metadata: authors: 0: author: Dizon,Felipe Jr Fadullon
1: author: Sherwani,Hina Khan
2: author: Su,Rui
count: World
docna: 0: docna: Climate Change, Urban Expansion, and Food Production
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
abstracts: cdata!: Where and how cities grow will influence
            food production and the risks to food production. This paper
            estimates the overlap of future urban expansion in 2040 and
            2100 with current crop and livestock production under
            different climate scenarios. First, it finds that urban
            areas will expand most into areas with fruits, vegetables,
            and chickens, and urban areas will expand most under a
            scenario with significant challenges to climate change
            mitigation. Second, the share of food producing areas that
            will overlap with urban expansion will be largest in Africa,
            particularly under a scenario of significant challenges to
            climate change adaptation. Third, across all scenarios,
            urban expansion is likely to take place in areas with higher
            crop or livestock production, but even more so when there
            are significant challenges to both mitigation and adaptation.
display_title: Climate Change, Urban Expansion, and
            Food Production
listing_relative_url: /research/2023/04/34043597/climate-change-urban-expansion-food-production
topicv3: Agriculture and Food Security m1326205 435,Climate Change m1326829 567,Urban Development m1327371 699
publishtoextweb_dt: 2023-04-17T00:00:00Z
dois: 10.1596/1813-9450-10411
author_keys: 0: author_key: 1501623
1: author_key: 1961866
2: author_key: 1954360
model_extractions: Policy Research Working Paper 10411 Climate Change, Urban Expansion, and Food Production _Felipe Dizon Hina Sherwani Rui Su_ Agriculture and Food Global Practice April 2023
Policy Research Working Paper 10411

# **Abstract**

Where and how cities grow will influence food production and the risks to food production. This paper estimates the overlap of future urban expansion in 2040 and 2100 with current crop and livestock production under different climate scenarios. First, it finds that urban areas will expand most into areas with fruits, vegetables, and chickens, and urban areas will expand most under a scenario with significant challenges to climate change mitigation. Second, the share of food producing areas that will overlap with urban expansion will be largest in Africa, particularly under a scenario of significant challenges to climate change adaptation. Third, across all scenarios, urban expansion is likely to take place in areas with higher crop or livestock production, but even more so when there are significant challenges to both mitigation and adaptation.

This paper is a product of the Agriculture and Food Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at fdizon@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# Climate Change, Urban Expansion, and Food Production

Felipe Dizon, Hina Sherwani, and Rui Su<sup>*</sup>

## JEL Classifications: O13, O18, Q54, R14

Keywords: climate change, urban expansion, agriculture, crops, livestock

> *World Bank. We are grateful to Julian Lampietti, Mark Roberts, and Megha Mukim for their careful guidance and advice on this work. This research was partially funded by the City Resilience Program, a partnership between the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). This is a background paper for the Sustainable Development Practice Group’s Flagship Report “ _Thriving: Making Cities Green, Resilient, and Inclusive in a Changing Climate.”_ All remaining errors are our own. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the World Bank Group, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent.
# **1. Introduction**

Urbanization is intertwined with the opportunities to transform food systems. Because it gives rise to income growth, urbanization is associated with both a rising and changing demand for food.<sup>1</sup> Urbanization also leads to changes in land use that affect agriculture, as cities are pivotal in channeling finance, inputs, information, services, and off-farm employment opportunities to rural areas (Abu Hatab et al. 2019; de Bruin, Dengerink, and van Vliet 2021; World Bank 2009).<sup>2</sup> At the same time, how climate change is addressed will have important implications for land use, including for urbanization. And as such, there are important interactions across climate change, urban expansion, land use, and food production.<sup>3</sup> Climate change adaptation and mitigation are, to an extent, determined by economic and demographic drivers such as population growth, the urban share of the population, and income per capita. One depiction of how changes in these underlying drivers relate to climate change is the five _Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)_ (Riahi et al. 2017). These SSPs trace the projected trajectories of various outcomes, including energy use, land use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and climate change. The five SSP narratives are: SSP1: Sustainability—Taking the Green Road (low challenges to adaptation and mitigation),<sup>4</sup> SSP2: Middle of the Road (medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation), SSP3: Regional Rivalry (high challenges to mitigation and adaptation), SSP4: Inequality (low challenges to mitigation, high challenges to adaptation), and SSP5: Fossilfueled Development (high challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation).

Of the five SSPs, SSP1 is considered a largely good scenario referred to as the “sustainability pathway,” while SSP3 is a largely bad scenario called the “regional rivalry pathway”. A look at the SSP projections reveals the following. First, total population will grow faster, and the illiterate proportion of the population will decline more slowly under SSP3 than under SSP1. Population will peak by around 2050 under SSP1, while it will continue to grow through 2100 under SSP3. The illiteracy rate will begin to grow by 2040 under SSP3. Second, the urban share of the population will increase under both scenarios, but it will do so much faster under SSP1 than SSP3

> 1 Urbanization not only affects food systems but can also be influenced by them. For instance, a more productive agriculture sector, leading to higher rural wages on the fringe of a city, could result in a smaller city (Krugman, 1991). 2 DeFries et al. (2010) find that urbanization in India resulted in a reduction in agricultural land and changes in crop patterns. Gómez et al. (2013) show that unmanaged urbanization can negatively affect food security in Latin America. 3 Food production also has significant negative impacts on climate. In 2015, GHG emissions from the global food system amounted to 18 gigatons of CO2 equivalent or one-third of total GHG emissions. The largest contribution, 71 percent, was by agriculture and land use or land use change activities, with the remainder by supply chain activities, including retail, transport, consumption, fuel production, waste management, industrial processes, and packaging (Crippa et al. 2021). Emissions associated with animal-based foods are twice as large as those of plant-based foods. Of the global GHG emissions from food production, 57 percent came from animal-based foods (including livestock feed), 29 percent from plant-based foods, and 14 percent from other uses (Xu et al. 2021). The two largest contributing plant- and animal-based commodities are rice (12 percent) and beef (25 percent).

> 4 The narrative for SSP1 is that “the world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity” (Riahi et al. 2017).

2
because urbanization is linked to better development outcomes. Third, GDP per capita grows exponentially under SSP1, while it remains stagnant under SSP3. Income inequality, referring to inter-household or inter-person income inequality within individual countries, declines much faster under SSP1 than SSP3.

