Addressing uncertainty in efficient mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

V Eory, CFE Topp, A Butler, D Moran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost-effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost-effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom-up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost-effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win-win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost-ineffective and cost-effective.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)627 - 645
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Agricultural Economics
Volume69
Issue number3
Early online date30 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusFirst published - 30 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

greenhouse gas
mitigation
abatement cost
cost analysis
cost
agriculture
Monte Carlo analysis
agricultural land
climate change
analysis
rate

Bibliographical note

1031410

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • greenhouse gas mitigation
  • marginal abatement costs curve
  • uncertainty

Cite this

@article{0a21c8d3ea334f9fa3cb125c6cfde221,
title = "Addressing uncertainty in efficient mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions",
abstract = "The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost-effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost-effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom-up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost-effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6{\%} and 107.3{\%} across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1{\%} (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32{\%} (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win-win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost-ineffective and cost-effective.",
keywords = "Agriculture, greenhouse gas mitigation, marginal abatement costs curve, uncertainty",
author = "V Eory and CFE Topp and A Butler and D Moran",
note = "1031410",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1111/1477-9552.12269",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "627 -- 645",
journal = "Journal of Agricultural Economics",
issn = "0021-857X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "3",

}

Addressing uncertainty in efficient mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. / Eory, V; Topp, CFE; Butler, A; Moran, D.

In: Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 69, No. 3, 30.04.2018, p. 627 - 645.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Addressing uncertainty in efficient mitigation of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

AU - Eory, V

AU - Topp, CFE

AU - Butler, A

AU - Moran, D

N1 - 1031410

PY - 2018/4/30

Y1 - 2018/4/30

N2 - The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost-effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost-effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom-up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost-effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win-win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost-ineffective and cost-effective.

AB - The agricultural sector, as an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is under pressure to reduce its contribution to climate change. Decisions on financing and regulating agricultural GHG mitigation are often informed by cost-effectiveness analysis of the potential GHG reduction in the sector. A commonly used tool for such analysis is the bottom-up marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) which assesses mitigation options and calculates their cumulative cost-effective mitigation potential. MACCs are largely deterministic, typically not reflecting uncertainties in underlying input variables. We analyse the uncertainty of GHG mitigation estimates in a bottom-up MACC for agriculture, for those uncertainties capable of quantitative assessment. Our analysis identifies the sources and types of uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness analysis and estimates the statistical uncertainty of the results by propagating uncertainty through the MACC via Monte Carlo analysis. For the case of Scottish agriculture, the uncertainty of the cost-effective abatement potential from agricultural land, as expressed by the coefficient of variation, was between 9.6% and 107.3% across scenarios. This means that the probability of the actual abatement being less than half of the estimated abatement ranged from <1% (in the scenario with lowest uncertainty) to 32% (in the scenario with highest uncertainty). The main contributors to uncertainty are the adoption rate and abatement rate. While most mitigation options appear to be ‘win-win’ under some scenarios, many have a high probability of switching between being cost-ineffective and cost-effective.

KW - Agriculture

KW - greenhouse gas mitigation

KW - marginal abatement costs curve

KW - uncertainty

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/addressing-uncertainty-efficient-mitigation-agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions

U2 - 10.1111/1477-9552.12269

DO - 10.1111/1477-9552.12269

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 627

EP - 645

JO - Journal of Agricultural Economics

JF - Journal of Agricultural Economics

SN - 0021-857X

IS - 3

ER -