世界の内陸泥炭地の戦略的復元は地域と地球規模の共便益を最大化しうる

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:泥炭地復元の炭素・メタン収支と共便益を統合した空間最適化手法の応用例として参考になる。

🏢実務担当者:自然資本・炭素クレジット調達やTNFD開示において、復元優先地域の選定と共便益の定量評価に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:国家・地域の泥炭地復元計画や気候目標設定において、優先地域の選定と長期的メタン排出リスクの考慮に示唆を与える。

Abstract Global‐scale peatland restoration holds large potential for carbon sequestration; however, the peatland carbon balance is not often considered alongside co‐benefits in restoration prioritization. Here, we present a spatial optimization framework for inland peatland restoration to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and maximize peatland co‐benefits, such as flood mitigation and water quality improvements. We find strategic restoration of 30% of the world's drained inland peatlands, targeting areas with the greatest potential for GHG emissions reductions, would sequester three times more GHGs (0.91 ± 0.17 Pg CO 2 eq. year −1 ) than the same magnitude of peatland restoration implemented randomly (0.27 ± 0.11 Pg CO 2 eq. year −1 ). Peatland restoration is often driven by local needs for the many ecosystem services that peatlands provide; therefore, we also quantify the GHG balance of restoration aimed at delivering either water quality improvements or flood mitigation. Meeting a 30% global inland peatland restoration target while prioritizing water quality improvements or flood mitigation can still achieve emissions reductions of 0.34 ± 0.14 and 0.50 ± 0.19 Pg CO 2 eq. year −1 (62% and 44% less emissions reductions than prioritizing emissions alone), respectively, demonstrating opportunities for overlap between global GHG budgets and local environmental objectives. Finally, we use future methane (CH 4 ) emissions projections to evaluate the compatibility of peatland restoration prioritization schemes with future CH 4 emissions. We find that priority regions for near‐term GHG emissions reduction do not necessarily align with areas that would minimize future peatland CH 4 emissions, due to increasing CH 4 emissions by 2100. We account for uncertainty and variability in long‐term emission trajectories of peatland restoration from diverse settings, site histories, and practices by testing our optimization framework with two alternate endpoint scenarios: “recently rewetted” and “restored to intact conditions.” Our framework highlights numerous opportunities for inland peatland restoration to simultaneously achieve both near‐ and long‐term emission reductions as well as multiple co‐benefits. Broad‐scale restoration strategies can be employed in concert with planning for regional needs and site‐specific criteria to magnify the benefits of peatland restoration.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.70300first seen 2026-09-12 05:07:21