IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/16-wp563.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine L. Kling
  • Raymond W. Arritt
  • Gray Calhoun
  • David A. Keiser

Abstract

On October 12–13, a workshop funded by the National Science Foundation was held at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa with a goal of identifying research needs related to coupled economic and biophysical models within the FEW system. Approximately 80 people attended the workshop with about half representing the social sciences (primarily economics) and the rest from the physical and natural sciences. The focus and attendees were chosen so that findings would be particularly relevant to SBE research needs while taking into account the critical connectivity needed between social sciences and other disciplines. We have identified several major gaps in existing scientific knowledge that present substantial impediments to understanding the FEW system. We especially recommend research in these areas as a priority for future funding: 1. Economic models of decision-making in coupled systems Deliberate human activity has been the dominant factor driving environmental and land-use changes for hundreds of years. While economists have made great strides in modeling and understanding these choices, the coupled systems modeling literature, with some important exceptions, has not reflected these contributions. Several paths forward seem fruitful. First, baseline economic models that assume rationality can be used much more widely than they are currently. Moreover, the current generation of IAMs that include rational agents have emphasized partial equilibrium studies appropriate for smaller systems. To allow this approach to be used to study larger systems, the potential for (and consequences of) general equilibrium effects should be studied as well. Second, it is important to address shortcomings in these models of economic decision-making. Valuable improvements could be gained from developing coupled models that draw insights from behavioral economics. Many decision-makers deviate systematically from actions that would be predicted by strict rationality, but very few IAMs incorporate this behavior, potentially leading to inaccurate predictions about the effects of policies and regulations. Improved models of human adaptation and induced technological change can also be incorporated into coupled models. Particularly for medium to long-run models, decisions about adaptation and technological change will have substantial effects on the conclusions and policy implications, but more compelling methods for incorporating these changes into modeling are sorely needed. In addition, some economic decisions are intrinsically dynamic yet few coupled models explicitly incorporate dynamic models. Economic models that address uncertainty in decision making are also underutilized in coupled models of the FEW system. 2. Coupling models across disciplines Despite much recent progress, established models for one component of the FEW system often cannot currently produce outcomes that can be used as inputs for models of other components. This misalignment makes integrated modeling difficult and is especially apparent in linking models of natural phenomena with models of economic decision-making. Economic agents typically act to maximize a form of utility or welfare that is not directly linked to physical processes, and they typically require probabilistic forecasts as an input to their decision-making that many models in the natural sciences cannot directly produce. We believe that an especially promising approach is the development of "bridge" models that convert outputs from one model into inputs for another. Such models can be viewed as application-specific, reduced-form distillations of a richer and more realistic underlying model. Ideally, these bridge models would be developed in collaborative research projects involving economists, statisticians, and disciplinary specialists, and would contribute to improved understanding in the scientific discipline as well. 3. Model validation and comparison There is little clarity on how models should be evaluated and compared to each other, both within individual disciplines and as components of larger IAMs. This challenge makes larger integrated modeling exercises extremely difficult. Some potential ways to advance are by developing statistical criteria that measure model performance along the dimensions suitable for inclusion in an IAM as well as infrastructure and procedures to facilitate model comparisons. Focusing on the models' out-of-sample distributional forecasting performance, as well as that of the IAM overall, is especially promising and of particular importance. Moreover, applications of IAMs tend to estimate the effect of hypothetical future policy actions, but there have been very few studies that have used these models to estimate the effect of past policy actions. These exercises should be encouraged. They offer a well-understood test bed for the IAMs, and also contribute to fundamental scientific knowledge through better understanding of the episode in question. The retrospective nature of this form of analysis also presents the opportunity to combine reduced-form estimation strategies with the IAMs as an additional method of validation.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
  • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:16-wp563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/pdf/16wp563.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1246
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacinto F. Fabiosa & John C. Beghin & Fengxia Dong & JAmani Elobeid & Simla Tokgoz & Tun-Hsiang Yu, 2010. "Land Allocation Effects of the Global Ethanol Surge: Predictions from the International FAPRI Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 687-706.
    2. Lars Peter Hansen & Thomas J Sargent, 2014. "Uncertainty within Economic Models," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 9028.
    3. Key, Nigel D. & Roberts, Michael J., 2008. "AJAE appendix for “Nonpecuniary Benefits to Farming: Implications for Supply Response to Decoupled Payments”," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), May.
