| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–25] |
|
Mitter, H., Heumesser, C., & Schmid, E. (2015). Spatial modeling of robust crop production portfolios to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Land Use Policy, 46, 75–90.
Abstract: Agricultural vulnerability to climate change is likely to vary considerably between agro-environmental regions. Exemplified on Austrian cropland, we aim at (i) quantifying climate change impacts on agricultural vulnerability which is approximated by the indicators crop yields and gross margins, (ii) developing robust crop production portfolios for adaptation, and (iii) analyzing the effect of agricultural policies and risk aversion on the choice of crop production portfolios. We have employed a spatially explicit, integrated framework to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation. It combines a statistical climate change model for Austria and the period 2010-2040, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC (Environmental Policy Integrated Climate), and a portfolio optimization model. We find that under climate change, crop production portfolios include higher shares of intensive crop management practices, increasing average crop yields by 2-15% and expected gross margins by 3-18%, respectively. The results depend on the choice of adaptation measures and on the level of risk aversion and vary by region. In the semi-arid eastern parts of Austria, average dry matter crop yields are lower but gross margins are higher than in western Austria due to bio-physical and agronomic heterogeneities. An abolishment of decoupled farm payments and a threefold increase in agri-environmental premiums would reduce nitrogen inputs by 23-33%, but also crop yields and gross margins by 18-37%, on average. From a policy perspective, a twofold increase in agri-environmental premiums could effectively reduce the trade-offs between crop production and environmental impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85.
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.
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85–101.
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.
|
|
Foyer, C. H., Siddique, K. H. M., Tai, A. P. K., Anders, S., Fodor, N., Wong, F. - L., et al. (2019). Modelling predicts that soybean is poised to dominate crop production across Africa. Plant Cell Environ., 42(1), 373–385.
Abstract: The superior agronomic and human nutritional properties of grain legumes (pulses) make them an ideal foundation for future sustainable agriculture. Legume-based farming is particularly important in Africa, where small-scale agricultural systems dominate the food production landscape. Legumes provide an inexpensive source of protein and nutrients to African households as well as natural fertilization for the soil. Although the consumption of traditionally grown legumes has started to decline, the production of soybeans (Glycine max Merr.) is spreading fast, especially across southern Africa. Predictions of future land-use allocation and production show that the soybean is poised to dominate future production across Africa. Land use models project an expansion of harvest area, whereas crop models project possible yield increases. Moreover, a seed change in farming strategy is underway. This is being driven largely by the combined cash crop value of products such as oils and the high nutritional benefits of soybean as an animal feed. Intensification of soybean production has the potential to reduce the dependence of Africa on soybean imports. However, a successful “soybean bonanza” across Africa necessitates an intensive research, development, extension, and policy agenda to ensure that soybean genetic improvements and production technology meet future demands for sustainable production.
|
|
Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., & Wiggering, H. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 82–87.
Abstract: The concept of ecosystem services as developed for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is currently the most extensive, international, scientific concept dealing with the interaction between the world’s ecosystems and human well-being. The fundamental asset is seen in the relevancy of the concept at the science–policy interface. Albeit, the mainstreaming of ecosystem services into policy making requires a framework that allows the transition of the scientific concept into the rationale of policy making. We hypothesize that the procedure of policy impact assessment is a suitable venue for this transition. This brings up two questions: 1) where in the process of policy impact assessment can ecosystem services be mainstreamed? 2) How can the impact on ecosystem services properly be accounted for? In this paper we distinguish two groups of policy cases: explicit cases directly addressing ecosystem services, and implicit cases of policies that follow other purposes but may have unintended impacts on ecosystem services as a side effect. The second group covers a wide range of policies for which we set out a framework for mainstreaming of ecosystem services. The framework is exemplary designed for the instrument of ex-ante impact assessment at European policy making level. We reveal that the two concepts of the MA and of the European policy impact assessment are indeed compatible, which makes the integration of the ecosystem service concept possible. We conclude that the linkage of the scientifically validated concept of ecosystem services with the policy concept of impact assessment has the potential of improving the credibility of the latter.
|