<reponame>michielvandijk/magnet-model.org<gh_stars>0
Automatically generated by Mendeley Desktop 1.19.4
Any changes to this file will be lost if it is regenerated by Mendeley.

BibTeX export options can be customized via Options -> BibTeX in Mendeley Desktop

@article{Kuiper2019,
abstract = {Improved skills and rural-urban location of labor are generally implicit or ignored in food security projections. We analyze alternative labor supply assumptions for four contrasting scenarios. Changing skill levels and urbanization reverses a decrease in food prices and improves instead of worsens within country income inequality. It however slows the decrease in number of people with less than 2500 calories a day available, and increases the environmental impact of agriculture. With urbanization, observed net income benefits of higher food prices for the poor may no longer hold in the future. Explicitly addressing demographic change is thus key in projections guiding policymakers to address the unequal impacts of food security, combat climate change and promote sustainable food production.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME> <NAME> Oudendag, <NAME>},
doi = {10.1016/J.GFS.2019.100328},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Kuiper et al. - 2019 - Labor supply assumptions - A missing link in food security projections.pdf:pdf},
issn = {2211-9124},
journal = {Global Food Security},
month = {oct},
pages = {100328},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Labor supply assumptions - A missing link in food security projections}},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418301305},
year = {2019}
}
@techreport{Woltjer2014,
abstract = {the potential of nature to improve the quality of life'. Within Wageningen UR, nine specialised research institutes of the DLO Foundation have joined forces with Wageningen University to help answer the most important questions in the domain of healthy food and living environment. With approximately 30 locations, 6,000 members of staff and 9,000 students, Wageningen UR is one of the leading organisations in its domain worldwide. The integral approach to problems and the cooperation between the various disciplines are at the heart of the unique Wageningen Approach.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME> {<NAME>}, <NAME>},
title = {{The MAGNET Model Module description}},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Valin2014,
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.},
annote = {From Duplicate 1 (The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models - Valin, Hugo; <NAME>.; <NAME>, Dominique; Nelson, <NAME>.; <NAME>; <NAME>; Bodirsky, Benjamin; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Havlik, Petr; Heyhoe, Edwina; Kyle, Page; Mason-D'Croz, Daniel; Paltsev, Sergey; Rolinski, Susanne; Tabeau, Andrzej; <NAME>, Hans; <NAME>, Martin; Willenbockel, Dirk)

NULL},
author = {<NAME> and Sands, <NAME>. and D, <NAME> and Nelson, <NAME>. and <NAME> and <NAME> and Bodirsky, Benjamin and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and Mason-D'Croz, D and Paltsev, Sergey and Rolinskih, S and Tabeau, Andrzej and H, <NAME> and M, <NAME> and Willenbockel, Dirk and <NAME>, Dominique and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Kyle, Page and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Rolinski, Susanne and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME>, Martin},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12089},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Valin et al. - 2014 - The future of food demand understanding differences in global economic models.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1574-0862},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {climate change,computable general equilibrium,eppi-reviewer4,partial equilibrium,socioeconomic pathways,world food demand},
month = {jan},
number = {1},
pages = {51--67},
title = {{The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models}},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12089/abstract{\%}5Cnhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/agec.12089/asset/agec12089.pdf?v=1{\&}t=hqnserlp{\&}s=5bbc7c42fe0b15bb917fd25cdddba2dd75ffb702 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/agec.12089},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@article{VanZeist2020,
author = {<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> Doelman, <NAME>. and Valin, Hugo and Calvin, Katherine and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Havlik, Petr and Humpen{\"{o}}der, Florian and Kyle, Page and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and <NAME>, Hans and Popp, Alexander and Sulser, <NAME>. and Tabeau, Andrzej and Verhagen, Willem and Wiebe, Keith},
doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102120},
issn = {09593780},
journal = {Global Environmental Change},
month = {sep},
pages = {102120},
publisher = {Pergamon},
title = {{Are scenario projections overly optimistic about future yield progress?}},
url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378020307032},
volume = {64},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Hasegawa2018a,
