1 / 28

Universities CRED, Columbia University University of Miami Penn State University

Modelling Adaptive Management in Agroecosystems in the Pampas in Response to Climate Variability and Other Risk Factors Carlos E. Laciana, Federico Bert University of Buenos Aires. Project Participants. Universities CRED, Columbia University University of Miami Penn State University

venedict-diego
Télécharger la présentation

Universities CRED, Columbia University University of Miami Penn State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modelling Adaptive Management inAgroecosystems in the Pampas in Response to Climate Variability and Other Risk FactorsCarlos E. Laciana,Federico BertUniversity of Buenos Aires

  2. Project Participants • Universities • CRED, Columbia University • University of Miami • Penn State University • NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) • University of Buenos Aires • NGOs • AACREA (Asociación Argentina de Consorcios Regionales de Experimentación Agrícola) • CENTRO (Centro de Estudios Sociales y Ambientales) • Government Agencies • SMN (Servicio Meteorológico Nacional) • Project funding: NSF and NOAA of United States.

  3. Project Objective To understand and model the workings and interactions of natural and human components in agroecosystems, with… Special emphasis on assessing the scope for active adaptive management in response to climate variability.

  4. The study area: Argentine Pampas • One of the most important agricultural regions in the world • Agriculture accounts for more than half of exports • Production systems similar to those in US

  5. Overview of the decision-making process

  6. Outline • A simple operative model of decision-making • Optimization of alternative objective functions • Next steps: An agent-based model

  7. 1. A simple operative model of decision-making

  8. D Decision-making 1

  9. D Decision-making 2

  10. D Decision outcomes

  11. A Assessment of outcomes My #&@$! brother in law did better than I did! Maize prices dropped after I decided to plant maize

  12. L Learning and adaptation

  13. 2. Optimization of alternative objective functions • Objective functions: What farmers are really trying to achieve… • Standard economic models often consider only maximization of utility • Wrong assumed objective may imply wrong advice… • Assumed objective function influences value of climate information

  14. Objective functions explored • Expected Utility: • The curvature of the utility function u( . ) is related to a decision-maker’s risk aversion. • PT’s Value Function: • Loss aversion: losses are felt more than gains, effect described by the lambda parameter. • Gains and losses evaluated with respect to a reference value (specific for an individual)

  15. Optimization of objective functions where is the proportion of land with each crop-management for the optimum of the EU and V. The optimization is performed using GAMS (Gill et al. 2000).

  16. Optimization procedure

  17. Optimization Constraints • Land owners tend to adhere to a crop rotation (advantages for soil conservation). • Tenants have no restrictions; the single most profitable crop is chosen. • Constraints for owners. Land assigned to a given crop had to be: • no less than 25%, • or more than 45% of the farm area.

  18. Utility Theory - Owners

  19. Utility Theory - Tenants

  20. Prospect Theory - Tenants

  21. Value of climate information Economic Benefit with Forecast - Economic Benefit without Forecast VOI = O.F. Maximized separately for each ENSO phase O.F. Maximized for the entire historical climatic series • Owners & tenants • UT & PT • Perfect forecasts of ENSO phase

  22. Value of a Perfect ENSO Phase Forecast

  23. 3. Next steps: An agent-based model • Our implemented model & optimizations focused on “one decision maker, one farm”

  24. Social interactions

  25. Example of interactions N-1 other agents Agent "i" with his attributes • Interaction between agents: • Formation of land rental price • - Decision by individuals on how much land (rented/owned) to crop Decision Making Endogenous land market N agents with new attributes Decision about the proportion of each crop-management Maximization of objective functions Agent "i" going to the next step

  26. Interaction between agents Agricultural practices Rules - Potential actors - The actors' selection - Price regulation • Attributes • Land owned, rented out • Land owned, cropped by self • Land rented in • Available capital • Risk aversion • Others??? Rental Market Model • Actions • Rent out land to others • Rent out land from others • Stop renting • Crop more of one’s own land

  27. Outline • A simple operative model of decision-making • Optimization of alternative objective functions • Next steps: An agent-based model

More Related