1932

Abstract

This review critically looks at the theoretical and empirical foundations of positive mathematical programming and its evolution in the past decade or so. We show how the need to model new empirical phenomena has induced the literature to rethink model specifications and to address new questions in the area of calibrated programming. We also raise a number of modeling questions that, in our view, ought to be addressed in future research.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012447
2014-10-05
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/6/1/annurev-resource-100913-012447.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012447&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Antle JM, Capalbo SM. 2001. Econometric-process models for integrated assessment of agricultural production systems. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83:2389–401 [Google Scholar]
  2. Booker JF, Howitt RE, Michelsen AM, Young RA. 2012. Economics and the modeling of water resources and policies. Nat. Resour. Model. 25:1168–218 [Google Scholar]
  3. Buysse J, Fernagut B, Harmignie O, Henry de Frahan B, Lauwers L, Polomé P et al. 2007a. Farm-based modelling of the EU sugar reform: impact on Belgian sugar beet suppliers. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 34:121–52 [Google Scholar]
  4. Buysse J, Van Huylenbroeck G, Lauwers L. 2007b. Normative, positive and econometric mathematical programming as tools for incorporation of multifunctionality in agricultural policy modelling. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120:170–81 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cai X, Wang D. 2006. Calibrating holistic water resources—economic models. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 132:6414–23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen X, Önal H. 2012. Modeling agricultural supply response using mathematical programming and crop mixes. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94:3674–86 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cortignani R, Severini S. 2009. Modeling farm-level adoption of deficit irrigation using Positive Mathematical Programming. Agric. Water Manag. 96:121785–91 [Google Scholar]
  8. Day RH. 1963. On aggregating linear programming models of production. J. Farm Econ. 45:4797–813 [Google Scholar]
  9. Egbendewe-Mondzozo A, Swinton SM, Izaurralde CR, Manowitz DH, Zhang X. 2011. Biomass supply from alternative cellulosic crops and crop residues: a spatially explicit bioeconomic modeling approach. Biomass Bioenergy 35:114636–47 [Google Scholar]
  10. Freund RJ. 1956. The introduction of risk into a programming model. Econometrica 24:253–63 [Google Scholar]
  11. Frisvold GB, Konyar K. 2012. Less water: How will agriculture in Southern Mountain states adapt?. Water Resour. Res. 48:W05534 [Google Scholar]
  12. Garnache C. 2013. The provision of ecosystem services on working landscapes: a calibrated optimization approach. PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., Davis
  13. Gocht A, Britz W. 2011. EU-wide farm type supply models in CAPRI—how to consistently disaggregate sector models into farm type models. J. Policy Model. 33:1146–67 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gohin A, Chantreuil F. 1999. La programmation mathématique positive dans les modèles d’exploitation agricole. Principes et importance du calibrage. Cah. Econ. Sociol. Rurales 52:59–79 [Google Scholar]
  15. Graveline N, Mérel P. 2014. Intensive and extensive margin adjustments to water scarcity in France’s Cereal Belt. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. In press [Google Scholar]
  16. Harou JJ, Pulido-Velazquez M, Rosenberg DE, Medellín-Azuara J, Lund JR, Howitt RE. 2009. Hydro-economic models: concepts, design, applications, and future prospects. J. Hydrol. 375:3627–43 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hazell PB, Norton RD. 1986. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture New York: Macmillan
  18. Heckelei T. 2002. Calibration and estimation of programming models for agricultural supply analysis. Habilit. Thesis, Univ. Bonn, Ger
  19. Heckelei T, Britz W. 2005. Models based on Positive Mathematical Programming: state of the art and further extensions. Proc. Eur. Assoc. Agric. Econ. (EAAE) Semin., 89th, Parma, Italy, pp. 48–73
  20. Heckelei T, Britz W, Zhang Y. 2012. Positive Mathematical Programming approaches—recent developments in literature and applied modelling. Bio Based Appl. Econ. 1:1109–24 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heckelei T, Wolff H. 2003. Estimation of constrained optimisation models for agricultural supply analysis based on generalised maximum entropy. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 30:127–50 [Google Scholar]
  22. Helming JFM, Peeters L, Veendendaal PJJ. 2001. Assessing the consequences of environmental policy scenarios in Flemish agriculture. Proc. EAAE Semin., 65th, Bonn, Ger., March 29–31, 2000, pp. 237–45. Kiel, Ger.: Vauk
  23. Henry de Frahan B, Buysse J, Polomé P, Fernagut B, Harmignie O et al. 2007. Positive mathematical programming for agricultural and environmental policy analysis: review and practice. Handbook of Operations Research in Natural Resources, International Series in Operations Research and Management Science Weintraub A, Romero C, Bjørndal T, Epstein R, Miranda J. 129–54 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  24. Howitt RE. 1995a. A calibration method for agricultural economic production models. J. Agric. Econ. 46:2147–59 [Google Scholar]
  25. Howitt RE. 1995b. Positive mathematical programming. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77:2329–42 [Google Scholar]
  26. Howitt RE, Medellín-Azuara J, MacEwan D, Lund JR. 2012. Calibrating disaggregate economic models of agricultural production and water management. Environ. Model. Softw. 38:244–58 [Google Scholar]
  27. Janssen S, Louhichi K, Kanellopoulos A, Zander P, Flichman G et al. 2010. A generic bio-economic farm model for environmental and economic assessment of agricultural systems. Environ. Manag. 46:6862–77 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jansson T, Heckelei T. 2011. Estimating a primal model of regional crop supply in the European Union. J. Agric. Econ. 62:1137–52 [Google Scholar]
  29. Just RE, Antle JM. 1990. Interactions between agricultural and environmental policies: a conceptual framework. Am. Econ. Rev. 80:2197–202 [Google Scholar]
  30. Just RE, Zilberman D, Hochman E. 1983. Estimation of multicrop production functions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 65:4770–80 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kanellopoulos A, Berentsen P, Heckelei T, Van Ittersum M, Lansink AO. 2010. Assessing the forecasting performance of a generic bio-economic farm model calibrated with two different PMP variants. J. Agric. Econ. 61:2137–52 [Google Scholar]
  32. Khanna M, Zilberman D. 2012. Modeling the land-use and greenhouse-gas implications of biofuels. Clim. Change Econ. 3:1250016 [Google Scholar]
  33. Koundouri P. 2004. Current issues in the economics of groundwater resource management. J. Econ. Surv. 18:5703–40 [Google Scholar]
  34. Leamer EE. 1983. Let’s take the con out of econometrics. Am. Econ. Rev. 73:131–43 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee DJ, Howitt RE. 1996. Modeling regional agricultural production and salinity control alternatives for water quality policy analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78:141–53 [Google Scholar]
  36. Louhichi K, Kanellopoulos A, Janssen S, Flichman G, Blanco M et al. 2010. FSSIM, a bio-economic farm model for simulating the response of EU farming systems to agricultural and environmental policies. Agric. Syst. 103:8585–97 [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarl BA. 1982. Cropping activities in agricultural sector models: a methodological proposal. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 64:4768–72 [Google Scholar]
  38. McCarl BA, Schneider UA. 2001. Greenhouse gas mitigation in US agriculture and forestry. Science 294:2481–82 [Google Scholar]
  39. Medellín-Azuara J, Harou JJ, Howitt RE. 2010. Estimating economic value of agricultural water under changing conditions and the effects of spatial aggregation. Sci. Total Environ. 408:235639–48 [Google Scholar]
  40. Medellín-Azuara J, Howitt R, Harou J. 2012. Predicting farmer responses to water pricing, rationing and subsidies assuming profit maximizing investment in irrigation technology. Agric. Water Manag. 108:73–82 [Google Scholar]
  41. Medellín-Azuara J, Howitt RE, MacEwan DJ, Lund JR. 2011. Economic impacts of climate-related changes to California agriculture. Clim. Change 109:1387–405 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mérel P, Bucaram S. 2010. Exact calibration of programming models of agricultural supply against exogenous supply elasticities. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 37:3395–418 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mérel P, Simon LK, Yi F. 2011. A fully calibrated generalized constant-elasticity-of-substitution programming model of agricultural supply. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93:4936–48 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mérel P, Yi F, Lee J, Six J. 2014. A regional bio-economic model of nitrogen use in cropping. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96:167–91 [Google Scholar]
  45. Noel JE, Howitt RE. 1982. Conjunctive multibasin management: an optimal control approach. Water Resour. Res. 18:4753–63 [Google Scholar]
  46. Önal H, McCarl BA. 1989. Aggregation of heterogeneous firms in mathematical programming models. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 16:4499–513 [Google Scholar]
  47. Önal H, McCarl BA. 1991. Exact aggregation in mathematical programming sector models. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 39:2319–34 [Google Scholar]
  48. Paris Q, Howitt RE. 1998. An analysis of ill-posed production problems using maximum entropy. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80:1124–38 [Google Scholar]
  49. Röhm O, Dabbert S. 2003. Integrating agri-environmental programs into regional production models: an extension of positive mathematical programming. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85:1254–65 [Google Scholar]
  50. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A et al. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:58671238–40 [Google Scholar]
  51. Yi F, Mérel P, Lee J, Hossein Farzin Y, Six J. 2014. Switchgrass in California: where, and at what price?. GCB Bioenergy. In press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012447
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012447
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error