Carbon fluxes related to land use and land cover change in Baden-Württemberg

• Verfasst von: Ulrich, Veit [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schultz, Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Lautenbach, Sven [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Zipf, Alexander [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Carbon fluxes related to land use and land cover change in Baden-Württemberg
• Verf.angabe: Veit Ulrich, Michael Schultz, Sven Lautenbach, Alexander Zipf
• E-Jahr: 2023
• Jahr: 27 April 2023
• Umfang: 17 S.
• Illustrationen: Diagramme, Karten
• Fussnoten: Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 15-17 ; Gesehen am 19.06.2023
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Environmental monitoring and assessment
• Ort Quelle: Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1981
• Jahr Quelle: 2023
• Band/Heft Quelle: 195(2023), 5 vom: Apr., Artikel-ID 616, Seite 1-17
• ISSN Quelle: 1573-2959
• DOI: doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11141-9
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Carbon fluxes
• Sach-SW: Land cover change
• Sach-SW: Land use change
• Sach-SW: OpenStreetMap
• K10plus-PPN: 1850519943
• K10plus-PPN:
  Universitätsbibliothek
• Lokale URL UB: Zum Volltext

Abstract

Spatially explicit information on carbon fluxes related to land use and land cover change (LULCC) is of value for the implementation of local climate change mitigation strategies. However, estimates of these carbon fluxes are often aggregated to larger areas. We estimated committed gross carbon fluxes related to LULCC in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, using different emission factors. In doing so, we compared four different data sources regarding their suitability for estimating the fluxes: (a) a land cover dataset derived from OpenStreetMap (OSMlanduse); (b) OSMlanduse with removal of sliver polygons (OSMlanduse cleaned), (c) OSMlanduse enhanced with a remote sensing time series analysis (OSMlanduse+); (d) the LULCC product of Landschaftsveränderungsdienst (LaVerDi) from the German Federal Agency of Cartography and Geodesy. We produced a high range of carbon flux estimates, mostly caused by differences in the area of the LULCC detected by the different change methods. Except for the OSMlanduse change method, all LULCC methods achieved results that are comparable to other gross emission estimates. The carbon flux estimates of the most plausible change methods, OSMlanduse cleaned and OSMlanduse+, were 291,710 Mg C yr-1 and 93,591 Mg C yr-1, respectively. Uncertainties were mainly caused by incomplete spatial coverage of OSMlanduse, false positive LULCC due to changes and corrections made in OpenStreetMap during the study period, and a high number of sliver polygons in the OSMlanduse changes. Overall, the results showed that OSM can be successfully used to estimate LULCC carbon fluxes if data preprocessing is performed with the suggested methods.