    4. Taheripour, Farzad & Thomas Hertel & Jing Liu, 2011. "The Role of Irrigation in Determining the Global Land Use Impacts of Biofuels," GTAP Working Papers 3743, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    5. Uhlig, Harald, 2005. "What are the effects of monetary policy on output? Results from an agnostic identification procedure," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 381-419, March.
    6. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 2001. "Econometric-Process Models for Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 389-401.
    7. Carlo Fezzi & Ian J. Bateman, 2011. "Structural Agricultural Land Use Modeling for Spatial Agro-Environmental Policy Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1168-1188.
    8. John M. Antle & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum-data approach ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-15, March.
    9. West, Kenneth D, 1996. "Asymptotic Inference about Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(5), pages 1067-1084, September.
    10. Iho, Antti & Lankoski, Jussi & Ollikainen, Markku & Puustinen, Markku & Lehtimäki, Jonne, 2014. "Agri-environmental auctions for phosphorus load reduction: experiences from a Finnish pilot," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(2), April.
    11. Howard, Gregory & Roe, Brian E., 2013. "Stripping Because You Want to Versus Stripping Because the Money is Good: A Latent Class Analysis of Farmer Preferences Regarding Filter Strip Programs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149821, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Sinnathamby, Sumathy & Douglas-Mankin, Kyle & Smith, Aaron & Sumner, Daniel A. & Earnhart, Dietrich H., 2014. "The environmental effects of crop price increases: Nitrogen losses in the U.S. Corn Belt," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 507-526.
    13. Gopalakrishnan, Sathya & Smith, Martin D. & Slott, Jordan M. & Murray, A. Brad, 2011. "The value of disappearing beaches: A hedonic pricing model with endogenous beach width," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 297-310, May.
    14. David Zilberman, 2008. "The Gains from Differentiated Policies to Control Stock Pollution when Producers Are Heterogeneous," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1059-1073.
    15. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    16. Matthew Ranson & Robert N. Stavins, 2016. "Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: learning from experience," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 284-300, April.
    17. Thomas Berger & Christian Troost, 2014. "Agent-based Modelling of Climate Adaptation and Mitigation Options in Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 323-348, June.
    18. Elobeid, Amani E. & Carriquiry, Miguel & Dumortier, Jerome & Rosas, Francisco & Mulik, Kranti & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Babcock, Bruce A., 2013. "Biofuel Expansion, Fertilizer Use, and GHG Emissions: Unintended Consequences of Mitigation Policies," ISU General Staff Papers 201301010800001058, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Hayes, Dermot J. & Babcock, Bruce A. & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Elobeid, Amani E. & Yu, Tun-Hsiang (Edward) & Dong, Fengxia & Hart, Chad E. & Chavez, Eddie C. & Pan, Suwen & Carriquiry, M, 2009. "Biofuels: Potential Production Capacity, Effects on Grain and Livestock Sectors, and Implications for Food Prices and Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), April.
    20. Francis X. Diebold, 2015. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy, Twenty Years Later: A Personal Perspective on the Use and Abuse of Diebold-Mariano Tests," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-1, January.
    21. Chen, Xiaoguang & Huang, Haixiao & Khanna, Madhu & Önal, Hayri, 2014. "Alternative transportation fuel standards: Welfare effects and climate benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 241-257.
    22. Hertel, Thomas & Burke, Marshall & Lobell, David, 2010. "The Poverty Implications of Climate-Induced Crop Yield Changes by 2030," GTAP Working Papers 3196, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    23. Xiaoguang Chen & Hayri Önal, 2012. "Modeling Agricultural Supply Response Using Mathematical Programming and Crop Mixes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 674-686.
    24. Hertel, Thomas W. & Burke, Marshall B. & Lobell, David B., 2010. "The Poverty Implications of Climate-Induced Crop Yield Changes by 2030," Working papers 283477, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    25. Randhir, Timothy O. & Hertel, Thomas W., 2000. "Trade Liberalization as a Vehicle for Adapting to Global Warming," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(02), pages 159-172, October.
    26. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2011. "The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 192-211, January.
