|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 287–303.
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches.
|
|
|
|
Podhora, A., Helming, K., Adenäuer, L., Heckelei, T., Kautto, P., Reidsma, P., et al. (2013). The policy-relevancy of impact assessment tools: Evaluating nine years of European research funding. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 85–95.
Abstract: Since 2002, the European Commission has employed the instrument of ex-ante impact assessments (IA) to help focus its policy-making process on implementing sustainable development. Scientific tools should play an essential role of providing the evidence base to assess the impacts of alternative policy options. To identify the contribution of research funding for IA tool development, this paper analysed the variety of IA tools designed in projects funded by European Framework Programmes (FPs) 6 and 7. The paper is based on project information available on the European Cordis website, individual project websites and a verification of the results by the project coordinators. We analysed the projects from the interests of IA practitioners as tool users (European policy and impact areas addressed by the tools, jurisdictional application levels and tool categories). Out of the 7.781 projects funded in FP6 and FP7, 203 could be identified that designed tools for the IA process. Nearly half of them applied to environmental, agricultural and transport policy areas. Within these areas, the tools primarily addressed environmental impact areas, less economic and least social impact areas. The IA tools focused on European policies. Models represented the largest tool category, whereas approximately half of the tools could not be clearly categorized. Concerning our analysis criteria, the tool descriptions available on the internet were often unclear and thus may limit the application potential of the tools because of a mismatch of technical terms and categorisation criteria between tool providers and tool users. Future IA tools require a joint political and scientific typology and a narrowing of the gaps, e.g., with view to multi-jurisdictional application and a clear reference to the steps of the IA process. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Ghaley, B. B., Vesterdal, L., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production systems for informed decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy, 39, 139–149.
Abstract: The empirical evidence of decline in ecosystem services (ES) over the last century has reinforced the call for ES quantification, monitoring and valuation. Usually, only provisioning ES are marketable and accounted for, whereas regulating, supporting and cultural ES are typically non-marketable and overlooked in connection with land-use or management decisions. The objective of this study was to quantify and value total ES (marketable and non-marketable) of diverse production systems and management intensities in Denmark to provide a basis for decisions based on economic values. The production systems were conventional wheat (Cwheat), a combined food and energy (CFE) production system and beech forest. Marketable (provisioning ES) and non-marketable ES (supporting, regulating and cultural) ES were quantified by dedicated on-site field measurements supplemented by literature data. The value of total ES was highest in CFE (US$ 3142 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha (1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2328 ha(-1) yr(-1)). As the production system shifted from Cwheat – CFE-beech, the marketable ES share decreased from 88% to 75% in CFE and 55% in beech whereas the non-marketable ES share increased to 12%, 25% and 45% of total ES in Cwheat, CFE and beech respectively, demonstrating production system and management effects on ES values. Total ES valuation, disintegrated into marketable and non-marketable share is a potential way forward to value ES and `tune’ our production systems for enhanced ES provision. Such monetary valuation can be used by policy makers and land managers as a tool to assess ES value and monitor the sustained flow of ES. The application of ES-based valuation for land management can enhance ES provision for maintaining the productive capacity of the land without depending on the external fossil-based fertilizer and chemical input. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Paas, W., Kanellopoulos, A., van de Ven, G., & Reidsma, P. (2016). Integrated impact assessment of climate and socio-economic change on dairy farms in a watershed in the Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, .
Abstract: Climate and socio-economic change will affect the land use and the economic viability of Dutch dairy farms. Explorations of future scenarios, which include different drivers and impacts, are needed to perform ex-ante policy assessment. This study uses a bio-economic farm model to assess impacts of climate and socio-economic change on dairy farms in a sandy area in the Netherlands. Farm data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network provided information on the current production levels and available farm resources. First, the farm plans of individual farms were optimized in the current situation to benchmark farms and assess the current scope for improvement. Secondly, simulations for two scenarios were included: a Global Economy with 2 °C global temperature rise (GE/W+) and a Regional Community with 1 °C global temperature rise (RC/G). The impacts of climate change, extreme events, juridical change (including abolishment of milk quota), technological change and price changes were evaluated in separate model runs within the predefined scenarios. We found that farms can increase profit both by intensification and land expansion; the latter especially for medium sized farms (less than 70 cows). Climate change including the effect of increased occurrence of extreme events may negatively affect farm gross margin in the GE/W+ scenario. Lower gross margins are compensated for by the effects of technology and price changes. In contrast with the GE/W+ scenario, climate change has positive impacts on farm profit in RC/G, but less favourable farm input-output price ratios have a negative effect. Technological change is needed to compensate for revenue losses due to higher input prices. In both GE/W+ and RC/G scenarios, dairy farms increase production and the use of artificial fertilizer. Medium sized farms have more options to increase profit than the large farms: they benefit more from the abolishment of the milk quota and better adapt to negative and positive impacts of climate change. While the exact impact of different drivers will always remain uncertain, this study showed that changes in prices, technology and markets have a relatively larger impact than climate change, even when extreme events are taken into account. By using whole farm plans as activities that can be selected, the model is grounded in observations, and it was shown that half of the farms are gross margin maximizers as assumed in the model. The model therefore indicates ‘what could happen if’, and gives insights in drivers and impacts of dairy farming in the region.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
