| Home | [21–30] << 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 >> [41–45] |
|
Camacho, C., & Pérez-Barahona, A. (2015). Land use dynamics and the environment. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 52, 96–118.
Abstract: This paper builds a benchmark framework to study optimal land use, encompassing land use activities and environmental degradation. We focus on the spatial externalities of land use as drivers of spatial patterns: land is immobile by nature, but local actions affect the whole space since pollution flows across locations resulting in both local and global damages. We prove that the decision maker problem has a solution, and characterize the corresponding social optimum trajectories by means of the Pontryagin conditions. We also show that the existence and uniqueness of time-invariant solutions are not in general guaranteed. Finally, a global dynamic algorithm is proposed in order to illustrate the spatial-dynamic richness of the model. We find that our simple set-up already reproduces a great variety of spatial patterns related to the interaction between land use activities and the environment. In particular, abatement technology turns out to play a central role as pollution stabilizer, allowing the economy to reach a time-invariant equilibrium that can be spatially heterogeneous. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: land use; spatial dynamics; pollution; climate-change; air-pollution; agriculture; instability; allocation; principle; pattern; quality; health; impact
|
|
Kros, J., Bakker, M. M., Reidsma, P., Kanellopoulos, A., Jamal Alam, S., & de Vries, W. (2015). Impacts of agricultural changes in response to climate and socioeconomic change on nitrogen deposition in nature reserves. Landscape Ecol., 30(5), 871–885.
Abstract: This paper describes the environmental consequences of agricultural adaptation on eutrophication of the nearby ecological network for a study area in the Netherlands. More specifically, we explored (i) likely responses of farmers to changes in climate, technology, policy, and markets; (ii) subsequent changes in nitrogen (N) emissions in responses to farmer adaptations; and (iii) to what extent the emitted N was deposited in nearby nature reserves, in view of the potential impacts on plant species diversity and desired nature targets. For this purpose, a spatially-explicit study at landscape level was performed by integrating the environmental model INITIATOR, the farm model FSSIM, and the land-use model RULEX. We evaluated two alternative scenarios of change in climate, technology, policy, and markets for 2050: one in line with a ‘global economy’ (GE) storyline and the other in line with a ‘regional communities’ (RC) storyline. Results show that the GE storyline resulted in a relatively strong increase in agricultural production compared to the RC storyline. Despite the projected conversions of agricultural land to nature (as part of the implementation of the National Ecological Network), we project an increase in N losses and N deposition due to N emissions in the study area of about 20 %. Even in the RC storyline, with a relatively modest increase in agricultural production and a larger expansion of the nature reserve, the N losses and deposition remain at the current level, whereas a reduction is required. We conclude that more ambitious green policies are needed in view of nature protection.
|
|
Porter, J. R., & Christensen, S. (2013). Deconstructing crop processes and models via identities. Plant Cell and Environment, 36(11), 1919–1925.
Abstract: This paper is part review and part opinion piece; it has three parts of increasing novelty and speculation in approach. The first presents an overview of how some of the major crop simulation models approach the issue of simulating the responses of crops to changing climatic and weather variables, mainly atmospheric CO2 concentration and increased and/or varying temperatures. It illustrates an important principle in models of a single cause having alternative effects and vice versa. The second part suggests some features, mostly missing in current crop models, that need to be included in the future, focussing on extreme events such as high temperature or extreme drought. The final opinion part is speculative but novel. It describes an approach to deconstruct resource use efficiencies into their constituent identities or elements based on the Kaya-Porter identity, each of which can be examined for responses to climate and climatic change. We give no promise that the final part is correct’, but we hope it can be a stimulation to thought, hypothesis and experiment, and perhaps a new modelling approach.
|
|
Höhn, J., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Impact of global warming on European cereal production. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 9(022), 1–15.
Abstract: This review examines relevant impact assessments identified by a literature search from 1991to date. A bibliographic search was applied to the CAB Abstracts database with a given searchstring. Resultant papers were checked for relevance, based on expert judgment. This yielded 91 papers, which were subjected to further analysis. Firstly, publication intensity over time and distribution by geographic location and cereal crop were examined. Next, for a given crop, the assessments and their outcomes were grouped by type and number of the change variables considered – that is, effects of climate change only, elevated CO 2 and technological progress(improved breeds, management). Finally, separately for individual countries/subregions and Europe as a whole, we examined whether and to what extent study results have changed over time, for example become more positive/negative. Based on our sample, we found that publication intensity increased exponentially during thelast 4 years, the majority of studies are Europe-wide, but some concentrated on a few countries(Italy, Spain and UK), whereby studies on wheat are clearly most popular. Taking the factor of technological progress into account has an overruling influence on results. Finally, over time, projected yield impacts have become more negative. This is in line with finding from global analyses, as reflected by the most recent comparison of agricultural impact chapters, of the 4thand 5th Assessment Reports of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II.In the future, there is particular need to consider impacts under various incremental and transformational adaptation measures in more depth (e.g. their interconnections across scales)and with more breadth (e.g. anticipated new breeds). Follow-up reviews should also examine how projected impacts are changing with the new climate scenario data sets (CMIP5) and with improved impact models and assessment approaches.
Keywords: Climate change; Food security; Uncertainty; Wheat; Maize; Barley
|
|
Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future, 2, 83–98.
Abstract: This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.
|