IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v105y2021ics0264837721000697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global potential assessment of available land for bioenergy projects in 2050 within food security limits

Author

Listed:
  • Dias, Tomás Andrade da Cunha
  • Lora, Electo Eduardo Silva
  • Maya, Diego Mauricio Yepes
  • Olmo, Oscar Almazán del

Abstract

This paper evaluates the potential of available land area for bioenergy projects in 2050 without compromising food security. The paper's novelty is the qualitative and quantitative assessment of parameters interfering with land availability for bioenergy projects. Unlike previous studies, the projections consider food waste, areas of degraded or abandoned land due to low productivity, and parameters generally overlooked by other authors, such as urban agriculture and insect protein consumption. Population's food demand, agricultural productivity changes, and surplus land availability for biofuel production are bases for the methods employed. Three (3) different scenarios were defined: business as usual (Pessimistic Scenario - CP), the best of the realistic scenarios (Optimistic Conservative Scenario - CC), and the ideal situation (Ideal Scenario - CC). The authors did not consider social segmentation variations in land access, characterizing a weakness of the study. Projections disregard economic and market influences governing land use and distribution. Despite the risks to biodiversity because of agricultural frontiers' expansion, there is enough arable land in the world to feed the population in 2050 in the three proposed scenarios. However, choosing to prioritize forest preservation and going for shrubland areas as the next agricultural frontiers, no arable land would remain in the Pessimistic Scenario for biofuels. Otherwise, agriculture would cause deforestation of 24% of forest area (935 million hectares) and causing massive environmental impacts. In the Optimistic Conservative Scenario, 5.7% of agricultural land would remain, supplying 92% of the 2100 target, and in the Ideal Scenario, 42.0% of agricultural land would remain, with the potential of reach the 2100 target more than 6 times. Bioenergy could contribute to 5–17.7% of the global energy matrix in the most realistic scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Dias, Tomás Andrade da Cunha & Lora, Electo Eduardo Silva & Maya, Diego Mauricio Yepes & Olmo, Oscar Almazán del, 2021. "Global potential assessment of available land for bioenergy projects in 2050 within food security limits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000697
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721000697
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pardey, Philip G. & Beddow, Jason M. & Hurley, Terrance M. & Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Eidman, Vernon R., 2014. "A Bounds Analysis of World Food Futures: Global Agriculture Through to 2050," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(4), October.
    2. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Quisumbing, Agnes & Doss, Cheryl & Theis, Sophie, 2019. "Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework and review of available evidence," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 72-82.
    3. Ajanovic, Amela, 2011. "Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2070-2076.
    4. Pardey, Philip G. & Beddow, Jason M. & Hurley, Terrance M., 2014. "World Food Futures to 2050," Briefs 197625, University of Minnesota, International Science and Technology Practice and Policy.
    5. Allendorf, Keera, 2007. "Do Women's Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1975-1988, November.
    6. Cullen, Jonathan M. & Allwood, Julian M., 2010. "Theoretical efficiency limits for energy conversion devices," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2059-2069.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Divya Joslin Mathias & Thiago Edwiges & Napong Ketsub & Rajinder Singh & Prasad Kaparaju, 2023. "Sweet Sorghum as a Potential Fallow Crop in Sugarcane Farming for Biomethane Production in Queensland, Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Quanfeng Li & Wenhao Guo & Xiaobing Sun & Aizheng Yang & Shijin Qu & Wenfeng Chi, 2021. "The Differentiation in Cultivated Land Quality between Modern Agricultural Areas and Traditional Agricultural Areas: Evidence from Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Sun, Xueqing & Xiang, Pengcheng & Cong, Kexin, 2023. "Research on early warning and control measures for arable land resource security," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margaux Suteau, 2020. "Inheritance Rights and Women's Empowerment in the Labor and Marriage Markets," THEMA Working Papers 2020-17, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    2. Grundy, Michael J. & Bryan, Brett A. & Nolan, Martin & Battaglia, Michael & Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Connor, Jeffery D. & Keating, Brian A., 2016. "Scenarios for Australian agricultural production and land use to 2050," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 70-83.