abstract = {Food insecurity can be directly exacerbated by climate change due to crop-production-related impacts of warmer and drier conditions that are expected in important agricultural regions1–3. However, efforts to mitigate climate change through comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions reductions may also negatively affect food security, due to indirect impacts on prices and supplies of key agricultural commodities4–6. Here we conduct a multiple model assessment on the combined effects of climate change and climate mitigation efforts on agricultural commodity prices, dietary energy availability and the population at risk of hunger. A robust finding is that by 2050, stringent climate mitigation policy, if implemented evenly across all sectors and regions, would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change. The negative impacts would be most prevalent in vulnerable, low-income regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where food security problems are already acute.},
author = {Hasegawa, Tomoko and <NAME> and Havl{\'{i}}k, Petr and Valin, <NAME>, <NAME> and Doelman, <NAME>. and Fellmann, Thomas and Kyle, Page and Koopman, <NAME>. and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Ochi, Yuki and {P{\'{e}}<NAME>{\'{i}}nguez}, Ignacio and Stehfest, Elke and Sulser, <NAME>. and Tabeau, Andrzej and Takahashi, Kiyoshi and <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>},
doi = {10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Hasegawa et al. - 2018 - Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1758-678X},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
keywords = {Climate,Socioeconomic scenarios,change impacts,change mitigation,change policy},
month = {aug},
number = {8},
pages = {699--703},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy}},
volume = {8},
year = {2018}
}
@techreport{H2018,
abstract = {The future impact of climate change on agricultural production is highly uncertain and is mostly analysed by prospective modelling exercises, with widely varying results due to differences in methods, scenarios and input data. Systematic model inter-comparison exercises have examined and narrowed these discrepancies by using alternative emission pathways. This paper extends that analysis by presenting a set of alternative scenarios by different climate and agro-economic models, harmonized with respect to basic model drivers, to assess the range of potential impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector by 2050. Moreover, it quantifies the economic consequences of stringent global emission mitigation efforts to stabilize global warming at 2°C by the end of the century under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). A key contribution is a vis-{\`{a}}-vis comparison of climate change impacts relative to the impact of mitigation measures. In addition, while most of the assessments until now considered climate change impacts and climate change mitigation policies separately, our scenario design allows to assess the impact of the residual climate change on the mitigation challenge. From a global perspective the impact of climate change on agricultural production by mid-century is negative but small. A larger negative effect on agricultural production, most pronounced for ruminant meat production, is observed when emission mitigation measures compliant with a 2°C target are put in place. Our results indicate that a mitigation strategy that embeds residual climate change effects (RCP2.6) has a negative impact on global agricultural production relative to a no-mitigation strategy with stronger climate impacts (RCP6.0). However, this is partially debited to the limited impact of the climate change scenarios by 2050. The magnitude of price changes is different amongst models due to methodological differences. Sound analysis requires endogenous food demand with thoroughly calibrated substitution across individual commodities and feed, and endogenous technological change.},
author = {<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, P{\'{e}}<NAME>{\'{i}}<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>{\"{u}}ller, C and Popp, A and Tabeau, A and <NAME>},
keywords = {eppi-reviewer4},
title = {{Challenges of global agriculture in the climate change context by 2050}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Nelson2014b,
abstract = {Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17{\%} reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11{\%}, increase area of major crops by 11{\%}, and reduce consumption by 3{\%}. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.},
author = {<NAME> and <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Heyhoe, Edwina and <NAME> and {<NAME>}, Martin and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and <NAME>, Daniel and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME>, Dominique and M{\"{u}}ller, Christoph and Popp, Alexander and Robertson, Richard and Robinson, Sherman and Schmid, Erwin and Schmitz, Christoph and Tabeau, Andrzej and Willenbockel, Dirk},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.1222465110},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Nelson et al. - 2014 - Climate change effects on agriculture economic responses to biophysical shocks.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1091-6490},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
keywords = {agricultural productivity,climate change adaptation,integrated assessment,model intercomparison},
month = {mar},
number = {9},
pages = {3274--9},
pmid = {24344285},
publisher = {National Academy of Sciences},
title = {{Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks.}},
url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344285 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC3948295},
volume = {111},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Frank2019,
