|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Mandryk, M.; Reidsma, P.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Groot, J.C.J.; van Ittersum, M.K.
Title The role of farmers’ objectives in current farm practices and adaptation preferences: a case study in Flevoland, the Netherlands Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Regional Environmental Change Abbreviated Journal Reg Environ Change
Volume 14 Issue 4 Pages 1463-1478
Keywords multi-criteria decision-making; multi-objective optimization; agriculture; arable farm; vegetable farms; climate-change; south uruguay; land-use; design; agriculture; model; management; options; systems
Abstract The diversity in farmers’ objectives and responses to external drivers is usually not considered in integrated assessment studies that investigate impacts and adaptation to climate and socio-economic change. Here, we present an approach to assess how farmers’ stated objectives relate to their currently implemented practices and to preferred adaptation options, and we discuss what this implies for assessments of future changes. We based our approach on a combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods. We consistently assessed the importance of farmers’ objectives and adaptation preferences from what farmers say (based on interviews), from what farmers actually do (by analysing current farm performance) and from what farmers want (through a selected alternative farm plan). Our study was performed for six arable farms in Flevoland, a province in the Netherlands. Based on interviews with farmers, we reduced the long list of possible objectives to the most important ones. The objectives we assessed included maximization of economic result and soil organic matter, and minimization of gross margin variance, working hours and nitrogen balance. In our sample, farmers’ stated preferences in objectives were often not fully reflected in realized farming practices. Adaptation preferences of farmers largely resembled their current performance, but generally involved a trend towards stated preferences. Our results suggest that in Flevoland, although farmers do have more objectives, in practical decision-making they focus on economic result maximization, while for strategic decision-making they account for objectives influencing long-term performance and indicators associated with sustainability, in this case soil organic matter.
Address 2016-10-31
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1436-3798 1436-378x ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4794
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Kyle, P.; Fujimori, S.; Havlik, P.; van Meijl, H.; Hasegawa, T.; Popp, A.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.; Wise, M.
Title Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 103-116
Keywords energy demand; agricultural markets; general equilibrium modeling; partial equilibrium modeling; model comparison; greenhouse-gas emissions; land-use; energy; productivity; scenarios; policies; capture; storage; system
Abstract Integrated Assessment studies have shown that meeting ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation targets will require substantial amounts of bioenergy as part of the future energy mix. In the course of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), five global agro-economic models were used to analyze a future scenario with global demand for ligno-cellulosic bioenergy rising to about 100 ExaJoule in 2050. From this exercise a tentative conclusion can be drawn that ambitious climate change mitigation need not drive up global food prices much, if the extra land required for bioenergy production is accessible or if the feedstock, for example, from forests, does not directly compete for agricultural land. Agricultural price effects across models by the year 2050 from high bioenergy demand in an ambitious mitigation scenario appear to be much smaller (+5% average across models) than from direct climate impacts on crop yields in a high-emission scenario (+25% average across models). However, potential future scarcities of water and nutrients, policy-induced restrictions on agricultural land expansion, as well as potential welfare losses have not been specifically looked at in this exercise.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4532
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.
Title Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 85-101
Keywords climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5
Abstract Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4536
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Robinson, S.; van Meijl, H.; Willenbockel, D.; Valin, H.; Fujimori, S.; Masui, T.; Sands, R.; Wise, M.; Calvin, K.; Havlik, P.; Mason d’Croz, D.; Tabeau, A.; Kavallari, A.; Schmitz, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; von Lampe, M.
Title Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 21-35
Keywords global agricultural models; global food system scenario analysis; general equilibrium; partial equilibrium; growth; trade
Abstract This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4735
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Kyle, P.; Müller, C.; Calvin, K.; Thomson, A.
Title Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Earth’s Future Abbreviated Journal Earth’s Future
Volume 2 Issue Pages 83-98
Keywords integrated assessment; climate impacts; emissions mitigation; representative concentration pathway; land-use; carbon; stabilization; cmip5
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.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 2328-4277 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4531
Permanent link to this record