|
 Two agricultural economists at the University of Illinois take a
closer look at how choice of statistical methodology influences
climate study results. They also propose a more accurate and
place-specific approach to data analysis.
“If you pay attention to forecasts of how the climate will
affect U.S. agriculture, the results are completely different.
Some scientists predict it's going to have a positive impact for
the nation in the long run, some report it's going to have a
negative impact,” says study co-author Sandy Dall’Erba,
professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer
Economics (ACE) and director of the Center for Climate,
Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE) at U of I.
Dall’Erba and Chang Cai, doctoral student in ACE and the paper’s
lead author, take stock of all the academic literature that
estimates the impact of climate change on U.S. farmland values
and revenues, focusing on every U.S. county. The county-level
scale is not only more accurate, the researchers say, but also
important for regional policy makers, because they can make
county-specific decisions in areas where climate change is
anticipated to pose a serious challenge.
“There is not a single commodity that is produced all over the
U.S. The only way we can really understand the relationship
between climate and agriculture is that rather than focusing on
a particular crop or livestock, we look at economic impacts,”
Dall’Erba notes. “Looking at aggregated agricultural outcomes
allows us to compare the situation across every county in the
U.S.”
The researchers look at how studies group locations for
analysis, and how such groupings affect the results.
“Early studies would assume one additional degree of Celsius or
Fahrenheit in Arizona will have the exact same marginal effect
on agriculture as one additional degree in Illinois, which makes
very little sense because you're looking on the one hand at a
place that is quite used to high temperature and low
precipitation, versus a place which is used to moderate
temperature and much more precipitation,” Dall’Erba says.
Recently, studies have tried to differentiate results and
estimate effects based on local conditions. A popular approach
is to divide the U.S. into irrigated versus rainfed areas,
roughly across a west/east partition along the 100th meridian.
While Illinois and Arizona would thus belong to different
groups, Arizona and Montana would still be expected to
experience similar marginal effects of weather.
Another method, which Dall’Erba has used in his
own research, compares low- versus high-elevation areas, while a
third approach is to group locations along state lines.
Dall’Erba says researchers use the latter approach because it is
straightforward to estimate and relevant for policy measures,
but it does not produce very accurate results, since state lines
rarely conform to atmospheric characteristics.
[to top of second column] |
While all these approaches have some merit, they also
have shortcomings.
“We discovered that results really do differ in terms of what the
future impact of climate change will be if you choose one grouping
versus another, especially in primary agricultural areas,” Cai
explains. “We also found out that none of those groupings is better
than any other in predicting what the future outcome will be.”
Cai and Dall’Erba recommend using one of three new statistical
approaches that offer county-specific climate-impact estimates. All
of these methods are driven by data and start without any
assumptions on what the groups will look like. Instead, these
methods analyze data to determine both the number of groups and who
belongs to what group. These scientific techniques, called C-Lasso,
causal forest algorithm, and geographically weighted regressions,
have been used for analysis in other fields, such as the labor
market and energy conservation, but they have not been used in
climate change research before.
“You really let the data speak for themselves; you do not impose
anything on your model. As soon as you start making choices on how
one should group the observations, you've already guided your
results in one direction. And then you’ll want to defend your
choice. We’re hoping future researchers will be more cautious about
a priori choices,” Dall’Erba explains.
Dall’Erba and Cai are already working on applying these new
approaches to a comprehensive analysis of climate change and U.S.
agricultural production. They expect to present their results in a
forthcoming paper, and to guide the implementation of place-tailored
climate change adaptation strategies.
The Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and the Center
for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE)
are in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental
Sciences, University of Illinois.
The paper, “On the Evaluation of Heterogenous Climate Change Impacts
on U.S. Agriculture: Does Group Membership Matter?” is published in
Climatic Change. [https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10584-021-03154-5 ]. Authors are Chang Cai and Sandy
Dall’Erba.
[Source: Sandy Dall’Erba,
News writer: Marianne Stein] |