abstract = {Agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions represent around 10-12{\%} of total anthropogenic GHG emissions and have a key role to play in achieving a 1.5 °C (above pre-industrial) climate stabilization target. Using a multi-model assessment approach, we quantify the potential contribution of agriculture to the 1.5 °C target and decompose the mitigation potential by emission source, region and mitigation mechanism. The results show that the livestock sector will be vital to achieve emission reductions consistent with the 1.5 °C target mainly through emission-reducing technologies or structural changes. Agriculture may contribute emission reductions of 0.8–1.4 Gt of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) yr−1 at just US{\$}20 per tCO2e in 2050. Combined with dietary changes, emission reductions can be increased to 1.7–1.8 GtCO2e yr−1. At carbon prices compatible with the 1.5 °C target, agriculture could even provide average emission savings of 3.9 GtCO2e yr−1 in 2050, which represents around 8{\%} of current GHG emissions.},
author = {<NAME>{\'{i}}k, Petr and Stehfest, <NAME>, <NAME>, Peter and P{\'{e}}rez-Dom{\'{i}}nguez, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>. and Fellmann, Thomas and Koopman, <NAME>. and Tabeau, Andrzej and <NAME>},
doi = {10.1038/s41558-018-0358-8},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Frank et al. - 2019 - Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 C target.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1758-678X},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
keywords = {Agriculture,Climate,change mitigation},
month = {jan},
number = {1},
pages = {66--72},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 C target}},
url = {http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0358-8},
volume = {9},
year = {2019}
}
@article{VanMeijl2020a,
abstract = {Global economic models have been increasingly used to project food and agricultural developments for long term-time horizons, but food security aspects have often been limited to food availability projections. In this paper, we propose a broader framework to explore the future of food and nutrition security with a focus on food availability, food access, and a reasonable proxy for food utilisation. This framework is applied to a new set of stakeholder-designed scenarios of alternative future worlds that were developed for the FOODSECURE project and are structured around the two dimensions of inequality and sustainability. The framework is tested with two global models, MAGNET-IMAGE and GLOBIOM, and illustrated through an assessment of the possible trade-offs between food and nutrition security and sustainability in each of the worlds. Our results indicate that more equal worlds improve food security over a wider range of food security indicators and neglecting the sustainability dimension might revert food security gains over time. This paper concludes that there is a need for model-based scenario analysis to assess the complex and multi-dimensional characteristics of global food security.},
author = {<NAME>, <NAME> <NAME> <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME> <NAME>},
doi = {10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100358},
issn = {22119124},
journal = {Global Food Security},
month = {jun},
pages = {100358},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Modelling alternative futures of global food security: Insights from FOODSECURE}},
url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2211912420300110},
volume = {25},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Valin2014,
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.},
annote = {NULL},
author = {<NAME> Sands, <NAME>. and <NAME>, <NAME> Nelson, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> Mason-D'Croz, <NAME>, <NAME>, Susanne and Tabeau, Andrzej and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME>, Martin and Willenbockel, Dirk},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12089},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Valin et al. - 2014 - The future of food demand understanding differences in global economic models.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1574-0862},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {climate change,computable general equilibrium,partial equilibrium,socioeconomic pathways,world food demand},
month = {jan},
number = {1},
pages = {51--67},
title = {{The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models}},
url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12089/abstract{\%}5Cnhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/agec.12089/asset/agec12089.pdf?v=1{\&}t=hqnserlp{\&}s=5bbc7c42fe0b15bb917fd25cdddba2dd75ffb702 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/agec.12089},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Stehfest2019,
abstract = {Land use is at the core of various sustainable development goals. Long-term climate foresight studies have structured their recent analyses around five socio-economic pathways (SSPs), with consistent storylines of future macroeconomic and societal developments; however, model quantification of these scenarios shows substantial heterogeneity in land-use projections. Here we build on a recently developed sensitivity approach to identify how future land use depends on six distinct socio-economic drivers (population, wealth, consumption preferences, agricultural productivity, land-use regulation, and trade) and their interactions. Spread across models arises mostly from diverging sensitivities to long-term drivers and from various representations of land-use regulation and trade, calling for reconciliation efforts and more empirical research. Most influential determinants for future cropland and pasture extent are population and agricultural efficiency. Furthermore, land-use regulation and consumption changes can play a key role in reducing both land use and food-security risks, and need to be central elements in sustainable development strategies.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>, Hugo and Havlik, Petr and Popp, Alexander and <NAME> and Tabeau, Andrzej and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Bodirsky, <NAME>. and Calvin, Katherine and Doelman, <NAME>. and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Humpen{\"{o}}der, Florian and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME>},
doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-09945-w},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Stehfest et al. - 2019 - Key determinants of global land-use projections.pdf:pdf},
issn = {20411723},
journal = {Nature Communications},
month = {dec},
number = {1},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{Key determinants of global land-use projections}},
volume = {10},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Robinson2014,
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 scope—partial versus economy-wide—and 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 specification—comparability 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.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> Willenbockel, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, Martin},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12087},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Robinson et al. - 2014 - Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0169-5150, 0169-5150},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {General equilibrium,Global agricultural models,Global food system scenario analysis,Partial equilibrium},
number = {1},
pages = {21--35},
title = {{Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system}},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@book{Kristkova2017,
abstract = {Copyright {\textcopyright} 2017 by Emerald Publishing Limited. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the impact of public agricultural Research and Development (R {\&} D) investments on agricultural productivity and long-term food security to derive policy recommendations. The methodological approach is based on the application of the state-of-the art Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model to R {\&} D. By endogenizing R {\&} D in global CGE models, it is possible to assess the impact of different public R {\&} D policies on the food availability and food access of food security. This study found that R {\&} D investments bring positive effects on the food access dimension of food security, particularly in places such as Sub-Saharan Africa where prices are expected to grow significantly by 2050, as agricultural land becomes scarcer and more expensive. Doubling the R {\&} D intensity would soften the land constraints and substantially decelerate food prices, thus preventing the deterioration of living standards of rural households and leading to a gain in daily caloric consumption. The impact of alternative agricultural R {\&} D policies on the various dimensions of food security has not been analyzed using a CGE framework, which enables capturing both the benefits and costs from R {\&} D investments. Modeling the dynamic accumulation of R {\&} D stocks makes it possible to analyze the effects of R {\&} D on food security over time.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, Hans},
booktitle = {Frontiers of Economics and Globalization},
doi = {10.1108/S1574-871520170000017001},
issn = {15748715},
title = {{Assessing the impact of agricultural R{\&}D investments on long-term projections of food security}},
volume = {17},
year = {2017}
}
@article{Nelson2014a,
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},
author = {<NAME>. and <NAME>, Dominique and Ahammad, Helal and Blanc, Elodie and Calvin, Katherine and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Havlik, Petr and Heyhoe, Edwina and Kyle, Page and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and <NAME>, Martin and <NAME>, Daniel and <NAME>, Hans and M{\"{u}}ller, Christoph and Reilly, John and Robertson, Richard and Sands, <NAME>. and Schmitz, Christoph and Tabeau, Andrzej and Takahashi, Kiyoshi and Valin, Hugo and Willenbockel, Dirk},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12091},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Nelson et al. - 2014 - Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios Why don't the models agree.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1574-0862},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom)},
keywords = {Climate change impacts,Economic models of agriculture,Scenarios},
number = {1},
pages = {85--101},
pmid = {329917000007},
title = {{Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: Why don't the models agree}},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@article{VanMeijl2006,