The SSP projections define changes in land use (i.e. cropland, pasture, forests, urban land and other natural land, further described in Section 2), and these in turn have implications for food production. Chen et al. (2020) have shown that this loss of cropland could imply a decline in cereal and vegetable production across all pathways. There is a projected decline in production for the world’s main cereals—rice, wheat, and maize—of about 2–3 percent, 1–3 percent, and 1-4 percent, respectively. The projected decline for vegetables is 2–4 percent and for potatoes 1–3 percent. These production declines are estimated to be equivalent to the food needs of up to 1.39 billion people, meaning that the reduced production could have sustained these many individuals under normal circumstances. Other estimates similarly project a total crop production loss of about 3.7 percent, rising to losses of 5.6 percent for Asia and 8.9 percent for Africa (d’Amour et al. 2017). D’Amour et al. (2017) also show that urban expansion is expected to take place on cropland that is 1.77 times more productive than the global average.

In this paper, we quantify the link between urban expansion and food production, under different SSP scenarios. That is, building on Chen et al. (2020) and d’Amour et al. (2017), we further describe the potential risks to food production driven by urbanization under different scenarios of climate change response. Our contributions are couched under the following data and analysis elaborations. First, we cover a more comprehensive list of food items, assessing seven crop groups (vegetables, fruits, roots, cereals, sugar, oils, and pulses), and eight types of livestock (chicken, duck, pig, buffalo, horse, goat, sheep, and cattle). Second, we disaggregate the results by regions of the world, and also present projections of potential risk at the city-level for select cities, offering valuable insights into regional and local analysis. Third, we estimate grid-level correlations between projected urban expansion and current food production, to better understand whether cities will expand in areas with higher crop and livestock production, and under which climate response scenarios. This analysis helps identify trends and potential challenges in the spatial distribution of urban growth and food production.

Like Chen et al. (2020), we provide projected urban overlap with food production under different SSPs, but here for a richer set of crop and livestock items and for different regions. Urban overlap, in this context, refers to the spatial extent to which urban expansion encroaches upon or coincides with areas designated for food production, including both crop and livestock farming. The work of d’Amour et al. (2017) assesses 16 major crops (including disaggregated analysis for four staples and three cash crops), looks into cropland and crop yields, and provides disaggregated regional analysis. Our work expands on this by looking at five SSP scenarios to 2100, as opposed to one projected probability of urban expansion to 2030, and by including livestock in our analysis.

We find the following three main results. First, globally the largest projected urban overlap is for vegetables and fruits among crop items, and for chickens among livestock. The urban overlap is initially larger under SSP1 (Sustainability Scenario) by 2040, but this then diminishes over time. By 2100, the largest urban overlap with food production is under SSP5 (Fossil-fueled Development Scenario), which is also the scenario where urban land expands the most by 2100.

3
Second, there are much larger overlaps in particular regions that are masked at the global level. We find that the overlaps are expected to be largest in Africa for both crops and for livestock, and particularly under SSP4 (Inequality Scenario). While Africa has smaller shares of global production, these regional dynamics have important implications for how we think about food trade, issues of perishability, and access to nutritious food for the most vulnerable. Moreover, the city-level examples in this paper highlight the importance of policy design and solutions at the local level, where the needs and risks would vary.

Third, for crops on aggregate and livestock on aggregate, urban expansion across all SSP scenarios will most likely occur under areas (i.e. grids) today that have higher levels of crop production and that have higher livestock density. This positive correlation between projected future urban expansion and current crop and livestock density is largest under SSP3 (Regional Rivalry Scenario) and smallest under SSP5 (Fossil-fueled Development Scenario). As such, while SSP5 impacts a lower food producing grid on average, it affects more grids in total so that the largest overlap of urban expansion with food production occurs under SSP5. In addition, while the estimated correlation is large and positive in both 2040 and 2100, it is smaller in 2100 than in 2040. That this correlation diminishes over time suggests that (in all SSP scenarios) suggests that urban expansion in the nearer-term (by 2040) will occur in higher food producing areas than the longer-term (by 2100).

The remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 discusses data and methodology, including SSPs, urban expansion, and crop and livestock data. Section 3 presents the extent of urban expansion on food production (globally and regionally), and grid-level correlations of urban expansion and food production. Section 4 concludes.

# **2. Data and methodology**

To estimate the relationship of climate-induced urbanization with crop and livestock production, we combine three distinct global spatial datasets— projected urban expansion, crop production, and livestock production— through the process of overlaying them at the grid-level using a mapping software. This allow us to delineate the locations and magnitude of potential urbanization overlap with land used for crop and livestock production, on both a global and regional level. In this case, the potential impact on crop and livestock production is defined as any production located in areas that overlap with future urban expansion.

## **2.1 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and urban expansion**

## _SSPs and land use change_

The SSP scenarios depict how underlying determinants (i.e. population growth, urban share of population, and income per capita) affect land use (Riahi et al. 2017). First, under SSP1, cropland is projected to barely expand between 2010 and 2100, while pasture, suitable for livestock grazing, is expected to decrease. Meanwhile, forests and other natural land are projected to expand under SSP1. By contrast, under SSP3, cropland and pasture are projected to increase, while forests and other natural land are projected to dramatically decline. Under SSP5, the rapid economic growth 4
and conventional development focus will lead to a substantial increase in urban land demand, resulting in extensive urban expansion and greater conversion of cropland and pasture to urban land more than any other scenario. Under SSP1, therefore, sustainable food production implies the use of less land-intensive and more productive methods to feed a growing population. Under SSP3 and SSP5, the combination of population growth, deforestation, and unchecked livestock production will result in significantly increased risks, including a heightened risk for pandemics (Berthe et al., 2022).

The assumed growth in total population and in urban population share will lead to an increase in the demand for urban land to 2100 across all SSP pathways (Chen et al. 2020). Under SSP1, the demand for urban land will increase, but begin to decline after 2070, given the assumed eventual decline in population after 2050 under this scenario. Under SSP3, the demand for urban land will initially increase more slowly than under SSP1, given the assumed slow growth in the urban share of the population under SSP3. However, because of the continued population growth to 2100 under SSP3, urban land demand will continue to expand to 2100 and will approach the same level as SSP1 by 2100. Under SSP5, urban land demand is expected to increase significantly due to rapid economic growth, higher income levels, urban population growth, advancements in technology, and emphasis on globalization, leading to more extensive urban expansion and greater losses in crop production, more than other scenarios.

Across all pathways, it is projected that most urban expansion will entail the conversion of particularly productive cropland, followed by forests and then grassland (Chen et al. 2020). By 2100, 55 percent under SSP1 (63 percent under SSP3) of newly expanded urban land is expected to have displaced current cropland, 27 percent (21 percent) forests, and 12 percent (6 percent) grassland. Under SSP5, the land conversion proportions to urban expansion are expected to be 51 percent from cropland, 29 percent from forests, and 15 percent from grasslands. This projected conversion of cropland and grassland into urban land has important implications for crop and livestock production. Chen et al. (2020) show that urban expansion is projected to result in a 1.8– 2.4 percent reduction in global cropland by 2030, and 80 percent of this loss is likely to take place in Asia and Africa. As mentioned above, d’Amour et al. (2017) show that urban expansion is expected to take place on cropland that is 1.77 times more productive than the global average. Under SSP5, the significant increase in urban land demand and the resulting land conversion may lead to the greatest amount of crop production losses among the scenarios, due to the rapid urban expansion and the potential displacement of highly productive cropland.

