|
|
Mitter, H., Sinabell, F., & E., S. (2013). Assessing climate change and policy impacts on protein crop production in Austria. (pp. 527–535).
|
|
|
|
Bojar, W., Dzieza, G., Sikora, M., Spiewak, J., Wyszkowska, Z., Januszewski, A., et al. (2014). Wybrane metody ograniczania dzialania czynników ryzyka w rolnictwie w swietle wspólczesnych wyzwan (Selected methods of limiting of risk factors in agriculture in a view of contemporary challenges) Y ograniczania dzialania czynników ryzyka w rolnictwie. Roczniki naukowe ekonomii rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, 101(4), 7–18.
|
|
|
|
Schmid, E. (2017). Integrated land use modelling — a course for doctoral students (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The course on “Integrated land use modelling” took place at BOKU Vienna between 24. – 28. April 2017. It was a five-days course capturing many aspects in quantitative integrated land use modelling using GAMS (see course outline). 10 students have participated the course coming from several countries. Students finishing the course have received 3 ECTS points. The course was offered by BOKU and the Doctoral Certificate Program in Agricultural Economics (https://www.agraroekonomik.de/index.html ).
|
|
|
|
Schmitz, C., Kreidenweis, U., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Krause, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. (2014). Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg Environ Change, 15(8), 1757–1772.
Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.
|
|
|
|
Reidsma, P., Bakker, M. M., Kanellopoulos, A., Alam, S. J., Paas, W., Kros, J., et al. (2015). Sustainable agricultural development in a rural area in the Netherlands? Assessing impacts of climate and socio-economic change at farm and landscape level. Agricultural Systems, 141, 160–173.
Abstract: Changes in climate, technology, policy and prices affect agricultural and rural development. To evaluate whether this development is sustainable, impacts of these multiple drivers need to be assessed for multiple indicators. In a case study area in the Netherlands, a bio-economic farm model, an agent-based land-use change model, and a regional emission model have been used to simulate rural development under two plausible global change scenarios at both farm and landscape level. Results show that in this area, climate change will have mainly negative economic impacts (dairy gross margin, arable gross margin, economic efficiency, milk production) in the warmer and drier W+ scenario, while impacts are slightly positive in the G scenario with moderate climate change. Dairy farmers are worse off than arable farmers in both scenarios. Conversely, when the W+ scenario is embedded in the socio-economic Global Economy (GE) scenario, changes in technology, prices, and policy are projected to have a positive economic impact, more than offsetting the negative climate impacts. Important is, however, that environmental impacts (global warming, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication) are largely negative and social impacts (farm size, number of farms, nature area, odour) are mixed. In the G scenario combined with the socio-economic Regional Communities (RC) scenario the average dairy gross margin in particular is negatively affected. Social impacts are similarly mixed as in the GE scenario, while environmental impacts are less severe. Our results suggest that integrated assessments at farm and landscape level can be used to guide decision-makers in spatial planning policies and climate change adaptation. As there will always be trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental impacts stakeholders need to interact and decide upon most important directions for policies. This implies a choice between production and income on the one hand and social and environmental services on the other hand
|
|
