Land Use in Computable General Equilibrium Models: An Overview

Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, GTAP Working Papers 01/2008;
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT *Chapter 1 of the forthcoming book "Economic Analysis of Land Use in Global Climate Change Policy," edited by Thomas W. Hertel, Steven Rose, and Richard S.J. Tol

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines land-use, market and welfare implications of lignocellulosic bioethanol production in Hawai'i to satisfy 10% and 20% of the State's gasoline demand in line with the State's ethanol blending mandate and Alternative Fuels Standard (AFS). A static computable general equilibrium (CGE) model is used to evaluate four alternative support mechanisms for bioethanol. Namely: i) a federal blending tax credit, ii) a long-term purchase contract, iii) a state production subsidy financed by a lump-sum tax and iv) a state production subsidy financed by an ad valorem gasoline tax. We find that because Hawaii-produced bioethanol is relatively costly, all scenarios are welfare reducing for Hawaii residents: estimated between −0.14% and −0.32%. Unsurprisingly, Hawaii's economy and its residents fair best under the federal blending tax credit scenario, with a positive impact to gross state product of $49 million. Otherwise, impacts to gross state product are negative (up to −$63 million). We additionally find that Hawaii-based bioethanol is not likely to offer substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings in comparison to imported biofuel, and as such the policy cost per tonne of emissions displaced ranges between $130 and $2100/tonne of CO2e. The policies serve to increase the value of agricultural lands, where we estimate that the value of pasture land could as well.
    Renewable Energy 11/2014; 76. DOI:10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.071 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years there has been a flurry of activity aimed at evaluating the land use consequences of biofuels programs and the associated carbon releases. In this paper we argue that these studies have tended to underestimate the ensuing land use change, because they have ignored the role of irrigation, and associated constraints on cropland expansion. In this paper, we develop a new general equilibrium model which distinguishes irrigated and rainfed cropping industries at a global scale. Using the new model we evaluate the implications of land use change due to US ethanol programs, in the context of short run constraints on the expansion of irrigated cropland. Since irrigated area tends to offer a higher yield than its rainfed counterpart, this provides an upper bound on the change in cropland following biofuel expansion. We find that the biofuel-induced expansion in global cropland cover is about 16 percent larger when the irrigation constraint is imposed. This translates into a 21 percent increase in land use emissions due to US ethanol production. This estimate represents an upper bound, since irrigated area can be expanded over the medium run in many places around the world.
    01/2011; 3(1). DOI:10.1186/2192-0567-3-4
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent regulations on biofuels require reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions related to feedstock-specific biofuels. However, the inclusion of GHG emissions from land-use change (LUC) into law and policy remains a subject of active discussion, with LUC–GHG emissions an issue of intense research. This article identifies key modelling choices for assessing the impact of biofuel production on LUC–GHG emissions. The identification of these modelling choices derives from evaluation and critical comparison of models from commonly accepted biofuels–LUC–GHG modelling approaches. The selection and comparison of models were intended to cover factors related to production of agricultural-based biofuel, provision of land for feedstock, and GHG emissions from land-use conversion. However, some fundamental modelling issues are common to all stages of assessment and require resolution, including choice of scale and spatial coverage, approach to accounting for time, and level of aggregation. It is argued here that significant improvements have been made to address LUC–GHG emissions from biofuels. Several models have been created, adapted, coupled, and integrated, but room for improvement remains in representing LUC–GHG emissions from specific biofuel production pathways, as follows: more detailed and integrated modelling of biofuel supply chains; more complete modelling of policy frameworks, accounting for forest dynamics and other drivers of LUC; more heterogeneous modelling of spatial patterns of LUC and associated GHG emissions; and clearer procedures for accounting for the time-dependency of variables. It is concluded that coupling the results of different models is a convenient strategy for addressing effects with different time and space scales. In contrast, model integration requires unified scales and time approaches to provide generalised representations of the system. Guidelines for estimating and reporting LUC–GHG emissions are required to help modellers to define the most suitable approaches and policy makers to better understand the complex impacts of agricultural-based biofuel production.
    Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 02/2015; 42. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.026 · 5.51 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 26, 2014