| Home | [71–80] << 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 >> [91–100] |
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2015). A prototype stochastic dynamic equilibrium model of the global food system (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The risks of food consumption are primarily linked to those of food production due to stochastic weather. Other sources of risk are associated with break-down of food trade or transport for weather or political reasons. Hopefully, future cures against increased risk due to climate change may be found with new agricultural technologies, systems of storage from favorable to unfavorable periods, more flexible trade-arrangements between favorable and unfavorable places. However, in the short run one has to rely on the available technology, storage facilities and trade agreements. With a realistic model of the stochastic global food system, it should be possible to measure risks of certain extreme unfavorable events.A realistic case will have countries with different climate in different growing seasons. Markets will be open for trade at a number of points per year, in which decisions of production, storage, trade and consumption can be coordinated as a static equilibrium. Determinants of this equilibrium are the weather up to this date reflected in the state of crops, the available harvested stocks and the decision-maker’s preferences. With a global stochastic process of weather, a stochastic sequence of equilibria follows. No Label
|
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2015). Prototype of stochastic equilibrium model of the food system (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Food security is an issue of risk. If climate change is not responded to with diet, technology and/or policy changes, it may lead to reduced food security for the world population, in particular the poorer part which in longer periods may not afford to purchase food in sufficient quantity and quality. In order to improve the situation, certain policy changes may be required. In some cases are policy recommendations relatively obvious, while in other cases a deeper insight in the stochastic dynamics of food supply and storage is required to assess the consequences of policy proposals. The relatively obvious part is that farmers need be responsive in periods of low total production, so that sufficient supply restores quickly. Moreover, trade should allow local shortages to be covered. Many national policies with the goal of self-sufficiency aim in the opposite direction with stable prices and production and relatively less flexibility in production. The stochastic dynamics of food supply can be analysed in more detail with a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model (DSGE). Although agriculture by nature is about taking decisions under uncertainty, quantitative stochastic dynamic models for policy analysis in agriculture have not yet emerged. The contribution in MACSUR is a formalization of a class of DSGE-s based on representation of biological processes managed with regard to outcomes due to uncertain nature. No Label
|
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2014). Prototype stochastic general equilibrium model of a global food system. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: A model of a global food system need at least two points in time per year and two locations with different growing seasons so that planting and harvesting have different timing across locations. Moreover, planting decisions reflect soil states affected by stochastic weather since previous point in time, while harvest reflect the planting decisions and the stochastic weather through the growing season up to next point. Decisions on trade, storage and consumption are taken at every point in time. Despite stochastic influence, deterministic stationary general equilibrium is applicable. The world then runs in circles through a likely sequence of N given weather scenarios, while the decision-makers do not know the next scenario. The model will provide a setting in which the consequences of climate change can be assessed both with respect to expectations and variances. It will by construction be an integrated assessment model (IAM) in the sense that outcomes follow from agent choices in a world of biophysical processes. In this case the biophysical world is stochastic. At the prototype stage neither existing behavioral nor bio-physical models will be applied.
|
|
Humblot, P., Jayet, P. A., Clerino, P., Leconte-Demarsy, D., Szopa, S., & Castell, J. F. (2013). Assessment of ozone impacts on farming systems: a bio-economic modeling approach applied to the widely diverse French case. Ecol. Econ., 85, 50–58.
Abstract: As a result of anthropogenic activities, ozone is produced in the surface atmosphere, causing direct damage to plants and reducing crop yields. By combining a biophysical crop model with an economic supply model we were able to predict and quantify this effect at a fine spatial resolution. We applied our approach to the very varied French case and showed that ozone has significant productivity and land-use effects. A comparison of moderate and high ozone scenarios for 2030 shows that wheat production may decrease by more than 30% and barley production may increase by more than 14% as surface ozone concentration increases. These variations are due to the direct effect of ozone on yields as well as to modifications in land use caused by a shift toward more ozone-resistant crops: our study predicts a 16% increase in the barley-growing area and an equal decrease in the wheat-growing area. Moreover, mean agricultural gross margin losses can go as high as 2.5% depending on the ozone scenario, and can reach 7% in some particularly affected regions. A rise in ozone concentration was also associated with a reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions of about 2%, as a result of decreased use of nitrogen fertilizers. One noteworthy result was that major impacts, including changes in land use, do not necessarily occur in ozone high concentration zones, and may strongly depend on farm systems and their adaptation capability. Our study suggests that policy makers should view ozone pollution as a major potential threat to agricultural yields. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
|