# _SSPs and projected urban expansion data_

The urban expansion projection data (Chen et al. 2020) are calculated using panel data regression methods based on historical population, urbanization rate, and gross domestic product (GDP) data. Here, the urbanization rate is defined as the percentage of urban population to total population. The settlement extent data (i.e. all artificial cover and paved surfaces, not limited to urban) for the years 1975, 1990, 2000, and 2015 are from the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL), a dataset developed by the European Commission. The population and GDP data are from the World Bank and the United Nations. These data are fed into the built panel data regression model to project the built-up areas for each SSP scenario based on the predictions of future population, urbanization rate, and GDP from the SSP database. The projection outputs are then combined with other geographical information and inputted into the Future Land-Use Simulation (FLUS) model to 5
simulate the future spatial distribution of urban land. The final projection outputs, which have a spatial resolution of 1 km, are presented at 10-year intervals from 2020 to 2100, with 2015 being the reference year for baseline urban extent.

To overcome the uncertainty associated with climate change and illustrate the range of possible outcomes, Chen et al. (2020) adopt the SSP framework in producing the urban expansion projections. The five SSP scenarios, which are central to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, describe socioeconomic changes that affect demographic, economic, and climate change dynamics. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework established by the climate change research community to facilitate integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation (Riahi et al. 2017). The three main sets of scenario drivers are (1) population and education; (2) urbanization, defined as the urban share of the population (Jiang and O’Neill 2017); and (3) GDP per capita and interpersonal income inequality.<sup>5</sup> The scenarios are each associated with certain levels of assumed mitigation and adaptation challenges: the sustainability scenario (SSP1), for example, is marked by low mitigation and adaptation challenges, while the regional rivalry scenario (SSP3) depicts a future with high challenges to mitigation and adaptation. It is critical to note that the SSP scenarios underpinning Chen et al.’s (2020) urban expansion projections frame our results on potential impact on crop and livestock production.

# **2.2 Crop and livestock data**

The data on crop production are drawn from MapSPAM (Spatial Production Allocation Model) (IFPRI 2019). MapSPAM provides global gridded data on the production of 42 crops, which are aggregated into eight groups in our analysis: cereals, fruits, oils, pulses, roots, sugar, vegetables, and non-food crops (see Table 1). We focus our analysis on food crops.<sup>6</sup> _Table 1. Crop group classification_

|_Crop group_|_Corresponding crop in MapSPAM_|
|---|---|
|_Cereals_|Wheat, rice, maize, barley, pearl millet, small millet, sorghum, other cereals|
|_Fruits_|Banana, plantain, tropical fruit, temperate fruit|
|_Oils_|Soybean, groundnut, coconut, oil palm, sunflower, rapeseed, sesame seed, other<br>oil crops|
|_Pulses_|Bean, chickpea, cowpea, pigeon pea, lentil, other pulses|
|_Roots_|Potato, sweet potato, yams, cassava, other roots|
|_Sugar_|Sugar cane, sugar beet|
|_Vegetables_|Vegetables|
|_Non-food_|Cotton, other fibre crops, arabica coffee, robusta coffee, cocoa, tea, tobacco, rest<br>of crops|

> 5 The urbanization projections developed for the SSPs are on the country level and non-spatialized (Jiang and O’Neill 2017).

> 6 Extending the analysis to non-food crops, such as those used for biofuels or fiber production, could be an interesting area of future research.

6
<!-- Start of picture text --> “ .<br>a c ;<br>'<br>:<br>. 1.<br>& 3:<br>Bat WEA Beep Otter<br>Six Buw war<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **2.4 Methods and assumptions**

Our analysis is based on several key assumptions. First, we assume that any urbanization that occurs on current land used for crop and livestock (i.e., as of 2010) will result in a significant impact on the agricultural production there. Specifically, such an overlap could culminate in either a loss of crop or livestock previously produced on the piece of land, or it could lead to a proximity of urban and agricultural functions, which may alter agricultural production cycles and scales.

Second, for the baseline condition, since the urban expansion data use 2015 as the starting year, any crop or livestock that overlap with the 2015 urban extent are _not_ counted toward the initial agricultural production (see Table 2). Consequently, only crop and livestock outside of the 2015 urban extent are aggregated for the baseline quantity of crop and livestock production. This would lead to eliminating about 2- 6 percent of crop or livestock production in the data (see Table A1.6).<sup>9</sup> Third, we assume no further expansion of land used for crop and livestock beyond its footprint in 2010. To clarify, the potential impact on crop and livestock production is calculated based on how much future urban expansion is projected to extend into current land used for crop and livestock production. This assumption is made despite acknowledging that a growing global population would entail increasing crop and livestock demands in the future. While such intricate dynamics would affect impacts on crop and livestock production, it is beyond the scope of this paper to devise robust models for future land uses.

Fourth, we assume that receding urban frontiers does _not_ replenish land used for crop and livestock production. To elaborate, while the data from Chen et al. (2020) shows that across different SSP scenarios, urban extents could in fact decrease in some parts of the world, in part due to declining urban populations, we assume that these urban contractions will not result in land being reclaimed for agricultural use. Urban contractions may have implications for crop and livestock production. This assumption is based on historical trends, while shrinking cities often leads to vacant land and deteriorating infrastructure, rather than reconversion to land uses prior to urbanization (Florentin 2019). Therefore, once an area for crop and livestock production becomes urbanized, the production there is assumed to be part of the estimated production loss permanently. The urban expansion projection data, available in 10-year intervals, are used as proxies to estimate the cumulative urban extent around the world.

Based on the above assumptions, we adopt the following method for our analysis: First, raster calculations are performed to derive the areas of urban expansion for 2040 and 2100 for all five SSP scenarios. Since we assume that the potential impact on crop and livestock production due to urbanization is irreversible, we use cumulative urban extents for each time period. For example, to calculate the urban expansion for 2040, we overlay urban projections for all previous decades (2020, 2030, and 2040). Any area that has ever been marked as urban is considered part of the cumulative urban extent, regardless of whether the area subsequently deurbanizes or not.<sup>10</sup> Following this, we calculate the percentage of the urban extent that is _newly urban_ compared to

> 9 Table A1 in the Annex displays the overlap percentages between food production and urban extent in grid cells. 10 This assumption holds true for any of the years preceding the 10-year interval from 2010 to 2100. Only 3 years of dataset are extracted to analysis for this working paper; 2010, 2040 and 2100.

