Are scenario projections overly optimistic about future yield progress?

Zeist, Willem‐Jan van; Stehfest, Elke; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Valin, Hugo; Calvin, Katherine; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Havlík, Petr; Humpenöder, Florian; Kyle, Page; Lotze‐Campen, Hermann; Mason-D’Croz, Daniel; Meijl, Hans van; Popp, Alexander; Sulser, Timothy B.; Tabeau, Andrzej; Verhagen, Willem; Wiebe, Keith

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102120

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Climate impacts on different forms of renewable energy (solar, wind, hydropower and bioenergy) were added to the model [20].  In land use, the number of crop categories was increased to 16 [21].  The modelling of land-based mitigation in IMAGE and MAGNET was improved, including avoided deforestation and afforestation through MAC curves in FAIR [22] and accounting for the interaction non-CO2 mitigation and the agriculture and food system [23].…”

Section: Recent Model Updatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model

Vuuren¹,

Stehfest²,

Gernaat³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The SSP (Shared Socio-economic Pathways) scenarios are intensively used in climate and environmental research to explore uncertain future developments and possible response strategies. This paper briefly describes an update of the SSP scenarios generated by the IMAGE 3.2 model. The paper presents the changes in method and key scenario updates. As such, it serves as a key reference for the updated SSP scenarios with IMAGE 3.2.

show abstract

Section: Recent Model Updatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model

Vuuren¹,

Stehfest²,

Gernaat³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will outline the decisions needed to develop an ARIMA model and compare the accuracy of resulting forecasts to those of the standard linear model. Moreover, we will try to answer the question of whether it is meaningful to forecast decades into the future, as is common practice in CGE models, given the uncertainty involved in forecasting (Zeist et al, 2020).…”

Section: How Do the Various Econometric Models Used To Forecast Yieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies concluded that global projected yields by 2050 remain below the attainable yields, on average for all cereals on the global level. van Zeist et al (2020) find that "this is also true for future pathways with high technological progress and mitigation efforts, indicating that projected yield increases are not overly optimistic, even under systemic transformations".…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…If lands get relatively more expensive than land will be substituted with more labor and or capital . In a recent study , Zeist et al, (2020) discussed projections of crop yields by global agricultural land-use and integrated assessment models. The study evaluated crop yield projections "by comparing them to empirical data on attainable yields by employing a linear and plateauing continuation of observed attainable yield trends".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The yield gap literature continues to identify more precisely the elements of these gaps more generally and in specific countries (Zeist, et al 2020;van Dijk, 2020). A recent paper from Zeist, et al (2020), concludes that many countries are well below their attainable yield based on linear and plateau trends taken from 1990 to 2010 and extends the forecasts to the 2040-2050 period. More recent yield data from the FAO (2020) and USDA (2020) sources show increasing yields, shifting the trend line up to a higher intercept or plane.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring and assessing the effects of climate change on crop yields : A multilevel approach

Powell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing environmental impacts of response strategies for sustainable food system transformation

Yang,

Gao,

Liu

et al. 2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global food system is recognized as the largest source of pressure on the Earth's stability, and there is a pressing need for a swift global transformation toward a sustainable food system, which is also crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement goals. While various response strategies have been developed to achieve the sustainable food system, it remains unclear how different response strategies and their combinations interactively affect global environmental functions. Here, we use a system dynamics‐based integrated assessment model to quantitatively assess the effects of five representative response strategies, which are well‐recognized to be potential for achieving a sustainable food system, and their combinations on the global environment. We use six boundary indicators, corresponding to six key Earth system processes and indicating the safe‐operating spaces of the global food system, to define the global environmental performance. Our results show that the effects of response strategies may have a synergistic effect or counterbalance. While some individual strategies are sufficient to maintain certain boundary indicators within their safe zones, only the combination of all strategies can simultaneously prevent all boundary indicators from entering high‐risk zones. More coordinated solutions within and outside the global food system are required to restore all boundary indicators to their safe zones.

show abstract

Are scenario projections overly optimistic about future yield progress?

Cited by 16 publications

References 56 publications

The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model

The 2021 SSP scenarios of the IMAGE 3.2 model

Measuring and assessing the effects of climate change on crop yields : A multilevel approach

Assessing environmental impacts of response strategies for sustainable food system transformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About