Engineering PapersSearch

Engineering topics

Doelman, Jonathan

Publications and source records attributed to Doelman, Jonathan.

Bundling measures for food systems transformation: a global, multimodel assessment

Background Current food systems leave one in ten individuals at risk of hunger while driving unsustainable environmental impacts. Inaction risks further exacerbating negative impacts on both human and planetary health. These challenges emerge from complex system interactions, requiring approaches that engage with this complexity and consider how transformation measures interact across food systems. We aimed to quantify the magnitude and uncertainty of the impacts of key food systems transformation measures both individually and in a bundle using an ensemble of global economic models. Methods In this global multimodel assessment, we applied an ensemble of ten state-of-the-art global economic models to evaluate the potential of four key measures in transforming food systems: increasing agricultural productivity, halving food loss and waste, shifting towards healthier diets, and economy-wide climate mitigation policies aligned with limiting warming to 1·5°C. The scenarios used a middle-of-the-road shared socioeconomic pathway for population and gross domestic product growth, climate impact data from Jägermeyr and colleagues, Thornton and colleagues, and Nelson and colleagues, and dietary targets based on the EAT–Lancet healthy reference diet, with model simulations conducted from 2020 to 2050. We then assessed the effect of these measures in isolation and in combination in a bundled scenario. To further understand the interactions between these measures, we conducted a decomposition analysis that distinguishes between the individual effects of a measure (effect when implemented alone), total effects (its contribution within the bundle), and interaction effects (the difference between total and individual effects). This approach aimed to show complementarities and trade-offs that emerge when multiple measures are implemented simultaneously. Findings Our analysis showed that individual measures in isolation are insufficient to achieve high-level environmental objectives and might generate unintended consequences. In contrast, bundling measures produces co-benefits: avoiding 50% of projected agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and almost 20% of anticipated land conversion, while moderating food price increases associated with ambitious climate change mitigation policies. Our decomposition analysis further shows that measures can have varying effects across different dimensions. Although dietary shifts and climate mitigation policies are the largest drivers of environmental benefits (each contributing to a median decline of >10 percentage points in non-CO 2 emissions and 5 percentage points in agricultural land use globally), productivity improvements and reducing food loss and waste play essential roles in moderating price increases (each contributing to a median decline of >5 percentage points in average prices). Interpretation This study highlights the importance of implementing coordinated approaches to food system transformation and climate change mitigation rather than relying on isolated interventions. Comprehensive transformation requires understanding how supply-side and demand-side changes can interact with climate mitigation policies, enabling policy makers to design intervention packages that maximise benefits while minimising trade-offs across environmental, economic, and social dimensions.

Sundiang, Marina [Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (Unite

Fire weather compromises forestation-reliant climate mitigation pathways

Forestation can contribute to climate change mitigation. However, increasing frequency and intensity of climate extremes are posed to have profound impact on forests and consequently on the mitigation potential of forestation efforts. In this perspective, we critically assess forestation-reliant climate mitigation scenarios from five different integrated assessment models (IAMs) by showcasing the spatially explicit exposure of forests to fire weather and the simulated increase in global annual burned area. We provide a detailed description of the feedback from climate change to forest carbon uptake in IAMs. Few IAMs are currently accounting for feedback mechanisms like loss from fire disturbance. Consequently, many forestation areas proposed by IAM scenarios will be exposed to fire-promoting weather conditions and without costly prevention measures might be object to frequent burning. We conclude that the actual climate mitigation portfolio in IAM scenarios is subject to substantial uncertainty and that the risk of overly optimistic estimates of negative emission potential of forestation should be avoided. As a way forward we propose how to integrate more detailed climate information when modeling climate mitigation pathways heavily relying on forestation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES