Climate‐smart land management: Greenhouse gas outcomes and social and economic pathways to adoption
Kristina Bartowitz, Janice Parks, Danielle Berardi, Julia Smith, Kristin Haltinner, Alexander Maas, Ashley Ballantyne, Laura Laumatia, Dewan Al Rafi, Eric Walsh, Dianne Baumann, Nick Koenig, Laurel Lynch, Tara HudiburgSocietal Impact Statement
Climate change poses one of the greatest threats to natural and working lands, reducing the resilience of agricultural and forest productivity. Because land management is a leading source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, climate‐smart management practices are being implemented to reduce net emissions while sustaining yields. However, their effectiveness varies across systems, scales, and contexts. Here, we provide a systematic review of nearly 200 experimental studies reporting GHG outcomes and discuss the economic and social factors that drive practitioner adoption or resistance. Our findings can inform policy decisions by identifying realistic management practices with demonstrated effectiveness.
Summary
Climate‐smart land management is widely promoted as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Yet, robust empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains poorly reported. This study synthesizes global measurements of net GHG outcomes across major land‐use types, focusing on treatments that directly reduce emissions or increase carbon stocks relative to business‐as‐usual (BAU) scenarios. Results reveal substantial variability across systems. Annual crop interventions show the most consistent mitigation benefits, particularly for reduced tillage, water management, and organic amendments. Practices using chemical fertilizers, or retaining or adding harvest residues often increased emissions. Perennial crops exhibited the largest responses, with conversion to perennial crops resulting in strong mitigation. Forest practices produced smaller changes compared to BAU: afforestation and vegetation diversification decreased emissions, whereas thinning and prescribed burning generally increased emissions. Practices labeled as “climate‐smart” may not consistently deliver GHG mitigation. These varied outcomes underscore the need for full‐system GHG accounting and policies that incentivize practices with demonstrated mitigation benefits. Aligning payments with biogeochemical evidence of GHG mitigation is critical in creating cost‐effective and credible carbon programs. Where mitigation outcomes can be measured and verified at relatively low cost, payments should be tied to realized performance. Pay‐for‐practice approaches should only be used when direct verification is prohibitively expensive. Greater attention to human behavioral responses and program incentives is needed to avoid unintended or perverse outcomes (e.g., leakage). Even biogeochemically effective practices will fail to be adopted without community acceptance, which requires partnership with communities and, for tribal nations, engagement grounded in tribal self‐determination.