8
PANEL A. URBAN BUILT-UP PROJECTION DATA <!-- Start of picture text --> ’ ' ' an<br>oe a e e Oe Oe<br>meena. = 2a<br>+ ’ + ’ ‘ ° ’ i '<br>\<br>PANEL B. CROP AND LIVESTOCK P<br>DATA<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> b, by<br>1 ]<br>b, b,<br><!-- End of picture text --> PANEL C. OVERLAP AND CONVERSION OF PANELAG SB <!-- Start of picture text --> ——— a ' a i F<br>De |. Oyl- be bp Dae |<br>» ad © Na Isbell<br>Eee eee eh el ni<br>“<br>A ee<br>4 bs| oe Se<br>a ee ee ee<br><!-- End of picture text -->

id conversionfactor = 6,023 «sees conversiondata losses PANEL D. FINAL INTEGRATEDDATA AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Any cropland or livestock that coincides with the projected urban expansion area is considered part of the estimated overlap. These steps are replicated for each SSP scenario to arrive at estimated crop and livestock future overlap. However, it is important to note that this projection exercise assumes that the relevant food sectors will remain stagnant in terms of their technologies and productivity. While this allows us to estimate the overlap of urban expansion on crop and livestock production, it is important to recognize that actual overlap may differ if there are technological advances or changes in the economic or sociopolitical landscape affecting food production.

To determine current crop and livestock production, which are used as baseline values, we sum all crop and livestock production that that are _not_ located in urban areas in 2015. Note that the most recent crop and livestock global data are from 2010, instead of 2015. Moreover, since the crop and livestock data come from two independent sources with two different methodologies, it is possible for a certain area to have both cropland and livestock. After generating the baseline values, we compare them with the absolute values of projected overlap to calculate the percentages for potential food losses. This method is then repeated for each of the seven regions to derive the regional results, and for select cities.

Due to the above limitations and model uncertainty of climate projections on land use, we caution against over-interpreting precise quantitative results, but rather one should focus on broad magnitudes and directions.

# **2.5 Summary statistics**

## _In_

Table 2 we present grid-level summary statistics at baseline of urban extent (in 2015) and of crop and livestock production (in 2010) for the eight crop groups and the eight types of livestock, respectively. In Table 3 we present baseline total values for food crops and livestock globally and for each of the seven regions. For simplicity of the regional breakdowns, we aggregate the seven crop groups into four (fruits and vegetables, cereals and roots, sugars and oils, and pulses) and the eight livestock types into three (poultry, pigs, and ruminants).

_Table 2. Baseline summary statistics_

|**Variable**|**Obs**|**Mean **|**SD **|**Min**|**Max **|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Grid-Level Variables**||||||
|Urban Extent, 2015 (%)|2,033,283|0.004|0.035|0|1|
|Food crops, 2010, mt|832,827|9243.536|<br>23981.23|0|1507168|
|_Cereals_|832,827|1237.446|<br>4514.959|0|248531.1|
|_Fruits_|832,827|370.511|3325.975|0|424014.9|
|_Oils_|832,827|348.771|2564.369|0|180197.9|
|_Pulses_|832,827|33.505|216.89|0|25092.7|
|_Roots_|832,827|376.579|2397.17|0|355336.9|
|_Sugar_|832,827|966.807|<br>12084|<br>0|1507168|
|_Vegetables_|832,827|1104.765|<br>5004.414|0|293567.5|
|Non-food crops, 2010, mt|832,827|66.487|472.811|0|34934|

10
|Livestock, 2010, mt|2,014,887|13021.28|<br>73234.23|0|1060007|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Buffaloes,_|2,008,899|94.980|906.527|0|119607.5|
|_Goats_|2,014,567|475.125|2351.833|0|237936.2|
|_Cattle_|2,014,533|723.358|1943.561|0|328070.9|
|_Sheep_|2,014,215|558.121|1885.496|0|344862.1|
|_Horses_|2,013,909|30.783|153.932|0|105564.2|
|_Pigs_|2,014,572|484.444|2889.772|0|411115.7|
|_Chickens_|2,014,564|9994.698|67859.33|0|10500007|
|_Ducks_|2,012,134|663.042|7095.628|0|1311365|

Note: Data for livestock cover not available. One grid cell has a spatial resolution of 1/12 degree - about 9 to 10 sq km. Urban extent is the percentage of urban area in a grid cell (ranging from 0 to 1). Crop production for each grid cell is defined as the yield multiplied by harvested area in metric tons. Food crops include cereals, fruits, oils, pulses, roots, sugar, vegetables food groups. Livestock production is the global population densities of eight types of livestock: cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in each land pixel at a spatial resolution of 1/12 degree degrees (approximately 10 sq km at the equator). Missing values in the crop production dataset are specifically distinguished from crops that are not grown in a particular area. Crops not grown in an area are coded as zero, while crop data that is not available is coded as a missing value. This distinction is important as it helps to differentiate between areas where crops are not grown and areas where data is simply not available (Yu et al., 2020).

_Table 3. Baseline values for crop production and livestock production_

||**Global**|**Africa**|**EAP**|**ECA**|**LCR**|**MENA**|**SOA**|**Other**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Food crops 2010**|||||||||
|**, ,**<br>**metric tons (mt)**|7,510.9|575.0|2,263.5|636.7|1,435.5|226.6|1,049.9|1,323.7|
|_Fruits and Vegetables_|1,611.6|102.2|742.8|120.3|150.3|102.3|195.7|197.8|
|_Cereals and roots_|3,207.0|350.9|948.9|385.7|232.3|82|430.9|776.4|
|_Sugars and oils_|2,625.0|108.5|561.6|125.7|1,046.3|40.5|405.6|336.8|
|_Pulses_|67.3|13.4|10.1|5|6.6|1.8|17.6|12.7|
|**Livestock, 2010, mt**|24,884.6|1,997.1|9,503.5|1,638.0|3,599.1|2,020.2|1,983.5|4,143.5|
|_Poultry_|20,451.1|1,137.5|8,363.1|1,355.6|3,008.5|1,777.2|1,322.1|3,487.1|
|_Pigs_|939.3|31.0|538.9|64|82.4|0.1|12.6|210.4|
|_Ruminants_|3,494.1|828.6|601.6|218.4|508.2|243|648.8|445.6|

Note: Since urban expansion data use 2015 as the starting year, any crop or livestock that overlap with the 2015 urban extent are not counted toward the initial agricultural production.