abstract = {The impact of globalization on trade, production and land use was key to the Doha development round. Although many studies have shown the positive influence of liberalization on trade and production, the environmental questions remain unanswered in most studies. Here we present a combination of an economic (Global Trade Analysis Project, GTAP) and a biophysical (IMAGE) model. The methodology is innovative as it combines state of the art knowledge from both the economic and biophysical worlds. First, the treatment of agriculture and land use is improved in the economic model. For example, information from the OECD Policy Evaluation Model (PEM) was incorporated to improve the agricultural production structure and a new land allocation methodology was introduced using regional land supply curves to facilitate the conversion of idle land to productive land while giving consideration to the level of intensification. Secondly, the adapted economic model is linked to the biophysical modeling framework IMAGE allowing feedbacks of detailed heterogeneous information on land productivity to the economic framework. While often a rather pessimistic picture is portrayed for future developments of the agricultural sector in the EU (especially in liberalizing scenarios), our results show that no drastic decrease in land for agricultural purposes is expected for the EU25 the coming 30 years, since the global food market will experience an increase in demand because of expected growth in GDP and population in many developing countries. Moreover, the negative impact of liberalization of agricultural policies on European agricultural land use is small because on the one hand loss in EU's competitiveness leads partly to extensification instead of land abandonment, and secondly, the recent agricultural reforms of the EU changed the protection from market to income support which has less production effects. Changes in land use will be more outspoken in developing countries like Africa. ?? 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
author = {<NAME> {<NAME>}, <NAME> <NAME>.},
doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006},
isbn = {0167-8809},
issn = {01678809},
journal = {Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment},
keywords = {Global Economy Model,Integrated Assessment Model,Land use,Long-term scenarios,Trade liberalization},
number = {1},
pages = {21--38},
pmid = {2247},
title = {{The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe}},
volume = {114},
year = {2006}
}
@article{Fujimori2019,
abstract = {Holding the global increase in temperature caused by climate change well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, the goal affirmed by the Paris Agreement, is a major societal challenge. Meanwhile, food security is a high-priority area in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which could potentially be adversely affected by stringent climate mitigation. Here we show the potential negative trade-offs between food security and climate mitigation using a multi-model comparison exercise. We find that carelessly designed climate mitigation policies could increase the number of people at risk of hunger by 160 million in 2050. Avoiding these adverse side effects would entail a cost of about 0.18{\%} of global gross domestic product in 2050. It should be noted that direct impacts of climate change on yields were not assessed and that the direct benefits from mitigation in terms of avoided yield losses could be substantial, further reducing the above cost. Although results vary across models and model implementations, the qualitative implications are robust and call for careful design of climate mitigation policies taking into account agriculture and land prices.},
author = {<NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME> and <NAME>{\'{e}}s, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, Oliver and Havlik, Petr and Humpen{\"{o}}der, <NAME>, <NAME>. and <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>.},
doi = {10.1038/s41893-019-0286-2},
issn = {2398-9629},
journal = {Nature Sustainability},
keywords = {Climate,Socioeconomic scenarios,Sustainability,change mitigation,change policy},
month = {may},
number = {5},
pages = {386--396},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation}},
url = {http://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0286-2},
volume = {2},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Hasegawa2018,
abstract = {Food insecurity can be directly exacerbated by climate change due to crop-production-related impacts of warmer and drier conditions that are expected in important agricultural regions1–3. However, efforts to mitigate climate change through comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions reductions may also negatively affect food security, due to indirect impacts on prices and supplies of key agricultural commodities4–6. Here we conduct a multiple model assessment on the combined effects of climate change and climate mitigation efforts on agricultural commodity prices, dietary energy availability and the population at risk of hunger. A robust finding is that by 2050, stringent climate mitigation policy, if implemented evenly across all sectors and regions, would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change. The negative impacts would be most prevalent in vulnerable, low-income regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where food security problems are already acute.},
author = {Hasegawa, Tomoko and <NAME> Havlik, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>. and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Ochi, Yuki and {P{\'{e}}<NAME>{\'{i}}nguez}, Ignacio and Stehfest, Elke and Sulser, <NAME>. and Tabeau, Andrzej and Takahashi, Kiyoshi and Takakura, Jun'ya and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME>, Willem-Jan and Wiebe, Keith and Witzke, Peter},
doi = {10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Hasegawa et al. - 2018 - Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1758-678X},
journal = {Nature Climate Change},
keywords = {Climate,Socioeconomic scenarios,change impacts,change mitigation,change policy},
month = {aug},
number = {8},
pages = {699--703},
publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},
title = {{Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy}},
url = {http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0230-x},
volume = {8},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Banse2011,
abstract = {The European Union aims to increase the share of renewable energy in its total energy consumption to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the economy more CO2 neutral. This policy is further motivated by a desire to reduce dependency on fossil fuel imports and to stimulate rural development and the agricultural sector. ?? 2010 Elsevier Ltd.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> Woltjer, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>.},
doi = {10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.09.001},
isbn = {0961-9534},
issn = {09619534},
journal = {Biomass and Bioenergy},
keywords = {Biofuels,CLUE-s model,EU renewable energy directive,Global trade analysis project,LEITAP model},
number = {6},
pages = {2385--2390},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{Impact of EU biofuel policies on world agricultural production and land use}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.09.001},
volume = {35},
year = {2011}
}
@article{Banse2008,
abstract = {This article assesses the implications of the EU Biofuels Directive (BFD) using a computable general equilibrium framework with endogenous land supply. The results show that, without policy intervention to stimulate the use of biofuel crops, the targets of the BFD will not be met. With the BFD, the enhanced demand for biofuel crops has a strong impact on agriculture globally and within Europe, leading to an increase in land use. On the other hand, the long-term declining trend in real agricultural prices may slow down or even reverse.},
author = {<NAME> and {<NAME>}, <NAME> and <NAME>},
doi = {10.1093/erae/jbn023},
isbn = {0165-1587},
issn = {01651587},
journal = {European Review of Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {Agricultural markets,Biofuels,Computable general equilibrium modelling,EU biofuels directive,Endogenous land supply},
number = {2},
pages = {117--141},
pmid = {7754995},
title = {{Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets?}},
volume = {35},
year = {2008}
}
@techreport{VanMeijl2008,
abstract = {Climate change developments urge for a growing interest in long run food and nutrition security aspects. Food and nutrition security is a complicated issue, and understanding its future needs insights in (i) food availability, (ii) food access (food purchasing power), food utilisation (nutrition), and (iv) food stability. Food and nutrition developments are complex and highly region-specific as currently the number of undernourished people remains high or even increases in some regions, despite high GDP per capita growth. The internationally agreed shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) are quantified using a computable general equilibrium model (MAGNET) coupled with an integrated assessment model (IMAGE). A unique feature of this paper is that it focusses on all four dimensions of food security in addition to the risk of hunger. Food availability improves in general, although it decreases in South Asia in SSP3. The number of undernourished people decreases in most scenarios, becoming more and more concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. However, undernourishment stays high in SSP4 (550 million people) and increases to over two billion people in SSP3. Food access generally improves. However, due to lock-in effects the wages of unskilled workers (especially in agriculture) might decline leading to reduced food access in SSP3, SSP4 and SSP2. The indicators of food utilisation and food stability show food security problems for Sub-Saharan Africa in SSP3 and SSP4. The overall food security picture based on the four dimensions of food security is a less optimistic one which differs from previous studies that study food availability and risk of hunger and find an improvement of food security in almost all scenario's. Our results indicate that food security problems remain and that effective policies are needed to achieve food security for all.},
author = {<NAME>, <NAME> Tabeau, <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>},
keywords = {eppi-reviewer4},
title = {{How Food Secure are the Green, Rocky and Middle Roads: food Security Effects in different world development paths}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Schmitz2014,
author = {Schmitz, Christoph and <NAME>, Hans and <NAME> and Nelson, <NAME>. and <NAME> and <NAME> and Havlik, Petr and Heyhoe, Edwina and D'Croz, <NAME> and Popp, Alexander and Sands, Ron and Tabeau, Andrzej and <NAME>, Dominique and <NAME>, <NAME>, Marshall and Blanc, Elodie and Hasegawa, <NAME> Kavallari, <NAME> <NAME>},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12090},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Schmitz et al. - 2014 - Land-use change trajectories up to 2050 insights from a global agro-economic model comparison.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {C61,C68,Land expansion,Land‐use change,Land‐use models,Model intercomparison,Q11,Q54},
month = {jan},
number = {1},
pages = {69--84},
publisher = {Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111)},
title = {{Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison}},
url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/agec.12090},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@article{VanMeijl2020,
author = {<NAME>, <NAME> Shutes, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> Kuiper, Marijke and Tabeau, Andrzej and <NAME>, Willem-Jan and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Havl{\'{i}}k, Petr},
journal = {Global Food Security},
title = {{Exploring future food security with global land models: The FOODSECURE scenarios}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{VonLampe2014,
author = {<NAME>, <NAME> Willenbockel, <NAME> Ahammad, <NAME> Blanc, <NAME> Calvin, <NAME> <NAME>, Tomoko and Havlik, Petr and Heyhoe, Edwina and Kyle, Page and Lotze-Campen, Hermann and <NAME>, Daniel and Nelson, <NAME>. and Sands, <NAME>. and Schmitz, Christoph and Tabeau, Andrzej and <NAME> and <NAME>, Dominique and <NAME>, Hans},
doi = {10.1111/agec.12086},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/von Lampe et al. - 2014 - Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Interc.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01695150},
journal = {Agricultural Economics},
keywords = {Bioenergy,C63,C68,Climate change,Computable general equilibrium,Land use,Meta‐analysis,Model intercomparison,Partial equilibrium,Q11,Q16,Q24,Q42,Q54,Socioeconomic pathway},
month = {jan},
number = {1},
pages = {3--20},
title = {{Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison}},
url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/agec.12086},
volume = {45},
year = {2014}
}
@article{SmeetsKristkova2017c,
abstract = {{\textcopyright} 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor {\&} Francis Group. The aim of the paper is to quantify endogenous factor-augmenting technical change driven by R {\&} D investments in a panel of 11 OECD countries over 1987–2007. This paper contributes to the scant empirical evidence on the speed, sources and direction of technical change for various sectors and production factors. Assuming cost-minimization behavior, a CES framework is used to derive a system of equations that is estimated by a GMM system estimator. The estimated factor-augmenting technology parameters show that in most sectors, technical change was labor-augmenting and labor-saving. Statistically significant effects of manufacturing and services R {\&} D were found on factor-augmenting technical change (with the highest R {\&} D elasticities found in the high-tech manufacturing and transport, storage and communication sectors). Whereas ‘in-house' R {\&} D stimulates total factor productivity, R {\&} D spilled over to other sectors has a capital-augmenting effect accompanied by a higher use of labor. The results of this study provide a starting point for incorporating endogenous factor-augmenting technical change in impact assessment models aimed at broad policy analysis including economic growth, food security or climate change.},
author = {{<NAME>}, <NAME> <NAME>. and <NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, Hans},
doi = {10.1080/09535314.2017.1316707},
issn = {14695758},
journal = {Economic Systems Research},
keywords = {CES function,D,Factor-augmenting technical change,GMM regression,R{\&}amp},
number = {3},
title = {{The impact of R{\&}D on factor-augmenting technical change–an empirical assessment at the sector level*}},
volume = {29},
year = {2017}
}
@article{VanMeijl2018,
author = {<NAME>, <NAME> Havlik, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>{\'{i}}nguez, <NAME>{\'{e}}<NAME> Bodirsky, <NAME>, <NAME> Doelman, <NAME> Fellmann, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> and M{\"{u}}ller, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>},
doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aabdc4},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/van Meijl et al. - 2018 - Comparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050.pdf:pdf},
issn = {1748-9326},
journal = {Environ. Res. Lett},
pages = {1--23},
title = {{Comparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050}},
year = {2018}
}
@article{VanMeijl2018a,
abstract = {Systematic model inter-comparison helps to narrow discrepancies in the analysis of the future impact of climate change on agricultural production. This paper presents a set of alternative scenarios by five global climate and agro-economic models. Covering integrated assessment (IMAGE), partial equilibrium (CAPRI, GLOBIOM, MAgPIE) and computable general equilibrium (MAGNET) models ensures a good coverage of biophysical and economic agricultural features. These models are harmonized with respect to basic model drivers, to assess the range of potential impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector by 2050. Moreover, they quantify the economic consequences of stringent global emission mitigation efforts, such as non-CO2 emission taxes and land-based mitigation options, to stabilize global warming at 2 °C by the end of the century under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. A key contribution of the paper is a vis-{\`{a}}-vis comparison of climate change impacts relative to the impact of mitigation measures. In addition, our scenario design allows assessing the impact of the residual climate change on the mitigation challenge. From a global perspective, the impact of climate change on agricultural production by mid-century is negative but small. A larger negative effect on agricultural production, most pronounced for ruminant meat production, is observed when emission mitigation measures compliant with a 2 °C target are put in place. Our results indicate that a mitigation strategy that embeds residual climate change effects (RCP2.6) has a negative impact on global agricultural production relative to a no-mitigation strategy with stronger climate impacts (RCP6.0). However, this is partially due to the limited impact of the climate change scenarios by 2050. The magnitude of price changes is different amongst models due to methodological differences. Further research to achieve a better harmonization is needed, especially regarding endogenous food and feed demand, including substitution across individual commodities, and endogenous technological change.},
author = {<NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME> Lotze-Campen, <NAME>, <NAME> Witzke, <NAME>{\'{i}}nguez, <NAME>{\'{e}}<NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME> Doelman, <NAME>, <NAME>{\"{o}}der, <NAME>, <NAME> and M{\"{u}}ller, Christoph and Popp, Alexander and Tabeau, Andrzej and Valin, <NAME>, Willem-Jan},
doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aabdc4},
issn = {1748-9326},
journal = {Environmental Research Letters},
month = {jun},
number = {6},
pages = {064021},
publisher = {IOP Publishing},
title = {{Comparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050}},
volume = {13},
year = {2018}
}
@article{Doelman2019,
abstract = {Climate change mitigation is crucial to limit detrimental impacts of climate change on food production. However, cost-optimal mitigation pathways consistent with the Paris agreement project large-scale land-based mitigation for bio-energy and afforestation to achieve stringent climate targets. Land demand from land-based mitigation leads to competition with food production, raising concerns that climate policy (SDG13 – climate action) conflicts with food security objectives (SDG2 – zero hunger). In this study we use the computable general equilibrium model MAGNET and the IMAGE integrated assessment model to quantify the food security effects of large-scale land-based mitigation. Subsequently, we implement two measures to prevent reduced food security: increased agricultural intensification and reduced meat consumption. We show that large-scale land-based mitigation (∼600 Mha in 2050) leads to increased food prices (11{\%}), reduced food availability (230 kcal/cap/day) and substantially more people at risk of hunger (230 million) compared to the baseline scenario in 2050, most notably in developing regions. Land-based mitigation also leads to yield increases (9{\%}) and intensified ruminant production (11{\%}). Additional crop yield improvement (9{\%}) and intensification in ruminant production (3{\%}) could prevent the negative effect of mitigation on food security. Introducing a reduction in meat consumption in high- and middle-income regions reduces required crop yield improvement (7{\%}) and ruminant intensification (2{\%}). Our study highlights the importance of transparency about food security effects in climate change mitigation scenarios. In addition, it provides an example of explicitly including measures to limit negative trade-offs in mitigation scenarios. In this way, we show how the Paris agreement can be made consistent with food security objectives and how multiple Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved.},
author = {<NAME> <NAME> <NAME>},
doi = {10.1016/J.GFS.2019.04.003},
issn = {2211-9124},
journal = {Global Food Security},
month = {dec},
pages = {93--103},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Making the Paris agreement climate targets consistent with food security objectives}},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912418301263},
volume = {23},
year = {2019}
}
@incollection{SmeetsKristkova2017,
author = {{<NAME>}, <NAME> <NAME>, Michiel and <NAME>, Hans},
booktitle = {Frontiers of Economics and Globalization},
editor = {<NAME>},
title = {{Impact of agricultural R{\&}D investments on long-term food security– an ex-ante impact assessment}},
year = {2017}
}
@article{SmeetsKristkova2017b,
abstract = {The aim of the paper is to quantify endogenous factor-augmenting technical change driven by R{\&}D investments in a panel of 11 OECD countries over 1987-2007. This paper contributes to the scant empirical evidence on the speed, sources and direction of technical change for various sectors and production factors. Assuming cost-minimization behavior, a CES framework is used to derive a system of equations that is estimated by a GMM system estimator. The estimated factor-augmenting technology parameters show that in most sectors, technical change was labor-augmenting and labor-saving. Statistically significant effects of manufacturing and services R{\&}D were found on factor-augmenting technical change (with the highest R{\&}D elasticities found in the high-tech manufacturing and transport, storage and communication sectors). Whereas ‘in-house' R{\&}D stimulates total factor productivity, R{\&}D spilled over to other sectors has a capital-augmenting effect accompanied by a higher use of labor. The results of this s...},
author = {{<NAME>}, <NAME>, <NAME>, <NAME>, Hans},
doi = {10.1080/09535314.2017.1316707},
file = {:C$\backslash$:/Users/dijk158/AppData/Local/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Smeets Kristkova et al. - 2017 - The impact of R{\&}D on factor-augmenting technical change an empirical assessment at the sector level.pdf:pdf},
issn = {0953-5314},
journal = {Economic Systems Research},
keywords = {C3,CES function,Factor-augmenting technical change,GMM regression,GMM regression JEL codes,O3,Q16,R{\&}D,factor-biased technical change,production sectors},
month = {jul},
number = {3},
pages = {385--417},
publisher = {Routledge},
title = {{The impact of R{\&}D on factor-augmenting technical change – an empirical assessment at the sector level}},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09535314.2017.1316707},
volume = {29},
year = {2017}
}
