|
|
Bellocchi, G., & Sándor, R. (2015). Model intercomparison (Vol. 6).
Abstract: This deliverable focuses on some illustrative results obtained with different grassland- specific, grassland adapted crop and dynamic vegetation models selected out of the first list of models compiled in D-L2.1.1 to simulate biomass and flux data from grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions (D-L2.1.1 and D-L2.1.2). Results from uncalibrated simulations were documented in the D-L2.3 report as a blind exercise. Some model improvements are emphasized in this report due to the higher information level of the model calibrations. The complete set of results will include simulations from uncalibrated and calibrated models. No Label
|
|
|
|
Below, T. B., Mutabazi, K. D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., et al. (2012). Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables. Glob. Environ. Change, 22(1), 223–235.
Abstract: A better understanding of processes that shape farmers’ adaptation to climate change is critical to identify vulnerable entities and to develop well-targeted adaptation policies. However, it is currently poorly understood what determines farmers’ adaptation and how to measure it. In this study, we develop an activity-based adaptation index (AAI) and explore the relationship between socioeconomic variables and farmers’ adaptation behavior by means of an explanatory factor analysis and a multiple linear regression model using latent variables. The model was tested in six villages situated in two administrative wards in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. The Mlali ward represents a system of relatively high agricultural potential, whereas the Gairo ward represents a system of low agricultural potential. A household survey, a rapid rural appraisal and, a stakeholder workshop were used for data collection. The data were analyzed using factor analysis, multiple linear regression, descriptive statistical methods and qualitative content analysis. The empirical results are discussed in the context of theoretical concepts of adaptation and the sustainable livelihood approach. We found that public investment in rural infrastructure, in the availability and technically efficient use of inputs, in a good education system that provides equal chances for women, and in the strengthening of social capital, agricultural extension and, microcredit services are the best means of improving the adaptation of the farmers from the six villages in Gairo and Mlali. We conclude that the newly developed AAI is a simple but promising way to capture the complexity of adaptation processes that addresses a number of shortcomings of previous index studies.
|
|
|
|
Bennett, E., Carpenter, S. R., Gordon, L. J., Ramankutty, N., Balvanera, P., Campbell, B., et al. (2014). Toward a more resilient agriculture. The Solutions Journal, 5(5), 65–75.
Abstract: Agriculture is a key driver of change in the Anthropocene. It is both a critical factor for human well-being and development and a major driver of environmental decline. As the human population expands to more than 9 billion by 2050, we will be compelled to find ways to adequately feed this population while simultaneously decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, even as global change is creating new circumstances to which agriculture must respond. Many proposals to accomplish this dual goal of increasing agricultural production while reducing its environmental impact are based on increasing the efficiency of agricultural production relative to resource use and relative to unintended outcomes such as water pollution, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. While increasing production efficiency is almost certainly necessary, it is unlikely to be sufficient and may in some instances reduce long-term agricultural resilience, for example, by degrading soil and increasing the fragility of agriculture to pest and disease outbreaks and climate shocks. To encourage an agriculture that is both resilient and sustainable, radically new approaches to agricultural development are needed. These approaches must build on a diversity of solutions operating at nested scales, and they must maintain and enhance the adaptive and transformative capacity needed to respond to disturbances and avoid critical thresholds. Finding such approaches will require that we encourage experimentation, innovation, and learning, even if they sometimes reduce short-term production efficiency in some parts of the world.
|
|
|
|
Bennetzen, E., Smith, P., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Identity-based analysis of GHG emissions from agriculture.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Bennetzen, E. H., Smith, P., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—The major trends over 40 years. Glob. Environ. Change, 37, 43–55.
Abstract: Since 1970, global agricultural production has more than doubled with agriculture and land-use change now responsible for similar to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Yet, while greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of agricultural product have been reduced at a global level, trends in world regions have been quantified less thoroughly. The KPI (Kaya-Porter Identity) is a novel framework for analysing trends in agricultural production and land-use change and related GHG emissions. We apply this to assess trends and differences in nine world regions over the period 1970-2007. We use a deconstructed analysis of emissions from the mix of multiple sources, and show how each is changing in terms of absolute emissions on a per area and per produced unit basis, and how the change of emissions from each source contributes to the change in total emissions over time. The doubling of global agricultural production has mainly been delivered by developing and transitional countries, and this has been mirrored by increased GHG emissions. The decoupling of emissions from production shows vast regional differences. Our estimates show that emissions per unit crop (as kg CO2-equivalents per Giga Joule crop product), in Oceania, have been reduced by 94% from 1093 to 69; in Central & South America by 57% from 849 to 362; in sub-Saharan Africa by 27% from 421 to 309, and in Europe by 56% from 86 to 38. Emissions per unit livestock (as kg CO2-eq. GJ(-1) livestock product) have reduced; in sub-Saharan Africa by 24% from 6001 to 4580; in Central & South America by 61% from 3742 to 1448; in Central & Eastern Asia by 82% from 3,205 to 591, and; in North America by 28% from 878 to 632. In general, intensive and industrialised systems show the lowest emissions per unit of agricultural production. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