    3. Pardey, Philip G. & Beddow, Jason M. & Hurley, Terrance M. & Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Eidman, Vernon R., 2014. "The International Agricultural Prospects Model: Assessing Consumption and Production Futures Through 2050 (version 2.1)," Staff Papers 182192, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    4. Qian Guo & Oreoluwa Ola & Emmanuel O. Benjamin, 2020. "Determinants of the Adoption of Sustainable Intensification in Southern African Farming Systems: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Pedro Gerber Machado & Julia Tomei & Adam Hawkes & Celma de Oliveira Ribeiro, 2020. "A Simulator to Determine the Evolution of Disparities in Food Consumption between Socio-Economic Groups: A Brazilian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Walter P. Falcon & Rosamond L. Naylor & Nikhil D. Shankar, 2022. "Rethinking Global Food Demand for 2050," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(4), pages 921-957, December.
    7. Isis Gaddis & Rahul Lahoti & Hema Swaminathan, 2022. "Women's Legal Rights and Gender Gaps in Property Ownership in Developing Countries," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(2), pages 331-377, June.
    8. Anderson Jock R. & Birner Regina & Nagarajan Latha & Naseem Anwar & Pray Carl E., 2021. "Private Agricultural R&D: Do the Poor Benefit?," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 3-14, May.
    9. Chai, Yuan & Pardey, Philip G. & Chan-Kang, Connie & Huang, Jikun & Lee, Kyuseon & Dong, Wanlu, 2019. "Passing the food and agricultural R&D buck? The United States and China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Beddow, Jason M. & Hurley, Terrance M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M., 2015. "Rethinking yield gaps," Staff Papers 201093, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    11. Feyertag, Joseph & Childress, Malcolm & Langdown, Ian & Locke, Anna & Nizalov, Denys, 2021. "How does gender affect the perceived security of land and property rights? Evidence from 33 countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Lana Awada & Peter W. B. Phillips, 2021. "The distribution of returns from land efficiency improvement in multistage production systems," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(1), pages 73-92, March.
    13. Kym Anderson, 2016. "Agricultural Trade, Policy Reforms, and Global Food Security," Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-46925-0, November.
    14. Yin, Hsin-Bai & Patel, Jitendra, 2018. "Comparison of methods to determine the microbial quality of alternative irrigation waters," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 38-45.
    15. Fernanda Zatti Barreto & Thiago Willian Almeida Balsalobre & Roberto Giacomini Chapola & Antonio Augusto Franco Garcia & Anete Pereira Souza & Hermann Paulo Hoffmann & Rodrigo Gazaffi & Monalisa Sampa, 2021. "Genetic Variability, Correlation among Agronomic Traits, and Genetic Progress in a Sugarcane Diversity Panel," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Wang, Hongzhang & Ren, Hao & Han, Kun & Li, Geng & Zhang, Lihua & Zhao, Yali & Liu, Yuee & He, Qijin & Zhang, Jiwang & Zhao, Bin & Ren, Baizhao & Liu, Peng, 2023. "Improving the net energy and energy utilization efficiency of maize production systems in the North China Plain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    17. Fukase, Emiko & Martin, Will, 2020. "Economic growth, convergence, and world food demand and supply," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Stefania Tomasiello & Jorge E. Macías-Díaz, 2023. "A Mini-Review on Recent Fractional Models for Agri-Food Problems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, May.
    19. Orkhan Sariyev & Tim K. Loos & Manfred Zeller & Tulsi Gurung, 2020. "Women in household decision-making and implications for dietary quality in Bhutan," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    20. Mona Chitnis, Roger Fouquet, and Steve Sorrell, 2020. "Rebound Effects for Household Energy Services in the UK," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 31-60.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721000697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.