± 0.06 PgC/yr), though with an increasing trend. These numbers double when we include emissions from peat fire and peat drainage: the DGVM ensemble indicates emissions of 0.23 ± 0.05 PgC/yr and BKMs indicate emissions of 0.24 [0.22–0.25] PgC/yr. In contrast, emissions based on the Indonesian NGHGI remain much lower (BUR2: 0.18±0.07 PgC/yr BUR3: 0.13 ± 0.10 PgC/yr). Furthermore, emission peaks occur in year of moderate-to-strong El Nino events. Several improvements might reduce uncertainties in carbon emissions from LULCC in Indonesia, such as: combination of satellite-based dataset with census-based dataset, inclusion of peat-related emissions in DGVMs and potentially explicit inclusion of palm oil in the models as this is a major crop in Indonesia. Overall, the analysis shows that carbon emissions have no decreasing trend in Indonesia, Therefore, deforestation and forest fire prevention remain vital for Indonesia.
Competing interests: This research has been supported by Indonesian Endowment Fund, or known as LPDP (Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan). As part of PhD scholarship that is received by IBMB.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(739 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3165', Francesco N. Tubiello, 20 Nov 2024
This is a very interesting paper dealing with fundamental differences in land use datav sources and their consequences for land use change and emissions estimates. To this end, the manuscript would beniefit from a more accurate description of FAO land use data that underlie many of the sources being discussed--including definitions and uncertianty. Also, the manuscript could benefit from an extended discussoin on uncertinaty arising from the use of land cover maps based on recent work in this area. FInally, FAO GHG estimates could be used to complement the analysis of results for Indonesia.
I am attaching a pdf with comments directly inserted within it.
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, 05 Dec 2024
Dear Francesco Tubiello,
Thank you so much for you insight especially about FAO.
I did have limited knowledge about this previously.
I have done improving my manuscript based on your inputs, this is also add new data FAO GHG as you suggested.
Best regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3165-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, 05 Dec 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3165', Tao Chen, 05 Dec 2024
In their study, the authors investigated the uncertainties in carbon emissions from land use and land cover change in Indonesia. They analyzed spatiotemporal differences in cropland from several LULCC datasets. The authors run multiple simulations to disentangle the impact of different LULCC datasets on the carbon emissions. They also compared the results of different LULCC data-driven JULES-ES models and the results of MB1-driven TRENDYv12 simulations, as well as comparing their estimates with other models/products such as the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Indonesia (NGHGI). Overall, testing the sensitivity of the model to the LULCC changes is of great interest, especially for some important regional carbon emission assessments, and the manuscript is decently written.
However, I have some concerns as follows: (1) In the Introduction, the authors use a lot of paragraphs to describe the importance of Indonesia in the global carbon cycle, which is very important background knowledge, but this part should be streamlined. Even, the authors spend a lot of space on the introduction of some commonly used data, such as LUH2. It is unnecessary to introduce these too much, because it can appear in the data description section. Particularly, there is no review of similar studies and comparison with previous studies. Moreover, too much speculation appears in the Discussions and Conclusions, while there are no results to support them. Some results need to be explained better. (2) The innovativeness of the present version can not be observed and was not highlighted in the Introduction. (3) I am very concerned about the evaluation of the model as it directly determines the reliability of this study. However, the authors did not provide details on model parameter and their settings, which modules were used, and how carbon emissions were calculated. It is unclear. In particular, the authors used 0.5° resolution land use data (resampling 30 m Mapbiomas data to 0.5 degrees), only about 760 pixels in Indonesia, to run the model and analyze the spatial and temporal variability of the LULCC and investigate their impact on carbon emissions, which will lead to a great deal of uncertainty, and this make me and the readers very sceptical about the reliability of the study. (4) It seems that this study only focuses on cropland changes, while the title suggests that the authors are concerned about the impact of LULCC changes on uncertainties in carbon emission. Moreover, it should be noted that LULCC not only includes changes in the internal planting structure of a specific land use type (e.g., the area of cropland remaining unchanged, but its planting type can change, thereby affecting carbon emissions), but also includes the mutual transformation between different land use types (e.g., the conversion between cropland and forests). However, this study seems to primarily focus on changes in the area of different land use types.
Further detailed comments follow below.
Abstract:
Line 39: Please keep the expression of 0.24 [0.22-0.25] Pg C/yr consistent with that of 0.23 ± 0.05 Pg C/yr. Make them comparable.
Line 44: Change the “,” to “.”.
Introduction
Line 47: I suggest adding the relevant references to support this statement.
Line 55: What does MHa mean? Is it Mha?
Line 65: Delete “(Emissions of Land Used Change)” as already mentioned above.
Lines 80-82: Add the references.
Methods:
Line 105: It appears that only cropland was considered in this study, but not grazing land. This is confusing.
Line 107: Which method have you used to reduce the grazing land fraction? Please describe the method in detail and add one or two sentences here.
Line 131: We could not get some detailed information about these data from Table 1, and I suggest adding some basic parameters about these data, etc.
Line 145: I am not an expert on the JULES-ES model. For a reader who may not know the JULES-ES model. Please add some important information on this model to the Supplementary, for example, adding the important parameters used in your study and their settings for different plant functional types (PFT), and the equations for the main modules (e.g., how do you calculate carbon emissions?) that used in your study, etc., making it so much easier to understand the scope of the model quickly and be able to interpret your study.
Line 190: But there is a big difference in the definitions of agriculture and cropland. In particular, they may have different parameter settings in the model. Generally, “cropland” is commonly used in the models (e.g., JULES-ES model). Are pulpwood or palm oil plantations croplands? These may affect your results and conclusions.
Line 200: We know that Indonesia is mainly composed of islands, and with such a coarse resolution (0.5 degrees) used in this region, it would introduce very large uncertainties. The 0.5-degree resolution is commonly used in global-scale simulations.
Line 221: How to calculate the ELUC trend, magnitude, and pattern with or without peat emission? It's not clear.
Results:
Line 227: Replace “million hectares” with the same unit, Mha.
Lines 237-238: This sentence “This aligns with other research…” seems to belong in the Discussion section. I suggest moving it to that section.
Line 241: In Fig. 2, are the results of spatial and temporal variations in cropland all based on 0.5 degrees? I'm curious how the cropland areas of MB1 and MB2 change at their original resolution? The same or different? This may affect the reliability of all the results. Besides, the scale bar is missing in Figure 2.
How are Figure 2e, 2h, and 2k calculated? 2018 minus 2000 or 2000 minus 2018? Please explain in the figure caption.
Lines 250-256: Part of the discussion?
Line 294: “0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr and 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr respectively”? Please check these data carefully. They are not the same in Fig 4a.
Discussion:
Lines 308-309: It seems that you are not comparing it to the FAO data. I checked the entire results section and found no comparisons to the FAO data. Why? But you mentioned that data in above text and conclusions. Please add relevant results.
Line 314: JULES or JULES-ES?
Line 328: Don't repeat what you've already mentioned above (see Line 105).
Lines 333-334: There are no results to support this, it's plain speculation. Similar speculation comes up too many times in your research.
Lines 337-338: I doubt that it is correct to classify palm oil as cropland? Would the simulation results change if it was classified as forest or other land cover types? This leads to a great deal of uncertainty in your results. Please show the results of these differences.
Lines 360-361: It's a very interesting result, but you don't have any more explanations. Can you discuss it in depth?
Conclusion
Lines 372-373: Didn't find your results to support that conclusion. Suggest removing it from the text.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3165-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, 19 Dec 2024
Thank you for you comment on this paper.
I am sorry it takes long to answer it. But I have done fix my manuscript based on your comments/inputs.
I also create new supplementary to explain JULES-ES.
Here I attached the document to answer your input.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, 19 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3165', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2025
This study investigates the uncertainties in Indonesia’s carbon emissions from land use and land cover change (LULCC). The authors analyzed spatiotemporal variations based on multiple LULCC datasets and conducted simulations to assess their impact on carbon emissions. They compared results from different LULCC data-driven JULES-ES models with MB1-driven TRENDYv12 simulations and benchmarked their estimates against other models and datasets, including Indonesia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI). While satellite-based datasets help reduce uncertainties, discrepancies also stem from variations in carbon pool representations across models. The study estimates Indonesia’s carbon emissions from land use change at 0.12 ± 0.02 PgC/yr with a stable trend, which doubles when peat fire and peat drainage emissions are included. Assessing datasets uncertainty and model variation to LULCC changes is crucial for improving regional carbon emission estimates, making this research a valuable contribution to the field.The study is well-executed, and the manuscript is generally well-written. However, several key aspects require further clarification and more detailed discussion before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. I recommend a major revision to address these issues before the manuscript can be considered for publication.Major comments:#1 The JULES-ES model was used to simulate the annual ELUC trend and the mean ELUC spatial distribution. However, based on the material presented in the manuscript, the model's reliability remains unclear. The study does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the model’s mechanisms for simulating the carbon cycle, the key factors driving its outputs, or the most influential variables in deriving the results.
Additionally, the model's reliability is further questioned due to the lack of site-level validation, particularly for the region having different land types, site validation against all those types should be conducted. Before applying the model at a regional scale, validation against observational data is essential to ensure accuracy.
I suggest the following improvements:
- Provide a more detailed explanation of the model mechanisms either in the method section, particularly the module responsible for calculating carbon cycles, to help readers better understand how the model functions.
- Include site-level validation against observational data to demonstrate the model's ability to capture carbon emission trends. If such validation has been conducted previously, please cite the relevant publications and incorporate a figure or table to present the validation results.
#2 Each model's carbon emission estimates are highly dependent on climate forcing, and variations in model sensitivity to these factors can lead to different results. However, the manuscript does not clearly identify the key climate drivers influencing carbon emission calculations. The study primarily focuses on the effects of land use change, but given that Indonesia is largely dominated by peatlands, other factors must be considered. Changes in global temperature and precipitation can significantly impact the carbon cycle in peatland ecosystems, as well as other soil systems, potentially playing a role equal to or even greater than land use change. To better understand the broader influences on ELUC, I recommend conducting a sensitivity test of the JULES-ES model against major climate forcings. This would help quantify the impact of climate change on carbon emissions in the absence of land use change, providing a more comprehensive assessment of emission drivers.#3 The 0.5-degree resolution used for simulating the Indonesian region is relatively coarse, which may limit the accuracy of the results. Additionally, extrapolating land use datasets from a 30m grid to 0.5-degree resolution introduces significant uncertainties and potential errors. To strengthen the study’s conclusions, I recommend either conducting a regional simulation with a finer resolution or providing a more detailed discussion of this limitation and its potential impact on the findings.Specific comments:
In the method section, please consider adding more details and possibly a figure to show the key climate trend through the simulation period.In the method section, please consider adding one figure to outline the modern geographical feature distribution of the study area including land types (agricultural and non-agricultural) to let audience know the rough picture of the study region.Figure 2. The upper panel uses MHa and the lower one uses km^2. Please make them consistent.Line 261. Too assertive to assume the sources of uncertainty come from two aspects - land use datasets and model mechanisms. What about the uncertainty in climate forcing etc? Consider removing this statement.Line 281. The conclusion is too subjective by sorely comparing two sources of uncertainty. Consider removing.Figure 3b. It is hard to see the baseline model JULES used for comparison. Please highlight the trend of it.Figure 3c-h. It looks like most of the pixels fall within 0 - 0.1 purple area and it is hard to see the spatial variation for this range. Consider adding more color scales for the 0 - 0.1 range to further break it down.Line 333 - Line 334. There is no direct evidence supporting this. Try to add more content / explanation.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3165-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, 18 Mar 2025
Thank you very much for your great input on my manuscript.
I agree that I need to give more detail for the model reliability, so I create new supplementary to explain this further.
Further, I will improve the paper as you suggested.
Detail answer of your comment is attached here.
Once again, thank you so much for your input and comment.
Best regards
Data sets
Trends and Drivers of Terrestrial Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide: An Overview of the TRENDY Project Stephen Sitch, Michael O’Sullivan, Eddy Robertson, Pierre Friedlingstein, Clément Albergel, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Ana Bastos, Vladislav Bastrikov, Nicolas Bellouin, Josep G. Canadell, Louise Chini, Philippe Ciais, Stefanie Falk, Ian Harris, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Atul K. Jain, Matthew W. Jones, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Erik Kluzek, Jürgen Knauer, Peter J. Lawrence, Danica Lombardozzi, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Naiqing Pan, Philippe Peylin, Julia Pongratz, Benjamin Poulter, Thais M. Rosan, Qing Sun, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Ulrich Weber, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GB008102
Mapbiomas Indonesia Auriga Foundation https://mapbiomas.nusantara.earth
Land-Use Harmonization (LUH2) George C. Hurtt, Louise Chini, Ritvik Sahajpal, Steve Frolking, Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Katherine Calvin, Jonathan C. Doelman, Justin Fisk, Shinichiro Fujimori, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Tomoko Hasegawa, Peter Havlik, Andreas Heinimann, Florian Humpenöder, Johan Jungclaus, Jed O. Kaplan, Jennifer Kennedy, Tamás Krisztin, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Lei Ma, Ole Mertz, Julia Pongratz, Alexander Popp, Benjamin Poulter, Keywan Riahi, Elena Shevliakova, Elke Stehfest, Peter Thornton, Francesco N. Tubiello, Detlef P. van Vuuren, and Xin Zhang https://luh.umd.edu/
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
397 | 158 | 27 | 582 | 12 | 8 |
- HTML: 397
- PDF: 158
- XML: 27
- Total: 582
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 206 | 35 |
Indonesia | 2 | 73 | 12 |
United Kingdom | 3 | 64 | 11 |
China | 4 | 52 | 9 |
Germany | 5 | 29 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 206