In Table 3, we present descriptive statistics on the percentage of grids that have overlap in urban extent, crop production, and livestock production. For example, 30 percent of grids that have cereal production also have fruit production, 90 percent of grids have both pig and chicken production, 35 percent of grids have both cereal production and pig production, 4 percent of grids have urban area and cereal production, and 5 percent of grids have urban area and pig production.

# **3. Results**

We present spatial projections of the overlap of climate-induced urban expansion with crop and livestock production under each of the five SSP scenarios (or what we call, projected losses). In Section 3.1 we present projected losses in global crop production, in Section 3.2 we present projected losses in global livestock production. In Sections 3.3 and 3.4 we present regional disaggregation of projected losses for crop and livestock production, respectively. In Section 3.5, we depict urban expansion and crop and livestock production for six selected cities. Finally, in 11
<!-- Start of picture text --> a. Projected crop losses by 2040 b. Projected crop losses by 2100<br>}<br>/<br>ecce € . Se|<br>S3 fh Nf<br>a a Ls<br>= “= vegetables ¢ ? — = A / “= vegetables<br>S 2 re! ~ mot é, ° ——~ f f ~ rots<br>6 . 3 = yy<br>& <a) Vv ~ cereals z A ie =<br>a . | ~ cits & i. J ~ of<br>c ° 4 : i co 7 .<br>1<br>5 = : —— ~ pulses ; 1 . ‘' ° ~ pulses<br>r) 0<br>SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP5 SSP1 S$SP2 SSP3 SSP4 SSP5<br><!-- End of picture text -->
## a. Projected livestock losses by 2040

# b. Projected livestock losses by 2100

<!-- Start of picture text --> 4 4<br>i i<br>g, er chicken z, ~> chicken<br>& “= duck s i ~> duck<br>s -~ buffao & “> butfalo<br>: SL —— goat 3 a \ ~~ goat<br>Ske othe SOT at > cate<br>1 3 ' a Fa<br>0 ssPt SSP2 $8°3 SSP4 SSP5 ° ssf SSP2 SSP3 sspeé sSoPs<br><!-- End of picture text -->
largest under SSP5 (fossil-fueled development), and also under SSP1 (sustainability). For example, in 2040, the projected overlap of urban expansion and chickens is around 2 percent under SSP5. In contrast, the projected urban expansion overlap for chickens is smallest under SSP3 (regional rivalry).

As with crops, by 2100, the projected overlap of urban expansion with livestock is larger than in 2040. We highlight a few interesting results. First, urban expansion overlap is still largest for chickens by 2100, under all scenarios while sheep and cattle have smaller overlaps with urban expansion. Under SSP5, by 2100, projected overlap of urban expansion and chicken production is over 4 percent. However, by 2100, the overlap of urban expansion would be second highest for pigs and horses. Second, the overlap of urban expansion is still greatest under SSP5 for most livestock, but not for buffalo or goat (where it is greatest under SSP4). Third, the difference in overlap of urban expansion between SSP1 and SSP5 (for most livestock) is much larger in 2100 than in 2040.

# **3.3 Projected urban overlap with crop production, by region**

We disaggregate projected urban overlap with crop production by region. In 2040, for most scenarios, the projected overlap with crop production will be largest in AFR, MENA, SOA, and EAP (see Figure 5). Africa, SOA, and EAP will experience the greatest urban expansion overlap particularly under SSP1 (sustainability), while AFR and SOA will experience the greatest urban expansion overlap under SSP4 (inequality). While MENA only has 3 percent of current global crop production, in 2040 it is expected to have the greatest urban overlap compared to all other regions under SSP2, SSP3, and SSP5. Compared to other regions, crop production in LCR and ECA are projected to have the smallest overlap with urban expansion.

By 2100, the regional results diverge quite significantly. AFR (currently with 8 percent of current global crop production) will have the largest urban overlap with its crop production across all scenarios, except SSP3. The overlap for AFR will be largest under SSP4, with 21 percent of crop production in AFR projected to overlap with urban expansion by 2100. The urban overlap with crop production in 2100 will be second largest in MENA (and first largest under SSP3), and third largest in SOA. The projected overlap continues to be smallest in LCR and ECA through 2100.

Note that EAP currently has about 30 percent of global crop production. The projected urban expansion overlap with crop production in EAP remains relatively low and stable from 2040 to 2100, thereby muting the overall projected overlap globally. Although, as noted above, the projected overlaps in AFR, MENA, and SOA are expected to be much larger.

A closer look at the projected overlap for AFR (see Figure 6) indicates that by 2100 and across all scenarios, the overlap of urban expansion will be largest for sugars and oils, then for fruits and vegetables, then for cereals and roots. The urban overlap with pulses is much smaller relative to other crops. A closer look at SOA indicates that by 2100 and across all scenarios, the overlap of urban expansion will be largest for cereals and roots, closely followed by fruits and vegetables, then by sugars and oils. This is contrary to AFR where sugar and oils would experience the largest overlap. But similar to AFR, the projected overlap of pulses with urban expansion is much smaller relative to other crops.

14
<!-- Start of picture text --> a. Regional crop losses by b. Regional crop losses by c. Current regiona<br>typein 2040 (%) type in 2100 (%) crop distribution<br>(base year: 2015)<br>i cm. Crepe Al Cope<br>ia u<br>1s * Gobal 758<br>“ Mu<br>a” a.ss — -<br>$SPS 5 ssP2 SSPS sz = w TM<br>é<br>ee) y ~ ~<br>\— — in ~*~<br>— vin "<br>— SA _<br>spa $5P3 SsP3 beac *<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> a. Regional crop losses bytypein b. Regionalcroplossesbytype ¢. Current regional crop<br>2040 (35) in 2100 (23) distribution (base year: 2015)<br>SS<br>SSP SSPL<br>1G -, ak. Crop Type Global Africa<br>te, EE ig — Fruitsand Vegetables 1.68 6%<br>sshd‘\=—'I“SSP2 |—— i | ee All crops 7.58 8%<br>a:<br>S5PL S5P1<br>a Bere, —— Fruitsand Vegetables 1.68 46%<br>eeco) ite i4 ey \ CerealsSugars andand roots ois 3.282.68 30%21%<br>(i cae tt 4h), ae — Pulses 67.3M 15%<br>56Pa) ‘SSPR spa S8P3<br>Ve eee<br>S5PL S5P1<br>a Wee Crop Type Global ECA<br>55P5,an So sspa ssP5 0 ge Coroats and roots 328 12%<br>WEEE 11, 7g Py — Pubes 67.3M 7%<br>el ~S5P3 sse4 SSP3<br>ae ssPl<br>ge, ot _. Fruitsand Vegetables 1.68 9%<br>SPS os ; 2 PR §5P5¢°. ot. a E — Cerealsand roots 3.28 7%<br>Vee iy "&\ ffi — Pulses 673M 10%<br>spa" P 3 S5P4 ‘SSP3<br>a hi<br>tt a — Fruitsand Vegetables 1.68 6%<br>See Sars as sepa Cereals androcts = 3.28 3%<br>a nn A\ a] Sugars and oits 268 2%<br>a ) hol | | — Pubes 673M 3%<br>sspa——_—'sgpz spd — | tbs All crops 758 3%<br>ae SSPL<br>. a 7 Crop type Global SOA<br>SSS ots, oO a, — Fruitsand Vegetables 1.68 12%<br> oo 5505 02 te pepe Cereals and roots 3.28 13%<br>Ni hifi “Gear! Sugars and ois 268 15%<br>a TRY \ eel — Pubes 67,3M 26%<br>sepaWe ‘spaa) £spq-—_——‘bgpgi ——| All crops 7.58 14%<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> a. Regional livestock losses by b. Regional livestock losses c. Current regional<br>type in 2040 (%)} by typein 2100 (96) livestock distribution<br>(base year: 2015)<br>SSPs ssPt<br>bad = Kiventach =A yentoct<br>*% “ Gobat ass<br>» Pa)<br>— Ar -<br>a<br>sess e ssp2S5PS 18 ssP2 = & st<br>=<br>ay ~— me ~<br>—ony *<br>— wm ~<br>Omer TM<br>sspa sSP3 SSP3<br><!-- End of picture text -->
a. Regional Livestock losses by b. Regional livestock losses type in 2040 (%) by type in 2100 (%) _—_c. Current regional livestock distribution (base year: 2015) <!-- Start of picture text --> srt sr<br>4. vA tn Livestock Type Global Africa<br>a , ge a === Poultry 2.98 6%<br>SSS 2 , 788P2 SSP SsP2 0 —— Pigs 134.2M 3%<br>\\ py fi / \\ Dp ify — Ruminants 499.2M 24%<br>fi} \ j All livestock 3.58 8%<br>ssP4 'SSP3 ssP4sep<br>SSP1 SSPL<br>wa s- Livestock Type Global EAP<br>S55P5; ke . e Poultry 2.98 41%<br>\ -— “ ~ S5P2 SSP5 2 a - ; pssP2 — Pigs 134.2M 57%<br>© if | ©) if —— Ruminants 499.2M 17%<br>! i fy All livestock 3.5B 38%<br>sspa- 'SSP3 sspqa-—_—ssp3<br>a5oe<br>SSP1 SSPL<br>x. Bs Livestock Type Global ECA<br>MOM aX —— Poultry 2.98 7%<br>SSPS 6g, SSP2 SSPS 0 gS SSP — Pigs 134.2M 7%<br>\\qe@yy sy oy — Ruminants 499.2M 6%<br>a a —s, All livestock 3.58 7%<br>ssp4—————ssp3 sspa- -§SP3<br>BN,S5SP1 EySSP<br>SSP5 BS Em, Livestock Type Global LCR<br>V\VEYagp, SSffsSY sspa sspse~i ,aQT, ssp2 ———= PoultryPigsRuminants 499.2M2.98134.2M 9%15%15%<br>4h af ee All livestock 3.58 14%<br>sspq SPS ssP4 ~SsP3<br>SSPL SSP1<br>Boe, E]<br>Z _— Z : Livestock Type Global MENA<br>SSP50 es SSR 5s a Poultry 2.98 9%<br>\ Vay\ gopha ffif St a]a~ Ay — — PigsRuminants 499134 .2M 07 %<br>a L— i All livestock 3.5B 8%<br>ssp4——5sp3 sspd 55pg<br>SSP1 SSP1<br>& Box<br>6 . 6 Livestock Type Global SOA<br>SSP5, \ so ssP2 $sps 5 : gsez Poultry 2.98 6%<br>VA i @Mehay fLeyiy — PigsRuminants 499.2M134.2M 1 9%%<br>WE if el | | All livestock 3.58 8%<br>55P4 ~SSP3 5SP4 §SP3<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> 12.0 20.0<br>2 18.4 s<br>=<br>S 120 §<br>= 100 9.6 a<br>_ 88 16.0 = =<br>ao «(8<br>7§ ‘h 14.012.0 Ec<br>= 2<br>a]a 60 8.9 wo OB<br>£ 44 8.0 &<br>40 6.3 3.5<br>3.0 6.0 z<br>42 :<br>20 _ 3.6 ! 40<br>2.78 2.3 21 . E<br>} 15 . 20<br>00 0.0<br>Lima Nairobi Quezon Abuja Cirebon Ho Chi<br>City Minh<br>Population mArea(km*) # Pop Density (per km*)<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> a ea r -<br>dia i<br>a<br>4 -<br>. I]¥ 2 oo<br>* = a - =<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> = S a<br>_ =<br>. —<br>'<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> ; Ts<br>-<br>* SS |<br>(hte i<br>% ah — “> j at!<br>J iv a i bd Sn<br>\ Rise<br>Dag<br>a<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> F >." i cr<br>“a<br>= t fa<br>— Bs :<br>(hs a fs<br>nex - ~<br>j te] “i - i 4 |<br>_ ae 5<br>vi)<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> e-re. 2 f -sy a- 45 \ ;<br>« re d-<br>| = -<br>. 4 {<br>o . “<br> Ki Pe ih ieee<br>% er oe —<br>i" Pi = "#R. |<br>—one es|—<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> Total 5 Vaimion ig<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> BJ of:<br>4 ee ol<br>- ios<br>Ne us = a<br>, 'p ; ot<br>aan<br>‘= |<br>ft® “%. si|<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> o 10.Gomiion<br>Talal number of livestock Sa<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> 0) 2015 buit-upeaern<br>[J] Projected built-up expansionby XMO<br>| Projected buslt-up espansionoy 2100<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text -->
| lh =<br>} a |<br>.gee.gee. tae =<br>ee ——<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 3 bgt .<br>TMy =+ =<br>a—e rn ><br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text -->
| lh = 3 bgt .<br>} a | TMy =+ =<br>. tae = —e rn ><br>.gee.gee. a—e<br>ee ——<br>€ Lat<br>t a het) 7<br>.q q 1 = %ie i a<br>oe as _— —{ 4 : «<br>tsi esl ~<br>i] a | Ca 6 6. 6. hue |<br>| B<br>ad : “"%..1%..11 5 i . hea xE Mal itoe,bee|oe,bee|bee|| we op .<br>—_— > ¢ 5 on, <3 on, <3 <3 - ‘|| ca<br>4 } Zr :<br>O(a 1! . . “{ ] ] ’ j Zi<br>Total crap production 5 |Vaimion ig Total number of livestock o 10.Gomiion<br>(0) 2015 uatt-iags ctor ctor<br>[] Projected built-up expansionby expansionbyby Mi<br>| Projected built-up eqpansianoy eqpansianoyoy 210<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> i] a |<br>|<br>. a E<br>ad : “"%..1%..11 5 i hea xE<br>—_— > ¢ 5 on, <3 on, <3 <3 -<br>4 }<br>O(a 1! . . “{ ] ]<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> tsi esl ~<br>Ca 6 6. 6. hue |<br>B<br>Mal itoe,bee|oe,bee|bee|| we op .<br>‘|| ca<br>Zr :<br>’ j Zi<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> (0) 2015 uatt-iags ctor ctor<br>[] Projected built-up expansionby expansionbyby Mi<br>| Projected built-up eqpansianoy eqpansianoyoy 210<br><!-- End of picture text -->
# **3.6 Correlation of crop and livestock production with urban expansion**

For each SSP scenario, we estimate grid level regressions to estimate the correlation between crop and livestock production at baseline in 2015 with projected urban expansion (both in 2040 and 2100). These correlations indicate, for each of the SSP scenarios, to what extent grids that are more likely to become more urban in the future are those that have higher (or lower) crop and livestock production today. It sheds light on whether urban expansion will occur into higher production grids, but not on whether urban expansion occurs in more grids.

_Table 4. Grid level regressions of crop production on urban expansion rates for five SSP scenarios_

|_Outcome:_|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Crop production(2010, mt)|SSP 1|SSP 2|SSP 3|SSP 4|SSP 5|
|_Panel A: Urban expansion to 2040_||||||
|Urban expansion rate in 2040|67,040.29***|67,547.62***|98,514.26***|70,278.82***|50,550.85***|
||(998.5)|(1055.5)|(1357.25)|(1053.61)|(859.41)|
|Observations|832,827|832,827|832,827|832,827|832,827|
|R squared|0.0054|0.0049|0.0063|0.0053|0.0041|
|Mean crop production(2010,mt)|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|
||(6)|(7)|(8)|(9)|(10)|
||SSP 1|SSP 2|SSP 3|SSP 4|SSP 5|
|_Panel B: Urban expansion to 2100_||||||
|Urban expansion rate in 2100|32,773.24***|33,660.66***|56,730.6***|37,474.94 ***|16,547.64***|
||(582.03)|(567.5)|(648.1)|(564.4)|(368.67)|
|Observations|832,827|832,827|832,827|832,827|832,827|
|R squared|0.0038|0.0042|0.0091|0.0053|0.0024|
|Mean crop production (2010, mt)|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|9,243.5|

Robust SE in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Grid-level OLS estimation, where one grid has a spatial resolution of 1/12 degree - about 9 to 10 sq km. Urban expansion rate is the percentage of newly urban areas in a given grid cell for a given SSP scenario (ranging from 0 to 1). Crop production for each grid cell is defined as the yield multiplied by harvested area in metric tons. We include seven food group: cereals, fruits, vegetables, oils, pulses, roots, and sugar. We exclude non-food groups from the database (Cotton, other fibre crops, arabica coffee, robusta coffee, cocoa, tea, tobacco, rest of crops). Here, the urbanization rate is defined as the percentage of urban population to total population, and ranges from the value of 0 to 1. The urban expansion projection data (Chen et al. 2020) are calculated using panel data regression based on historical population, urbanization rate, and gross domestic product (GDP) data.

Table 4 presents results for crop production for both 2040 (Panel A) and 2100 (Panel B). First, we find that across all SSP scenarios and in both 2040 and 2100, grids that are expected to have higher urban expansion rates are grids which have higher levels of crop production today. This indicates that in the future, cities are likely to grow into areas with more crop production, regardless of SSP scenario. Second, in both 2040 and 2100, the positive correlation between projected urban expansion and current crop production is highest under SSP3 and lowest under SSP5. Third, the positive correlation between projected urban expansion and current crop production is large in both 2040 and 2100, but the magnitude dampens over time. This means that the cumulative 22
expansion into grids with higher crop production is less in 2100 than in 2040. This indicates that expansion occurs into areas with progressively less agricultural production over time. Cumulative crop losses will still be larger in 2100 than in 2040, but the average loss per grid cell will be less in 2100. This indicates that the higher producing areas will be impacted sooner (in 2040) than later (in 2100).

For example, under SSP3 grids that are projected to have a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2040 are likely to have 106 percent higher crop production in 2010 (or double the crop production). While under SSP5, grids that are projected to have a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2040 are likely to have 55 percent higher crop production in 2010. Under the similar SSP5 scenario, grids that are projected to have a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2100 are likely to have only an 18 percent higher crop production in 2010. Thus, cities are predicted to grow into areas which produce higher levels of crops, more so early on (in 2040) and less so later (in 2100), and more so under SSP3 (a situation of regional rivalry with high challenges to mitigation and adaptation) than under SSP5 (a fossil-fueled development with high challenges to mitigation, but low challenges to adaptation).

The overlap of urban expansion with food production (i.e. projected food losses) presented earlier is a combination of two things: first, the _total number of grids_ where projected future urban expansion is expected to coincide with, and second, the _average production density_ of the grids that urban areas expand into under a given scenario. Here, we find that urban expansion under SSP5 will occur in less dense grids on average (relative to other SSP scenarios). But earlier we found that the overlap of urban expansion with food production (i.e. production losses) is greatest under SSP5. This indicates that the total number of grids that SSP5 is projected to overlaps with (which is greater than all other SSP scenarios) outweighs the lower production density of the average grid it impacts (relative to other SSP scenarios). Regardless, the urban expansion under SSP5 still coincides with more densely producing grids on average (relative to the areas without urban expansion under the same SSP5 scenario).

Table 5 presents results for livestock production for both 2040 (Panel A) and 2100 (Panel B). The three main qualitative results for crop production (Table 4) are similar to that for livestock density (Table 5). First, across all SSP scenarios and in both 2040 and 2100, grids that are expected to have higher urban expansion rates are grids which have higher levels of livestock density today. This indicates that in the future, cities are likely to grow into areas with more livestock. Second, the positive correlation between projected urban expansion and current livestock density is highest under SSP3 and lowest under SSP5. Third, the positive correlation between projected urban expansion and current livestock density is large in both 2040 and 2100, but the magnitude dampens over time. This means that the cumulative expansion into grids with higher livestock density is less in 2100 than in 2040. Note, however, that the projected urban expansion into areas with high livestock density is much higher than the projected expansion into areas with higher crop production.

