toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links
Author Ahammad, H.; Heyhoe, E.; Nelson, G.; Sands, R.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Blanc, E.; Havlik, P.; Valin, H.; Kyle, P.; d’Croz, D.M.; Meijl, H.V.; Schmitz, C.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Tabeau, A. openurl 
  Title The Role of International Trade under a Changing Climate: Insights from global economic modelling Type (up) Book Chapter
  Year 2015 Publication Abbreviated Journal  
  Volume Issue Pages 293-312  
  Keywords  
  Abstract  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Rome Editor Elbehri, A.  
  Language Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Climate Change and Food Systems Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5001  
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. doi  openurl
  Title Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison Type (up) 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. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type (up) 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 Valin, H.; Sands, R.D.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. and; Nelson, G.C.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Bodirsky; Benjamin; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; and Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Paltsev; Sergey; Rolinski, S.; Tabeau, A.; van Meijl, H. and; von Lampe, M.; Willenbockel, D. doi  openurl
  Title The future of food demand: Understanding differences in global economic models Type (up) Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.  
  Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 51-67  
  Keywords world food demand; socioeconomic pathways; climate change; computable general equilibrium; partial equilibrium; systems  
  Abstract Understanding the capacity of agricultural systems to feed the world population under climate change requires projecting future food demand. This article reviews demand modeling approaches from 10 global economic models participating in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). We compare food demand projections in 2050 for various regions and agricultural products under harmonized scenarios of socioeconomic development, climate change, and bioenergy expansion. In the reference scenario (SSP2), food demand increases by 59-98% between 2005 and 2050, slightly higher than the most recent FAO projection of 54% from 2005/2007. The range of results is large, in particular for animal calories (between 61% and 144%), caused by differences in demand systems specifications, and in income and price elasticities. The results are more sensitive to socioeconomic assumptions than to climate change or bioenergy scenarios. When considering a world with higher population and lower economic growth (SSP3), consumption per capita drops on average by 9\% for crops and 18% for livestock. The maximum effect of climate change on calorie availability is -6% at the global level, and the effect of biofuel production on calorie availability is even smaller.  
  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 TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4752  
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. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system Type (up) 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
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: