IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparison between GTAP-BIO and GLOBIOM for estimating biofuels induced land use change emissions


  • Tyner, W.
  • Zhao, X.
  • Taheripour, F.


In this study, we compare two of the most important models in the literature of estimating biofuels induced land use change (ILUC) emissions, GTAP-BIO and GLOBIOM. Since GTAP-BIO is publicly accessible while GLOBIOM currently is not, we use biofuel pathways from the results documented in the most recent GLOBIOM report and compare them using GTAP-BIO with the same specifications. Five EU biofuel pathways, including sugar beet ethanol, starchy crop ethanol, rapeseed oil biodiesel, soy oil biodiesel, and palm oil biodiesel, are tested. The results from GTAP-BIO show lower ILUC emissions for each of the five pathways. The gap in ILUC emission values between the two models is larger for vegetable oil biodiesel pathways than for sugar and starch ethanol pathways. Simulation results are compared to the extent GLOBIOM results were available in the documentation. The major drivers of differences in the two models are livestock rebound response, palm related issues (e.g., palm oil yield and peat oxidation factor), and foregone sequestration on abandoned land. The analysis shows that the strong livestock rebound effect, low palm oil yield, and high abandoned land foregone sequestration factor may lead to an overestimation of ILUC emissions in GLOBIOM.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyner, W. & Zhao, X. & Taheripour, F., 2018. "A comparison between GTAP-BIO and GLOBIOM for estimating biofuels induced land use change emissions," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275967, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:275967
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.275967

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. repec:zbw:espost:177222 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Agricultural and Food Policy; International Development; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:275967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.