For example, under SSP3 grids that are projected to have a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2040 are likely to have 8.6 times higher livestock density in 2010. While under SSP5, grids that are projected to have a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2040 are likely to have 4.6 times higher crop production in 2010. Under the similar SSP5 scenario, grids that are projected to have 23
a 10 percent higher urban expansion rate in 2100 are likely to have only a 1.6 times higher livestock density in 2010. As mentioned above, the magnitudes for the correlation between future urban expansion and current livestock production are much higher than those for the correlation between future expansion and current crop production.

_Table 5. Grid level regressions of livestock production on urban expansion rates for five SSP scenarios_

|_Outcome:_|(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Livestockproduction(2010, mt)|SSP 1|SSP 2|SSP 3|SSP 4|SSP 5|
|_Panel A: Urban expansion to 2040_||||||
|Urban expansion rate in 2040|604,006***|628,556***|887,535***|621,852***|481,385***|
||(2952.30)|(3116.5)|(4006.3)|(3121.1)|(2544.2)|
|Observations|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|
|R squared|0.0204|0.0198|0.0238|0.0193|0.0175|
|Mean livestock(popdensity)|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|
||(6)|(7)|(8)|(9)|(10)|
||SSP 1|SSP 2|SSP 3|SSP 4|SSP 5|
|_Panel B: Urban expansion to 2100_||||||
|Urban expansion rate in 2100|291,822***|302,128***|442,168***|293,287***|163,586***|
||(1732.26)|(1684.69)|(1916.40)|(1678.8)|(1095.79)|
|Observations|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|2,014,887|
|R squared|0.0139|0.0157|0.0257|0.0149|0.0109|
|Mean livestock(popdensity)|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|13021.28|

Robust SE in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Grid-level OLS estimation, where one grid has a spatial resolution of 1/12 degree - about 9 to 10 sq km. Urban expansion rate is the percentage expansion in urban area in a given SSP scenario (ranging from 0 to 1). Livestock production is the global population densities of eight types of livestock: cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in each land pixel at a spatial resolution of 0.083333 decimal degrees (approximately 10 km at the equator). Here, the urbanization rate is defined as the percentage of urban population to total population, and ranges from the value of 0 to 1. The urban expansion projection data (Chen et al. 2020) are calculated using panel data regression based on historical population, urbanization rate, and gross domestic product (GDP) data.

# **4. Conclusions**

This paper finds that, if poorly managed, urban expansion will be tied to a projected decline in key crops and animal-source foods that are important for diets and nutrition. There are important regional differences as well as differences across SSP scenarios and through time.

Under SSP1, by 2100, the largest projected decline among crops is for fruits, vegetables, and tubers/roots, and the smallest declines are for oils, sugar, and pulses (relative to current levels of production). Although food production initially declines faster under SSP1 than under SSP3 to 2040, it then slows so that the projected decrease in food production by 2100 somewhat aligns for both the SSP1 and SSP3 scenarios. Under SSP1, by 2100, there is also a projected decline in the number of livestock, important to the production of animal-source foods rich in protein. The largest declines are for poultry (chickens and ducks) and pigs, and the smaller declines are for ruminants (cattle, sheep, and goats). This aligns with the notion that the production of poultry and pigs is more peri-urban than that of ruminant production. By 2100, the largest urban overlap with food 24
production is under SSP5. We find that the overlaps are expected to be largest in Africa for both crops and for livestock, and particularly under SSP4.

Aggregating across crops and across livestock presents a slightly different picture. We estimate grid-level regressions to show that future urban expansion is most likely to occur under areas today that have higher levels of crop production and that have higher livestock density on aggregate. This projected correlation between future expansion and current crop and livestock density is largest under SSP3 and smallest under SSP5. This correlation is also large and positive in both 2040 and 2100, but is smaller in 2100 than 2040, suggesting that the correlation diminishes over time. This indicates that urban expansion occurs into increasingly marginal agricultural lands over time (but it occurs in still more densely producing areas than in areas that urbanization does not occur).

We discuss a few caveats and policy implications to our analysis and findings. First, these projections, do not account for the possibility of vertical and infill urban development, which can help cities to accommodate the growing demand for urban land without the need to expand as rapidly outward. To the extent that income per capita growth is projected to be faster under SSP1 than SSP3, vertical layering can, along with infill development, be expected to occur more quickly under the former than under the latter scenario. Policy and institutional reforms, which improve the functioning of urban land and property markets, thereby reducing vertical development costs, can likewise be expected to slow the horizontal expansion of cities, as can the relaxation of planning restrictions that constrain tall building development and foster car dependence.

The decline in food production projected to result from urban expansion reinforces the importance of policy measures and institutional reforms to promote more compact urban development. Because urban land expansion is projected to be faster and still higher by 2100 under a sustainable pathway than under a regional rivalry pathway, the projected decline in food production is slightly larger under the sustainable pathway. If anything, such a finding places even more importance on measures to reduce the costs of vertical development and reduce car dependence under a sustainable pathway than under a regional rivalry pathway.

Second, in addition to encouraging more compact development, the impacts of horizontal urban expansion on food production can be offset by enhancing agricultural productivity and reducing food loss and waste. Sustainably improving agricultural productivity requires accelerated innovation, as opposed to increasing the use of land, water, and other production inputs. Innovation through the invention, adaptation, and dissemination of locally adapted new technologies will be key (Fuglie et al. 2019). In addition, reducing food loss and waste (for example, via agro-logistics, cold chains, improved infrastructure, easier access to markets, enhanced consumer awareness, and improved urban waste and landfill policies) not only reduces the carbon footprint and environmental stresses of the food system, but also improves food security by making more food available in the supply chain and lowering prices (World Bank, 2020).

Measures to enhance agricultural productivity are also important because, in addition to land constraints, agriculture faces climate-related productivity losses and urbanization-related labor constraints. On the one hand, food systems have significant impacts on climate largely through agriculture and land use changes. On the other hand, climate change has also slowed the global 25
growth in agricultural productivity. Anthropogenic climate change has reduced global agricultural TFP by an estimated 21 percent since 1961, equivalent to losing the last seven years of productivity growth (Ortiz-Bobea et al. 2021). These negative impacts are largest in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Third, in addition to climate-related productivity losses, an important corollary to increased urbanization (and structural transformation more broadly) is that the shrinking share of labor employed in food production must become much more productive to meet the growing and changing food demand of a much larger nonagricultural population. There are other indications, however, that as people move from rural to urban areas, agricultural land constraints may be relaxed. Rural lands would be released for agriculture and farms would become less fragmented and potentially more efficient (Wang et al. 2021). Finally, the rising need for food could be addressed through international trade, combined with productivity gains in countries that have such comparative advantages. This must be balanced, however, by mitigating the risks of food production, which are concentrated in a narrower set of countries.

26