Emissions reduction strategy in a three-stage agrifood value chain: A dynamic differential game approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agrifood systems account for 31% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Substantial emissions reduction in agrifood systems is critical to achieving the temperature goal set by the Paris Agreement. A key challenge in reducing GHG emissions in the agrifood value chain is the imbalanced allocation of benefits and costs associated with emissions reduction among agrifood value chain participants. However, only a few studies have examined agrifood emissions reduction from a value chain perspective, especially using dynamic methods to investigate participants' long-term emissions reduction strategies. This paper helps fill this gap in the existing literature by examining the impact of collaborations among agrifood value chain participants on correcting those misallocations and reducing emissions in agrifood systems. We develop a dynamic differential game model to examine participants' long-term emissions reduction strategies in a three-stage agrifood value chain. We use the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation to derive the Nash equilibrium emissions reduction strategies under non-cooperative, cost-sharing, and cooperative mechanisms. We then conduct numerical analysis and sensitivity analysis to validate our model. Our results show that collaboration among value chain participants leads to higher emissions reduction efforts and profits for the entire value chain. Specifically, based on our numerical results, the cooperative mechanism results in the greatest emissions reduction effort by the three participants, which leads to a total that is nearly three times higher than that of the non-cooperative mechanism and close to two times higher than the cost-sharing mechanism. The cooperative mechanism also recorded the highest profits for the entire value chain, surpassing the non-cooperative and cost-sharing mechanisms by around 37% and 16%, respectively. Our results provide valuable insights for policymakers and agrifood industry stakeholders to develop strategies and policies encouraging emissions reduction collaborations in the agrifood value chain and reduce emissions in the agrifood systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".