    27. JunJie Wu & Richard M. Adams & Catherine L. Kling & Katsuya Tanaka, 2004. "From Microlevel Decisions to Landscape Changes: An Assessment of Agricultural Conservation Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 26-41.
    28. Nigel Key & Michael J. Roberts, 2009. "Nonpecuniary Benefits to Farming: Implications for Supply Response to Decoupled Payments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 1-18.
    29. Xabadia, Angels & Goetz, Renan U. & Zilberman, David, 2008. "AJAE appendix for ‘The Gains from Differentiated Policies to Control Stock Pollution when Producers Are Heterogeneous’," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, February.
    30. Quirino Paris & Richard E. Howitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Ill-Posed Production Problems Using Maximum Entropy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 124-138.
    31. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    32. Xabadia, Angels & Goetz, Renan U. & Zilberman, David, 2006. "Control of accumulating stock pollution by heterogeneous producers," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1105-1130, July.
    33. Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J., 2007. "Recursive robust estimation and control without commitment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 1-27, September.
    34. Sigman, Hilary, 2005. "Transboundary spillovers and decentralization of environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 82-101, July.
    35. Earnhart, Dietrich, 2004. "Regulatory factors shaping environmental performance at publicly-owned treatment plants," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 655-681, July.
    36. Douglas J. Miller & Andrew J. Plantinga, 1999. "Modeling Land Use Decisions with Aggregate Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 180-194.
    37. Hilary Sigman, 2002. "International Spillovers and Water Quality in Rivers: Do Countries Free Ride?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1152-1159, September.
    38. Harvey, David I & Leybourne, Stephen J & Newbold, Paul, 1998. "Tests for Forecast Encompassing," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 254-259, April.
    39. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David A., 2015. "Agricultural Cost Sharing and Conservation Practices for Nutrient Reduction in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205762, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    40. Arnaud Costinot & Dave Donaldson & Cory Smith, 2016. "Evolving Comparative Advantage and the Impact of Climate Change in Agricultural Markets: Evidence from 1.7 Million Fields around the World," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 205-248.
    41. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    42. Douglas J. Miller, 1999. "An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 812-824.
    43. Segarra, Eduardo & Ethridge, Don E. & Deussen, Curtis R. & Onken, Arthur B., 1989. "Nitrogen Carry-Over Impacts In Irrigated Cotton Production, Southern High Plains Of Texas," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 1-10, December.
    44. LaBeau, Meredith B. & Robertson, Dale M. & Mayer, Alex S. & Pijanowski, Bryan C. & Saad, David A., 2014. "Effects of future urban and biofuel crop expansions on the riverine export of phosphorus to the Laurentian Great Lakes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 277(C), pages 27-37.
    45. Gonzalez-Ramirez, Maria Jimena & Kling, Catherine L. & Arbuckle, J. Gordon Jr., 2015. "Cost-share Effectiveness in the Adoption of Cover Crops in Iowa," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    46. Christoph Schmitz & Hans van Meijl & Page Kyle & Gerald C. Nelson & Shinichiro Fujimori & Angelo Gurgel & Petr Havlik & Edwina Heyhoe & Daniel Mason d'Croz & Alexander Popp & Ron Sands & Andrzej Tabea, 2014. "Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 69-84, January.
    47. Janine Pelikan & Wolfgang Britz & Thomas W. Hertel, 2015. "Green Light for Green Agricultural Policies? An Analysis at Regional and Global Scales," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(1), pages 1-19, February.
    48. Dietrich Earnhart, 2004. "Panel Data Analysis of Regulatory Factors Shaping Environmental Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 391-401, February.
    49. V. Kerry Smith & Carlos Valcarcel Wolloh, 2012. "Has Surface Water Quality Improved Since the Clean Water Act?," NBER Working Papers 18192, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    50. John M. Antle & Jetse J. Stoorvogel, 2006. "Predicting the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1174-1180.
    51. Andrew J. Plantinga, 2015. "Integrating Economic Land-Use and Biophysical Models," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 233-249, October.
    52. Goetz, Renan U. & Zilberman, David, 2000. "The dynamics of spatial pollution: The case of phosphorus runoff from agricultural land," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 143-163, January.
    53. Miller, Douglas & Plantinga, Andrew J., 1999. "Modeling Land Use Decisions with Aggregate Data," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1487, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:ias:cpaper:16-wp563. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.html .

    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.