• Energy Research

Environmental and socio-economic developments induce land-use changes with potentially negative impacts on human well-being. To counteract undesired developments, a profound understanding of the complex relationships between drivers, land use, and ecosystem services is needed. Yet, national studies examining extended time periods are still rare. Based on the Special Report on land use, land management and climate change by the Austrian Panel on Climate Change (APCC), we use the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to (1) identify the main drivers of land-use change, (2) describe past and future land-use changes in Austria between 1950 and 2100, (3) report related impacts on ecosystem services, and (4) discuss management responses. Our findings indicate that socio-economic drivers (e.g., economic growth, political systems, and technological developments) have influenced past land-use changes the most. The intensification of agricultural land use and urban sprawl have primarily led to declining ecosystem services in the lowlands. In mountain regions, the abandonment of mountain grassland has prompted a shift from provisioning to regulating services. However, simulations indicate that accelerating climate change will surpass socio-economic drivers in significance towards the end of this century, particularly in intensively used agricultural areas. Although climate change-induced impacts on ecosystem services remain uncertain, it can be expected that the range of land-use management options will be restricted in the future. Consequently, policymaking should prioritize the development of integrated land-use planning to safeguard ecosystem services, accounting for future environmental and socio-economic uncertainties.

Changes in climatic conditions will directly affect the quality and quantity of water resources. Further on, they will affect them indirectly through adaptation in land use which ultimately influences diffuse nutrient emissions to rivers and therefore potentially the compliance with good ecological status according to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). We present an integrated impact modelling framework (IIMF) to track and quantify direct and indirect pollution impacts along policy-economy-climate-agriculture-water interfaces. The IIMF is applied to assess impacts of climatic and socio-economic drivers on agricultural land use (crop choices, farming practices and fertilization levels), river flows and the risk for exceedance of environmental quality standards for determination of the ecological water quality status in Austria. This article also presents model interfaces as well as validation procedures and results of single models and the IIMF with respect to observed state variables such as land use, river flow and nutrient river loads. The performance of the IIMF for calculations of river nutrient loads (120 monitoring stations) shows a Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency of 0.73 for nitrogen and 0.51 for phosphorus. Most problematic is the modelling of phosphorus loads in the alpine catchments dominated by forests and mountainous landscape. About 63% of these catchments show a deviation between modelled and observed loads of 30% and more. In catchments dominated by agricultural production, the performance of the IIMF is much better as only 30% of cropland and 23% of permanent grassland dominated areas have a deviation of >30% between modelled and observed loads. As risk of exceedance of environmental quality standards is mainly recognized in catchments dominated by cropland, the IIMF is well suited for assessing the nutrient component of the WFD ecological status.

Abstract This paper investigates the impacts of CO2 tax schemes on CO2 emissions, equity and macroeconomic indicators in Austria with the macroeconomic model DYNK[AUT]. Our scenarios focus on non-ETS CO2 emissions and comprise different tax rates and revenue recycling options (lower labor taxes, lower VAT and lump sum payments). The short-term comparative scenario analysis indicates that CO2 taxes without recycling lead to significant CO2 emission reductions at moderate economic costs. Equity impacts on households depend on the indicator used but can be regressive without recycling. Most recycling schemes can achieve a double dividend, i.e. emission reductions and increases in GDP. Lump sum payments are less efficient than reducing the VAT or labor taxes. Equity impacts are progressive with lump sum payments, rather proportional with lower VAT and regressive with lower labor taxes. A combination of recycling schemes and/or a restriction of lump sum payments to lower income households can minimize the trade-off between equity and efficiency. Our simulations suggest that well-designed CO2 tax schemes could be a crucial and socially acceptable element within a comprehensive policy package to achieve GHG emission targets for non-ETS sectors in Austria.

Identifying and assessing the fairness and acceptability of climate mitigation policies requires not only the application of sound interdisciplinary scientific methods, but also the consideration of stakeholder expertise and values. We applied such an approach to a model analysis of climate mitigation measures and compensation measures for vulnerable households in the buildings and mobility sectors in Austria. We integrated stakeholder knowledge and values by conducting two interactive stakeholder workshops and by a continuous engagement dialogue with a Stakeholder Board (SB) representing key Austrian institutions. The first workshop highlighted: (1) important characteristics to consider for vulnerable households, i.e. households that are likely to be substantially negatively affected by climate mitigation policies; (2) a ranking of both mitigation and compensation measures tailored to the buildings and mobility sectors. We were able to incorporate most of the stakeholders’ findings and recommendations into our analysis and the model simulations. The continuous dialogue with the SB ensured the refinement of the implementation of these measures. Finally, the second workshop was used to critically reflect on the results of the model simulations and to highlight blind spots and special cases of hardship which were outside of the modelling framework. The results of the simulated mitigation and compensation policy scenario were generally considered reasonable and fair by the participants. However, further research and surveys are needed to explore the acceptability of the policy packages to decision-makers and the general public.