jwp00 | ACSJCA | JCA10.0.1465/W Unicode | research.3f (R3.6.i4:4180 | 2.0 alpha 39) 2013/10/21 02:46:00 | PROD-JCAVA | rq_3023905 | 12/10/2013 18:04:37 | 8 | JCA-DEFAULT

Articlepubs.acs.org/est

Climate Change Impact and Adaptation Assessment on Food
2 Consumption Utilizing a New Scenario Framework
1Tomoko Hasegawa,*,† Shinichiro Fujimori,† Yonghee Shin,‡ Kiyoshi Takahashi,† Toshihiko Masui,†§
4 and Akemi Tanaka
3†Center for Social & Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba,Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan‡
7 Climate Research Department, APEC Climate Center, 12 Centum 7-ro, Haeundae-gu, Busan, 612-020, Republic of Korea§
8 Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, N10, W5, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0810, Japan
5
6

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

S Supporting Information*ABSTRACT: We assessed the impacts of climate change and agriculturalautonomous adaptation measures (changes in crop variety and planting dates)on food consumption and risk of hunger considering uncertainties insocioeconomic and climate conditions by using a new scenario framework.
We combined a global computable general equilibrium model and a cropmodel (M-GAEZ), and estimated the impacts through 2050 based on futureassumptions of socioeconomic and climate conditions. We used three Shared
Socioeconomic Pathways as future population and gross domestic products,
four Representative Concentration Pathways as a greenhouse gas emissions
constraint, and eight General Circulation Models to estimate climate
conditions. We found that (i) the adaptation measures are expected tosigniﬁcantly lower the risk of hunger resulting from climate change undervarious socioeconomic and climate conditions. (ii) population and economic
development had a greater impact than climate conditions for risk of hunger at
least throughout 2050, but climate change was projected to have notable impacts, even in the strong emission mitigation
scenarios. (iii) The impact on hunger risk varied across regions because levels of calorie intake, climate change impacts and land
scarcity varied by region.

■

INTRODUCTION
28 Several approaches have been taken in assessments of climate
29 change impact and adaptations on agriculture and food systems,
30 including process-based crop models, economic models and1
31 yield response functions. Process-based crop models have
32 advantages in the calculation of crop responses to factors that
33 aﬀect growth and yield (i.e., climate, soils, and management),
34 are useful for testing a broad range of adaptation measures.
35 Economic models have advantages in the calculation of
36 economic performance of agricultural sectors as a result of
37 the equilibrium between supply and demand, take all of the38 major variables related to global food systems into consid39 eration including trade balances and prices, and are easy to40 relate the relevant variables with socioeconomic scenarios. Yield
41 response functions are best suited for the study of empirical
42 relationships between observed climate and crop responses and43 describe well present-day crop and climate variations.
Well-known studies2−6 have used economic models. Parry et442345 al. and Fischer et al. combined both a process-based crop
46 model and a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model
47 to analyze the impacts of climate change and socioeconomic
48 conditions on agriculture and food systems in the future. Parry249 et al. suggested that Africa is at great risk; CO2 concentrations
27© XXXX American Chemical Society

stabilizing at levels of 750 ppm avoids some but not most of the 50
risk of hunger, whereas stabilization at 550 ppm avoids most of 51
the risk. They also found that the impact of climate change on 52
hunger risk is greatly inﬂuenced by development pathways of 53
income levels and technology, and not amounts of climate 54
forcing. Fischer et al.3 suggested that agricultural techniques 55
will be critically important in limiting potential damages 56
resulting from climate change. Nelson et al.4 used a partial 57
equilibrium model (IMPACT) to analyze climate change 58
impacts at a basin level with a detailed description of irrigation 59
practices. Hertel et al.5 analyzed the impact of climate change 60
on crop yields in 2030 with a static CGE model. Lobel et al.6 61
used a global agricultural trade model and indicated that 62
although investing the least developed areas such as Sub- 63
Saharan Africa and Latin America may be most desirable for the 64
main objectives of adaptation, it has little net eﬀect on 65
mitigation because production gains are oﬀset by grater rates of 66
land clearing in the beneﬁted regions, which are relatively low 67
Received: April 7, 2013
Revised: December 2, 2013
Accepted: December 4, 2013

A

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4034149 | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX