| Records |
| Author |
Schmitz, C.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Gerten, D.; Dietrich, J.P.; Bodirsky, B.; Biewald, A.; Popp, A. |
| Title |
Blue water scarcity and the economic impacts of future agricultural trade and demand |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Water Resource Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Water Resource Research |
Volume  |
49 |
Issue |
6 |
Pages |
3601-3617 |
| Keywords |
water scarcity; land use model; irrigation efficiency; trade liberalization; livestock consumption; modeling; land cover change; water budgets |
| Abstract |
An increasing demand for agricultural goods affects the pressure on global water resources over the coming decades. In order to quantify these effects, we have developed a new agroeconomic water scarcity indicator, considering explicitly economic processes in the agricultural system. The indicator is based on the water shadow price generated by an economic land use model linked to a global vegetation-hydrology model. Irrigation efficiency is implemented as a dynamic input depending on the level of economic development. We are able to simulate the heterogeneous distribution of water supply and agricultural water demand for irrigation through the spatially explicit representation of agricultural production. This allows in identifying regional hot spots of blue water scarcity and explicit shadow prices for water. We generate scenarios based on moderate policies regarding future trade liberalization and the control of livestock-based consumption, dependent on different population and gross domestic product (GDP) projections. Results indicate increased water scarcity in the future, especially in South Asia, the Middle East, and north Africa. In general, water shadow prices decrease with increasing liberalization, foremost in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Policies to reduce livestock consumption in developed countries not only lower the domestic pressure on water but also alleviate water scarcity to a large extent in developing countries. It is shown that one of the two policy options would be insufficient for most regions to retain water scarcity in 2045 on levels comparable to 2005. |
| 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 |
0043-1397 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4502 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
von Lampe, M.; Willenbockel, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Cai, Y.; Calvin, K.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; Nelson, G.C.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Valin, H.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; van Meijl, H. |
| Title |
Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Agricultural Economics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Econ. |
| Volume |
45 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
3-3 |
| Keywords |
Computable general equilibrium; Partial equilibrium; Meta-analysis; Socioeconomic pathway; Climate change; Bioenergy; Land use; Model; intercomparison; land-use change; food demand; crop productivity; climate-change; future |
| Abstract |
Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales. |
| 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 |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4822 |
| 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 |
85-85 |
| 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 |
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 |
0169-5150 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4796 |
| 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 |
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 |
