Abstract
While biofuels were introduced, in part, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through replacing fossil fuels, comparing their impact to conventional sources has been difficult. This is largely due to the challenges of quantifying indirect land use change due to biofuels, which has proved controversial. This paper introduces a stylized, dynamic framework to analyze the evolution of land use expansion as well as deforestation over time. Our analysis suggests that land use change is a dynamic process and that relationships between variables are not regular over time and space. Technological change and effective environmental policy, of both agriculture and forests, can curtail deforestation. Outcomes of the model are illustrated with empirical data from the U.S. and Brazil. In the United States, deforestation does not lead directly to cropland expansion, as there is a transition period during which land is used as pasture or left idle. In Brazil, with four times more land in pasture or underutilized land than in cropland, there is significant potential for cropland expansion from this underutilized land.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes
—Mark Twain
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
They are regular in the sense that they produce outcomes that occur frequently under the same conditions (allowing some random errors that do not affect the average). For example, a constant elasticity reflects a regular relationship.
- 2.
- 3.
Zilberman (2014) presents a framework for modeling agricultural systems that recognizes heterogeneity among producers, dynamic elements, and evolving pest damage.
- 4.
Higher output price leads to lower gains from delaying the introduction of capital, since \( \dot{u}_{t} = (r + \gamma )u_{t} - p_{t} F_{{S_{t} }} \left( {X_{t} ,A_{t} ,S_{t} } \right) \) declines over time and investment become more valuable. The increase in output price has the same qualitative effect as a reduction in interest rate, namely increased investment.
- 5.
Unless we are at a corner solution where all the land is in farming, as the increase in \( \beta \) is not sufficient to lead to conversion of land back from farming to wilderness.
- 6.
In this case, there were political reasons for fast settlement.
- 7.
There may be some GHG emissions from conversion of rangeland to cropland, but it depends on cultural practices (Lal 2002). For example, use of low or no tillage can minimize it, and in some cases can even help to rebuild the carbon stock in the soil.
- 8.
For example, the banning of GMOs. Barrows et al. (2014) demonstrate how the introduction of GMOs actually reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture.
References
Alston, Julian M., Matthew A. Andersen, Jennifer S. James, and Philip G. Pardey. 2009. Persistence pays: US agricultural productivity growth and the benefits from public R&D spending. Vol. 34. New York: Springer.
Arthur, W. Brian. 1996. Increasing Returns and. Harvard business review 74(4):100–109.
Barr, Kanlaya J., Bruce A. Babcock, Miguel A. Carriquiry, Andre M. Nassar, and Leila Harfuch. 2011. Agricultural land elasticities in the United States and Brazil. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy ppr011.
Barrows, Geoffrey, Steven Sexton, and David Zilberman. 2014. Agricultural biotechnology: the promise and prospects of genetically modified crops. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (1): 99–119.
Bell, Martin, and Keith Pavitt. 1997. Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Technology, globalisation and economic performance 83–137.
Binswanger, H., and J. Mcentire. 1987. Behavioural and material determinants of production relations in land abundant tropical Africa. Journal of Economics Development and Cultural changes. 1 (36): 73–99.
Caputo, M. R. 2005. Foundations of dynamic economic analysis: optimal control theory and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cochrane, Willard W. 1979. The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis. Minnesota: U of Minnesota Press.
Cohen, Avi J., and Geoffrey C. Harcourt. 2003. Retrospectives: Whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies? Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1):199–214.
Dixit, Avinash K., and Robert S. Pindyck. 1995. The options approach to capital investment. Real options and investment under uncertainty: Classical readings and recent contributions 61–78.
Farrell, Alexander E., Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’hare, and Daniel M. Kammen. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311(5760): 506–508.
Freire de Sousa, I. S., and Lawrence Busch. 1998. Networks and agricultural development: The case of soybean production and consumption in Brazil. Rural Sociology 63(3): 349–371.
Galbraith, John K., and John D. Black. 1938. The maintenance of agricultural production during depression: the explanations reviewed. The Journal of political economy 305–323.
Geist, Helmut J., and Eric F. Lambin. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. BioScience 52 (2): 143–150.
Goldewijk, Kees Klein, and Navin Ramankutty. 2004. Land use changes during the past 300 years. Land use, land cover and soil sciences. In Encyclopedia of life support systems 1, ed. Verheye WH.
Goldsmith, Peter, and Rodolfo Hirsch. 2006. The Brazilian soybean complex. Choices 21 (2): 97–104.
Hochman, E., and D. Zilberman. 1986. Optimal strategies of development processes of frontier environments. Science of the Total Environment 55: 111–119.
Hochman, Gal, Deepak Rajagopal, Govinda Timilsina, and David Zilberman. 2014. Quantifying the causes of the global food commodity price crisis. Biomass and Bioenergy 68: 106–114.
Houthakker, Hendrik S. 1955. The Pareto distribution and the Cobb-Douglas production function in activity analysis. The Review of Economic Studies 27–31.
IBGE. 2011. Produção Agrícola Municipal. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.
Khanna, Madhu, and David Zilberman. 2012. Modeling the land-use and greenhouse-gas implications of biofuels. Climate Change Economics 3(03).
Lal, Rattan. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environmental Pollution 116 (3): 353–362.
Lambin, Eric F., and Patrick Meyfroidt. 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (9): 3465–3472.
Lichtenberg, Erik, and David Zilberman. 1988. Efficient regulation of environmental health risks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 167–178.
Moran, Emilio F. 1981. Developing the Amazon. Indiana Univ. Press.
Mundlak, Yair. 2001. Production and supply. Handbook of agricultural economics 1: 3–85.
Nichols, T.E. 1969. Transportation and regional development in agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (5): 1455–1463.
Olmstead, Alan L., and Paul Webb Rhode. 2008. Creating abundance: Biological innovation and American agricultural development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rausser, Gordon C., Johan Swinnen, and Pinhas Zusman. 2011. Political power and economic policy: Theory, analysis, and empirical applications. Cambridge University Press.
Schultz, Theodore William. 1964. Transforming traditional agriculture. Transforming traditional agriculture.
Searchinger, Timothy, Ralph Heimlich, Richard A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, Amani Elobeid, Jacinto Fabiosa, Simla Tokgoz, Dermot Hayes, and Yu. Tun-Hsiang. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867): 1238–1240.
Southgate, Douglas. 1990. The causes of land degradation along “spontaneously” expanding agricultural frontiers in the Third World. Land Economics 93–101.
Swinton, Scott M., Bruce A. Babcock, Laura K. James, and Varaprasad Bandaru. 2011. Higher US crop prices trigger little area expansion so marginal land for biofuel crops is limited. Energy Policy 39 (9): 5254–5258.
Warnknen, Philip. 1999. The Development and Growth of Brazil’s Soybean Industry. Wiley Publishers.
World Development Report. 1986. World Bank Publications: Business and Economics. p. 77.
Wright, Brian D. 2011. The economics of grain price volatility. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33 (1): 32–58.
Wright, Brian. 2014. Global biofuels: key to the puzzle of grain market behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (1): 73–97.
Xabadia, Angels, Renan U. Goetz, and David Zilberman. 2006. Control of accumulating stock pollution by heterogeneous producers. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 30 (7): 1105–1130.
Zilberman, David. 2014. The economics of sustainable development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96 (2): 385–396.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zilberman, D., Rajagopal, D., Kaplan, S. (2017). Effect of Biofuel on Agricultural Supply and Land Use. In: Khanna, M., Zilberman, D. (eds) Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy: Volume II. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 40. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6906-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6906-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6904-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6906-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)