Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12948-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

How do climatic change, cereal crops and livestock production

interact with carbon emissions? Updated evidence from China
Abdul Rehman 1 & Hengyun Ma 1 & Munir Ahmad 2 & Ilhan Ozturk 3,4,5 & Muhammad Zubair Chishti 6

Received: 23 December 2020 / Accepted: 9 February 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Carbon dioxide emission and climatic variation have a detrimental influence on the atmosphere as well as on agriculture
production. The key aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of carbon dioxide emission on livestock, cereal
crops production, rainfall and temperature in China by utilizing the vector autoregressive model and Granger causality test for the
period 1988–2017. Variables stationarity was verified by using ADF, P-P and KPSS unit root tests. The outcomes through long-
run dynamics exposed that agriculture value added and rainfall have a positive influence on carbon dioxide emission, while cereal
crops production, livestock production and temperature have an adverse interaction with carbon dioxide emission. Similarly, the
results of the short-run analysis also demonstrate that agriculture value added, cereal crops production, livestock production,
rainfall and temperature have a significant influence on carbon dioxide emission with their p-values (0.0488), (0.0885), (0.0263),
(0.0096) and (0.5141) respectively. Furthermore, the Granger causality test outcomes also exposed a unidirectional linkage amid
the variables. In order to improve agricultural productivity, the Chinese government should take potential steps to minimize the
carbon dioxide emission from various industries that trigger climate change.

Keywords CO2 emission . Climatic change . Livestock production . Rainfall . Cereal crops production

Abbreviations RF Rainfall
ADF Augmented Dickey-Fuller TEM Temperature
P-P Phillips-Perron ECT Error correction term
KPPS Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin VAR Vector autoregressive
CO2e Carbon dioxide emission AIC Akaike information criterion
WDI World Development Indicators LR Likelihood ratio
AVA Agriculture value added FPE Final prediction error
CCP Cereal crops production SC Schwarz information criterion
LP Livestock production HQ Hannan-Quinn

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

* Abdul Rehman 1
College of Economics and Management, Henan Agricultural
abdrehman@henau.edu.cn University, Zhengzhou 450002, China
2
School of Economics, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027,
Hengyun Ma China
h.y.ma@163.com 3
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cag University,
Munir Ahmad 33800 Mersin, Turkey
munirahmad@zju.edu.cn 4
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University
Ilhan Ozturk Hospital, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
ilhanozturk@cag.edu.tr 5
Department of Finance, Asia University, 500, Lioufeng Rd.,
Wufeng, Taichung 41354, Taiwan
Muhammad Zubair Chishti
6
chishtimz9@gmail.com School of Economics, Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

VECM Vector error correction model
AR Autoregressive
Introduction
CO2 emission and climate variation have a severe influence on
agricultural production and also causing global warming.
Low-carbon demand, production and green economy have
been generally recognized globally; it is difficult to turn from
conventional fossil fuels to clean and sustainable energy
sources and minimize the carbon dioxide emissions to China
which is considered the world’s huge user of energy and the
massive emitter of carbon dioxide (Chen et al. 2018a, b).
Climate change has been triggered by carbon dioxide emis-
sion which poses unparalleled threats to human existence and
growth, such as extreme weather, environmental invasion and
scarcity of resources (Dong et al. 2019). Energy utilization in
China and CO2 emission has had a major effect on climate
change worldwide. Though global warming is more evident,
the influence on all aspects of human existence is becoming
more substantial, and the usage of coal in China has directly
influenced the climatic variation (Hao et al. 2016).
The climatic change has been a significant environmental
concern in the world and has gained growing support globally
(Shukla et al. 2017). Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions are
considered the core cause to trigger the climatic variation, most-
ly related to the utilization of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emis-
sion has gained a lot of criticism owing to the extremely large
production of all greenhouse gases and their long life span. The
development of a low-carbon economy, especially low-carbon
agriculture, has great importance as widespread concern about
agriculture in China and having the extensive pilot to reform
urban and rural development (Zhangwei and Xungangb 2011;
Lee and Van de Meene 2013). Greenhouse gas emissions are
constantly involved and contribute to enhance warming, which
in turn impacts the plant’s ecosystem and leads to changes in the
atmosphere, although the causes of climate change can be sep-
arated into two groups, namely natural and anthropogenic fac-
tors (VijayaVenkataRaman et al. 2012).
The susceptibility of crops to changes in weather, precipita-
tion and carbon dioxide is a question of concern for the future
food supplies of the planet. Agricultural consequence reports
have been utilized to update the policymakers and the public
about the potential influence of climate change and the conse-
quences of various technologies and retort techniques on the
reduction of agricultural productivity (IPCC 2014; Reidsma
et al. 2015; Campbell et al. 2016; Hoffman et al. 2018). The
environmental change would have an influence on food supply,
rendering it much more difficult to fulfil food requirements as a
consequence of population development, economic growth and
urbanization. Researchers emphasize the climatic impact on
Environ Sci Pollut Res
agriculture and its distributional consequences in addition to
provide information on strategies to mitigate carbon emission
(Carter et al. 2018; Gollehon et al. 2019).
Different researchers have conducted various studies to
examine the interaction of carbon dioxide emission to agricul-
ture technology, fertilized fields, semi-arid dualistic agricul-
ture, sustainability, land agglomeration, water usage, pasture
field and renewable energy and capital assessment, sustain-
able food production and urbanization (Ismael et al. 2018;
Czubaszek and Wysocka-Czubaszek 2018; Huong et al.
2019; Rehman et al. 2019; Fernández et al. 2019; Agovino
et al. 2019; Hao et al. 2019a; Timilsina et al. 2020; Rehman
et al. 2020a; Murshed and Dao 2020; Ahmad et al. 2020;
Sansilvestri et al. 2020; Diallo et al. 2020; Rehman et al.
2020b; Martín-Arias et al. 2020; Usman et al. 2020;
Qingquan et al. 2020; Rehman et al. 2021). However, the
present study examines the carbon dioxide emission influence
on livestock, cereal crops production, rainfall and temperature
in China by using the vector autoregressive model Granger
causality technique for the period of 1988–2017. Variables
stationarity was verified through the unit root tests.
Aside from the “Introduction” section, the remainder of this
article is arranged as follows: the “Related literature” section
deals with the previous topics related to literature. The
“Methodology and data” section presents the study data sources
and econometric techniques. The “Empirical results and discus-
sion” section illustrates the variables stationarity tests, optimal
lag (p) determination and cointegration tests, VECM estimation
through short-run and long-run and causality test between var-
iables. Finally, the “Conclusion and policy recommendations”
section shows the study conclusion and policy directions.
Related literature
Environmental change and climatic variations are the global
challenges today. A critical goal in the battle against climate
change is to reduce gross carbon dioxide emissions in the fight
against global warming. Food processing, energy utilization
and carbon emissions are the key domestic economic sectors
directly linked to people’s everyday lives and steady econom-
ic development. Similar to other sectors, CO2 emission and
agricultural-related energy consumption have many character-
istics, whereas agriculture, livestock and aquaculture are
sources of carbon dioxide and their emissions are smaller than
those historically deemed high-emission and resource-
intensive industries (DECC (Department of Energy and
Climate Change 2013; Glenk et al. 2014; Xiong et al. 2016).
As in various countries, agriculture has a multifunctional po-
sition, an interface amid community and natural environment
and it also refers to an assortment of ecological facilities, in-
cluding landscape development, tourism and leisure and the
supply of non-food raw materials. The agriculture sector
Environ Sci Pollut Res
requires natural habitats to be altered; it is particularly vulner-
able to climate change effects. However, every assessment of
the agricultural hazard is a well-known issue due to the link
and interaction between agriculture, environment and the pop-
ulation. The future will certainly have a high priority of sus-
tainable food production in an evolved and unpredictable
world, but climate change is just one of several agricultural
problems. Discussing concerns related to climate change
needs environmental advantages, and agricultural diversity is
significant, but not just for the food development (Knox et al.
2010; Lobell et al. 2011; Zougmoré et al. 2016).
The impact of environmental change on energy output and
accessibility is important. Because fossil fuel energy produc-
tion is the primary cause of greenhouse gas emissions, climate
change would have an effect on carbon dioxide emissions
owing to its effects on energy use. Although energy demand
is growing with the passage of time and directly influenced by
the increases in atmospheric temperature, changes in the tem-
perature induced by climate change in a region also cause
agricultural production, and energy demand must be adjusted
to evolving conditions and improved quality of life.
Subsequently, increases in energy demand may contribute to
an increase in coal usage and related carbon dioxide emissions
(Ouedraogo et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2014; Wang and Zhang
2014).
Global warming is a challenge to human economic growth,
and primarily, it is triggered by carbon emissions. Human
activities are considered the primary source of industrial pro-
duction of oil. Modernization is the general trend for the ad-
vancement of human culture; it involves a number of process-
es such as economic change, technological progress and trans-
formation of environment and living standards. The effect of
modernization on carbon dioxide emissions indeed has great
importance (Li et al. 2019). As worldwide surface temperature
escalates over time, there has been a strong global warming
change. Climate change has contributed to a number of
threats, including declines in the food supply, agriculture deg-
radation and chemical pollution, which have compromised
socio-economic stability and existence. Atmospheric changes
are mostly induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, par-
ticularly carbon dioxide emission (Aslam et al. 2017; Shaik
and Yeboah 2018; Chen et al. 2018a, b; Ran et al. 2020).
One of the most significant challenges to public health is
indisputable climate change, and greenhouse gases, in partic-
ular carbon dioxide emissions, are known to be the main haz-
ards. In different sectors, one of the three driving factors for
the use of resources that has had a key influence on the envi-
ronment is the construction industry, particularly road con-
struction (Choi 2019; Chen et al. 2016). Globally, livestock
is estimated to account around 29% of global greenhouse gas
emissions, including the impact of land use shifts on pasture
and feed development, and have long been recognized as a
particular problem. In addition, climate change mitigation
reports addressed the relevance of reducing farm pollution
and building more productive food systems and security
(Ripple et al. 2014; Vermeulen et al. 2012; Moore and
Ghahramani 2013).
Carbon dioxide emissions associated with agriculture and
energy are linked to agricultural activities. Agricultural activ-
ities influence the amount and overall usage of agricultural
equipment, while agricultural activities also contribute to
bring improvements in CO2 emission and energy utilization.
The current demand for food would have a greater effect on
potential farming practices which would potentially trigger
shifts in energy use and carbon dioxide emissions.
Methodology and data
Data sources
We have used time series data ranging from 1988–2017 and
the key source of this data is World Development Indicators
(WDI) (https://data.worldbank.org/country/china). The study
variables used in this analysis are carbon dioxide emission,
agriculture value added, cereal crops production, livestock
production, rainfall and temperature, respectively. The
variables trends are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Econometric model specification
Vector autoregressive model was used to demonstrate the
variables linkage among carbon dioxide emission, agricul-
ture value added, cereal crops production, livestock pro-
duction, rainfall and temperature. This model is flexible
and fit for the economic estimations (Karlsson 2013). We
have estimated the model in order to demonstrate the var-
iables interaction and generally, it can be written as in the
following equation:
yt ¼ ðLnCO2 et Þ ¼ f ðAVAt ; CCPt ; LPt ; RFt ; TEMPt Þ ð1Þ
Equation (1) shows that CO2et denotes the carbon dioxide
emission, AVAt indicates the agriculture value added, CCPt
denotes the cereal crops production, LPt indicates the live-
stock production, RFt demonstrate the rainfall, TEMPt show
the temperature and t presents the dimension of time.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

16.2 LNCO2e 2.0 LNAVA

16.0
1.8
15.8
15.6 1.6

15.4 1.4
15.2 1.2
15.0
1.0
14.8
14.6 0.8

1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

5.0
20.2 LNCCP LNLP
4.8
20.1 4.6

20.0 4.4
4.2
19.9
4.0
19.8
3.8
19.7 3.6
19.6 3.4
1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

2.20
LNRF LNTEMP
4.05 2.18
2.16
4.00 2.14
2.12
3.95 2.10
2.08
3.90 2.06
2.04
3.85
2.02
2.00
3.80
1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

Fig. 1 Trend of the variables

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Unit root tests results of

the series used in the model Variables ADF (Prob.*) P-P (Prob.*) KPSS (Prob.*)

I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1)

Without Without Without Without Without Without
trend trend trend trend trend trend

LnCO2e 0.748 0.005 0.769 0.005 0.798 0.099

LnAVA 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.213 0.061
LnCCP 0.489 0.000 0.489 0.000 0.770 0.133
LnLP 0.006 0.280 0.020 0.013 0.798 0.640
LnRF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.090
LnTEMP 0.608 0.000 0.168 0.000 0.739 0.500
Critical value of KPSS
1% level 0.739
5% level 0.463
10% level 0.347

Furthermore, the econometric specification is written as:

k
0 1 yt ¼ γ i þ ∑ ψi yt−1 þ εt ð3Þ
α1 i¼1
B α2 C
B C
ð LnCO2 et Þ ¼ B
B α3 C
C where yt = nX1 indicates vector of endogenous variables, ψ =
@ α4 A nXn indicates matrix of the autoregressive coefficients for i =
α5 1...k, γ is the intercept vector and ε is the white noise process.
0 10 1 The econometric specification is written as follow:
η11 η12 η13 η14 η15 LnAVAt−1
B CB C
k B η21 η22 η23 η24 η25 CB LnCCPt−1 C
d−1
þ ∑B η η η η η C B LnLP C ΔLnCO2 et ¼ α þ ∑ ξi ΔLnCO2 et−i
B 31 32 33 34 35 CB
i¼1 @
t−1 C i¼1
η41 η42 η43 η44 η45 A@ LnRFt−1 A
d−1 d−1
η51 η52 η53 η54 η55 LnTEMPt−1 þ ∑ φm ΔLnAVAt−m þ ∑ ψl ΔLnCCPt−l
0 1 m¼1 l¼1
ε1
B ε2 C d−1 d−1
B C þ ∑ δn ΔLnLPt−n þ ∑ ϕp ΔLnRFt−p
þB B ε3 C
C n¼1 p¼1
@ ε4 A
d−1
ε5 þ ∑ ωq ΔLnTEMPt−q þ λ1 ECTt−1 þ ε1t ð4Þ
ð2Þ q¼1

where t is the time dimension, Ln is the natural logarithm, αi is
the matrix of the autoregressive and εt is the residual matrix.
VAR (k) model is considered as:
where optimal lag length reduced by 1 as indicated by d−1.
ξi, φm, ψl, δn, ϕp and ωq demonstrate the coefficients of short-
run dynamics in the adjustment of the model. λi is the level of
change parameter with a negative sign and ECT indicates the
error correction term.

Table 2 Correlation between

variables LnCO2e LnAVA LnCCP LnLP LnRF LnTEMP

LnCO2e 1.0000 0.2295 0.8606 0.9239 − 0.1490 0.5014

LnAVA 0.2295 1.0000 0.2471 0.1031 0.1019 − 0.0400
LnCCP 0.8606 0.2471 1.0000 0.8041 0.0380 0.4154
LnLP 0.9239 0.1031 0.8041 1.0000 − 0.0962 0.6319
LnRF − 0.1490 0.1019 0.0380 − 0.0962 1.0000 − 0.0347
LnTEMP 0.5014 − 0.0400 0.4154 0.6319 − 0.0347 1.0000
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 Lag length criteria

(VAR) Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ

0 136.6347 NA 2.53E-12 − 9.676641 − 9.388678 − 9.591015

1 315.6292 265.177 6.82E-17 − 20.26883 − 18.25308 − 19.66944
2 349.8469 35.48504 1.22E-16 − 20.13681 − 16.39328 − 19.02366
3 459.1594 64.77777* 2.47e-18* − 25.56736* − 20.09605* − 23.94045*

*Denotes the selected order of lag through criteria

Empirical results and discussion production, rainfall and temperature are depicted in Table 2.
Outcomes demonstrated that all variables are correlated to
Stationarity level of variables used in the model each other.

The variable stationarity was checked by using the unit root

Optimal lag (p) determination and cointegration tests
tests. We used the three-unit root tests and the approximate
for the model
findings are represented in Table 1 which indicates the sta-
tionarity at the first difference with a 5% significance rate. The
Table 3 reports the results of the VAR lag length criteria and
ADF (Dickey and Fuller 1979) statistical test average value is
the optimal lag length determination replicates the model dy-
larger than the critical value of 5% for all variables. This
namic characteristics. The appropriate lag order was
indicates that the null hypothesis requires a unit root test se-
established through the usage of the Akaike information cri-
quence and is dismissed for the related variables. Furthermore,
terion (AIC). In the model, the stationarity test shows that all
Phillips-Perron (P-P) (Phillips and Perron 1988) unit root test
variables get stationarity at first difference. None of the vari-
demonstrates the absolute value at the first difference and 5%
ables cointegrated in the model through the null hypothesis.
which is greater than the critical values. Similarly,
Table 4 depicts the Johansen cointegration test results
Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) (Kwiatkowski
(Johansen and Juselius 1990).
et al. 1992) unit root tests demonstrate that the critical value
Table 4 reveals that the values of trace statistics and max
of KPSS shows the significance level at 1%, 5% and 10%.
statistics are bigger than the critical values at a 5% significance
According to the KPSS test, the null hypothesis presumptuous
level. It is assumed that the rejection of the null hypothesis in
the stationarity of the variables and cannot be rejected in the
the equation during cointegration, and the statistic values of
series. ADF, P-P and KPSS unit root test outcomes which are
the Johansen cointegration test show that all variables are
depicted in Table 1 validated the data stationarity at the first
cointegrated. There is a continuous association between all
difference that illustrates the significance level at 5%.
tested variables in the model seen during the period of the
analysis, given the possible short-term variance from the equi-
Correlation between variables librium point. It suggests the presence of long-term associa-
tions of causality among variables. The vector error correction
The variables correlation including carbon dioxide emission, model (VECM) is therefore an effective estimation method to
agriculture value added, cereal crops production, livestock be used in this analysis.

Table 4 Results of Johansen cointegration test

Hypothesized no. of CE(s) Trace statistic Hypothesized no. of CE(s) Maximum eigenvalue statistic

t-stat. 0.05 critical value p- t-stat. 0.05 critical value p-

value value

None* 295.4687 95.7537 0.0000 None * 131.3412 40.0776 0.0000

At most 1* 164.1275 69.8189 0.0000 At most 1* 62.5672 33.8769 0.0000
At most 2* 101.5604 47.8561 0.0000 At most 2* 55.2390 27.5843 0.0000
At most 3* 46.3214 29.7971 0.0003 At most 3* 26.3749 21.1316 0.0083
At most 4* 19.9465 15.4947 0.0100 At most 4* 16.1299 14.2646 0.0251
At most 5 3.8166 3.8415 0.0507 At most 5 3.8166 3.8415 0.0507

*Indicates the null hypothesis rejection at 0.05 significance level; at 0.05 level trace test and max-eigenvalue test illustrates 5 cointegrating equations
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 5 Statistical values of the vector error correction estimated model VECM estimation through short-run and long-run as-
Regressors Coefficients Std. error t-stat p-value sociation between variables

Long-run dynamics The outcomes of the vector error correction model are present-
LnCO2e (− 1) 1.0000
LnAVA (− 1) 25.6845 − 0.6922 37.1035 ed in Table 5. The findings reveal that the ECT (error correc-
LnCCP (− 1) − 14.4202 − 1.7586 − 8.1999 tion term) coefficient and the adverse value recommend that
LnLP (− 1) − 7.9670 − 0.6774 − 11.7614
LnRF (− 1) 77.9649 − 3.4378 22.6790 all the given variables are well balanced in the model. The
LnTEMP (− 1) − 11.8961 − 2.9350 − 4.0532
Short-run dynamics adjusted coefficient value of − 0.0231 indicates that the vari-
ECT (CointEq1) − 0.0231 0.0084 − 2.7350 0.0170 ance of the previous time from the long-term average is set at a
D(LnCO2e (− 1)) 0.3148 0.2346 1.3419 0.2026
D(LnCO2e (− 2)) 0.0753 0.2238 0.3366 0.7418 point of 2.30%. P-values 0.0170 of the VECM demonstrate
D(LnAVA (− 1)) 0.3352 0.1542 2.1740 0.0488 the occurrence of a long-term equilibrium interaction between
D(LnAVA (− 2)) 0.1190 0.0535 2.2242 0.0445
D(LnCCP (− 1)) 1.0382 0.5639 1.8411 0.0885 variables. The negative coefficient of ECT and the substantial
D(LnCCP (− 2)) 0.8614 0.7463 1.1542 0.2692 p-values of the VECM evaluation indicate that the designated
D(LnLP (− 1)) 2.9178 1.1644 2.5057 0.0263
D(LnLP (− 2)) 1.5938 1.1145 1.4301 0.1763 model is appropriate for modelling in order to make specific
D(LnRF (− 1)) 1.4048 0.4628 3.0351 0.0096
D(LnRF (− 2)) 0.3887 0.2382 1.6316 0.1267
policy prescriptions.
D(LnTEMP (− 1)) 0.2129 0.3174 0.6708 0.5141 The long-run dynamic results of the model demonstrate
D(LnTEMP (− 2)) − 0.5810 0.3304 − 1.7583 0.1022
C − 0.2199 0.0930 − 2.3643 0.0343 that agricultural value added and rainfall have a positive and
Statistical values of the estimated model constructive influence on carbon dioxide emission, while ce-
R-squared 0.672899 Mean dependent var 0.046543
Adjusted R-squared 0.345798 S.D. dependent var 0.072258 real crops production, livestock production and temperature
S.E. of regression 0.058444 Akaike info criterion -2.53533 revealed a diverse influence on carbon dioxide emission in
Sum squared resid 0.044405 Schwarz criterion -1.86342
Log likelihood 48.22698 Hannan-Quinn criter. -2.33554 China. The key issues and consequences of changes in live-
F-statistic 2.057161 Durbin-Watson stat 1.789679 stock production and the prospects for various types are un-
Prob (F-statistic) 0.103389
certain in China. Changes in the development of livestock are
attributed to radical food demand fluctuations but also to
Fig. 2 Long-run and short-run
dynamics among study variables
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

fundamental shifts in livestock roles, processes and impacts. Table 6 Granger causality test results
These changes are hard to grasp. Moreover, it needs a deeper Null hypothesis F- Prob.
understanding of more sustainable pathways in livestock pro- statistic
duction (Bai et al. 2018). As one of the world’s most populat-
ed developing economy, China’s livestock industry is fast LnAVA does not Granger cause LnCO2e 0.2746 0.7623
emerging. These varieties are more popular in different agri- LnCO2e does not Granger cause LnAVA 2.2116 0.1323
cultural regions of the world. Such breeding areas, cropping LnCCP does not Granger cause LnCO2e 2.8001 0.0816
areas and agricultural can be classified into three groups, de- LnCO2e does not Granger cause LnCCP 5.2032 0.0137
pending on feed availability and environmental conditions of LnLP does not Granger cause LnCO2e 1.2155 0.3149
these regions (Han et al. 2016). Given that China is still in a LnCO2e does not Granger cause LnLP 0.2362 0.7915
time of rapid growth, it may deepen the inconsistency between LnRF does not Granger cause LnCO2e 1.2134 0.3155
cultivated land and other priorities for economic development. LnCO2e does not have Granger cause LnRF 5.3229 0.0126
Although it is difficult to expand the area of arable land in the LnTEMP does not Granger cause LnCO2e 2.1843 0.1354
coming years, there might be little potential for a significant LnCO2e does not have Granger cause LnTEMP 1.2866 0.2954
increase in the production of food. Chinese farmers also typ- LnCCP does not Granger cause LnAVA 0.6176 0.5480
ically recognize that a significant temperature discrepancy LnAVA does not Granger cause LnCCP 0.3383 0.7165
each day is ideal for crops throughout the growing season LnLP does not Granger cause LnAVA 0.2296 0.7966
(Wang et al. 2018). The population growth has led to an in- LnAVA does not Granger cause LnLP 0.9790 0.3908
crease the food demand, fuel, fibre and other natural re- LnRF does not Granger cause LnAVA 2.2633 0.1267
sources. As the arable land has increased and fuel and infra- LnAVA does not Granger cause LnRF 0.3535 0.7060
structure materials have been overwhelmed economically, LnTEMP does not Granger cause LnAVA 0.8964 0.4218
ecosystem services are increasingly declining and habitat ex- LnAVA does not Granger cause LnTEMP 0.0344 0.9663
tinction is accelerated (Hao et al. 2019b; Chandio et al. 2020). LnLP does not Granger cause LnCCP 0.6967 0.5085
The effects of short-run dynamics from the model indicate LnCCP does not Granger cause LnLP 0.1959 0.8235
that carbon dioxide emissions, agricultural value added, cereal LnRF does not Granger cause LnCCP 2.6486 0.0922
crops production, livestock production, rainfall and tempera- LnCCP does not Granger cause LnRF 0.0561 0.9456
ture have positive coefficients (0.3148), (0.3352), (1.0382), LnTEMP does not Granger cause LnCCP 0.0539 0.9476
(2.9178), (1.4048) and (0.2129) with p-values (0.2026), LnCCP does not Granger cause LnTEMP 1.1905 0.3221
(0.0488), (0.0885), (0.0263), (0.0096) and (0.5141) respec- LnRF does not Granger cause LnLP 1.2020 0.3188
tively. The consequences to be able to sustain the populace LnLP does not Granger cause LnRF 2.5638 0.0988
and boost ecological conditions, food supplies would not only LnTEMP does not Granger cause LnLP 1.9647 0.1630
have to be considerably higher than the existing rate, but en- LnLP does not Granger cause LnTEMP 3.5260 0.0462
vironmental emissions, partially induced by human energy LnTEMP does not have Granger cause LnRF 5.6941 0.0098
consumption, would also have to be reduced. Factors LnRF does not Granger cause LnTEMP 1.1408 0.3370
influencing and impacting agricultural development involve
shifts in agricultural policy, price dynamics, terms of trade,
management methods, genomic characteristics, availability of capital and land use regulations (Wesseh Jr and Lin
2017). The consequences of these climatic adverse effects
on agriculture growing involve decreased crops and animal
Inverse Roots of AR Characteristic Polynomial
production, changes in cultivation and processing times, infil-
1.5
tration of new diseases and pathogens and developing expo-
sure to farm biodiversity (Tobin et al. 2017; Chatrchyan et al.
1.0
2017).
0.5 China has been the main focus on the planet and is
under rising strain on carbon dioxide emission.
0.0 Nevertheless, that energy consumption renders it impossi-
ble to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The manufacturing
-0.5
sector is the largest cause of overall CO2 emissions glob-
-1.0
ally, except the steady progress in the agriculture sector has
proved to be the major factor of rising carbon dioxide
-1.5 emissions for some time (Dogan et al. 2016; Hasegawa
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 and Matsuoka 2015). For some cases, control strategies
Fig. 3 Stability plot of CO2e
Environ Sci Pollut Res
such as the adjustment of planting times, varieties or water
and energy conservation methods and innovations may
help to decrease the adverse effects of climate change
(Moore and Lobell 2014; Aggarwal et al. 2019).
Agricultural strategies are expected to fulfil the increasing
needs of a rising global population for food and fibre. The
recent amplification of input and output processes has con-
tributed to growing issues over the environmental effects
(Boscaro et al. 2018).
Figure 2 explains the dynamics of long-run interaction
through the vector error correction model (VECM) that
validates the linkage amid variables. The variable agricul-
ture value added and rainfall revealed a positive and con-
structive influence on carbon dioxide emission with their
coefficients (25.6845) and (77.9649). Similarly, in the
long-run analysis, cereal crops production, livestock pro-
duction and temperature exposed a non-significant linkage
to CO2 emission with their coefficients (− 14.4202), (−
7.9670) and (− 11.8961) respectively. Furthermore, out-
comes through short-run dynamics also prove that agricul-
ture value added, cereal crops production, livestock pro-
duction, rainfall and temperature have significant influence
on carbon dioxide emission having p-values (0.0488),
(0.0885), (0.0263), (0.0096) and (0.5141) respectively.
The inverse root of the AR characteristic polynomial test is
calculated to determine the consistency of the model in the
analysis. As seen in Fig. 3, both roots need a modulus of less
than one and lie within the unit circle for the layout. From this
analysis, we can assume that the approximate VECM meets
the stability requirement and proves the stability of the model.
Causality association between variables
The Granger causality test was used in this analysis to inves-
tigate the causal influence among variables including carbon
dioxide emission, agriculture value added, cereal crops pro-
duction, livestock production, rainfall and temperature in
China. If the p-value of the F-statistic is less than 5% then
the null hypothesis is denied by the Granger causality test.
Table 6 demonstrates the unidirectional causality amid vari-
ables, as the agricultural value added does not have causality
with LnCO2e, LnCCP, LnLP, LnRF and LnTEMP. Results
also revealed that LnCO2e does not have causality linkage
with LnAVA, LnCCP, LnLP, LnRF and LnTEMP.
Furthermore, Ln CCP does not have causality with LnCO2e,
LnAVA, LnLP, LnRF and LnTEMP. LnLP does not have a
causality association with LNAVA, LnCO2e, LnCCP, LnRF
and LNTEMP. The LnRF does not have causality linkage
with LnCO2e, LnAVA, LnCCP, LnLP and LnRF. Similarly,
LnTEMP also does not show a causal association with
LnCO2e, LnAVA, LnCCP, LnLP and LnRF.
Conclusion and policy recommendations
The major aim of this analysis was to investigate the conse-
quence of carbon dioxide emission on the agriculture value
added, cereal crops production, livestock production, rainfall
and temperature in China by utilizing the time series data
ranging from 1988–2017. We used three-unit root tests in-
cluding ADF, P-P and KPSS to test the variable stationarity.
In order to verify the reliability of the variables, the vector
autoregressive model and Granger causality test were used
to validate the interaction amid variables. The long-run dy-
namic outcomes show that agriculture value added and rainfall
have a constructive impact on carbon dioxide emission, while
cereal crops production, livestock production and temperature
have an adverse influence on carbon dioxide emission.
Similarly, short-run dynamic results also demonstrate that ag-
riculture value added, cereal crops production, livestock pro-
duction, temperature and rainfall have a constructive influence
on carbon dioxide emission in China. Furthermore, causality
analysis of variables also exposed a unidirectional linkage.
Based on the findings, the Government of China needs to take
the requisite action to introduce more reliable policies to re-
duce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause environmental
pollution and climatic change. The agriculture sector includ-
ing livestock is often influenced by climatic change and global
warming. Given that China is a huge CO2 emitter, new con-
servative emissions and mitigation strategies are needed. It is
also assumed that CO2 emissions remain a rising global con-
cern today, and future conventional strategies from all coun-
tries are expected to take account of reducing CO2 emissions
in order to avoid depletion of the atmosphere.
Availability of data and materials Not applicable
Author contributions A.R. and I.O. conceived the study, collected the
data, designed the econometric methodology and write the original draft;
M.A. and M.Z.C. review and edited the manuscript; H.M. read and made
suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Aggarwal P, Vyas S, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Kropff M (2019)
Importance of considering technology growth in impact assessments

of climate change on agriculture. Global Food Secur 23:41–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.04.002
Agovino M, Casaccia M, Ciommi M, Ferrara M, Marchesano K (2019)
Agriculture, climate change and sustainability: the case of EU-28.
Ecol Indic 105:525–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.064
Ahmad M, Li H, Anser MK, Rehman A, Fareed Z, Yan Q, Jabeen G
(2020) Are the intensity of energy use, land agglomeration, CO2
emissions, and economic progress dynamically interlinked across
development levels? Energy Environ. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0958305X20949471
Aslam AQ, Ahmad SR, Ahmad I, Hussain Y, Hussain MS (2017)
Vulnerability and impact assessment of extreme climatic event: a
case study of southern Punjab, Pakistan. Sci Total Environ 580:468–
481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.155
Bai Z, Ma W, Ma L, Velthof GL, Wei Z, Havlík P, Oenema O, Lee MR,
Zhang F (2018) China’s livestock transition: driving forces, impacts,
and consequences. Sci Adv 4(7):eaar8534. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.aar8534
Boscaro D, Pezzuolo A, Sartori L, Marinello F, Mattioli A, Bolzonella D,
Grigolato S (2018) Evaluation of the energy and greenhouse gases
impacts of grass harvested on riverbanks for feeding anaerobic di-
gestion plants. J Clean Prod 172:4099–4109. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.060
Campbell BM, Vermeulen SJ, Aggarwal PK, Corner-Dolloff C, Girvetz
E, Loboguerrero AM, Ramirez-Villegas J, Rosenstock T, Sebastian
L, Thornton PK, Wollenberg E (2016) Reducing risks to food secu-
rity from climate change. Global Food Secur 11:34–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002
Carter C, Cui X, Ghanem D, Mérel P (2018) Identifying the economic
impacts of climate change on agriculture. Ann Rev Resour Econ 10:
361–380. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-022938
Chandio AA, Jiang Y, Rehman A, Rauf A (2020) Short and long-run
impacts of climate change on agriculture: an empirical evidence
from China. Int J Clim Chang Strat Manag 12(2):201–221. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-05-2019-0026
Chatrchyan AM, Erlebacher RC, Chaopricha NT, Chan J, Tobin D,
Allred SB (2017) United States agricultural stakeholder views and
decisions on climate change. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang
8(5):e469. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.469
Chen S, Chen X, Xu J (2016) Impacts of climate change on agriculture:
evidence from China. J Environ Econ Manag 76:105–124. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.01.005
Chen J, Cheng S, Song M (2018a) Changes in energy-related carbon
dioxide emissions of the agricultural sector in China from 2005 to
2013. Renew Sust Energ Rev 94:748–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.06.050
Chen JP, Huang G, Baetz BW, Lin QG, Dong C, Cai YP (2018b)
Integrated inexact energy systems planning under climate change:
a case study of Yukon Territory, Canada. Appl Energy 229:493–
504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.140
Choi JH (2019) Strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from
maintenance and rehabilitation of highway pavement. J Clean
Prod 209:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.226
Czubaszek R, Wysocka-Czubaszek A (2018) Emissions of carbon diox-
ide and methane from fields fertilized with digestate from an agri-
cultural biogas plant. Int Agrophys 32(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.
1515/intag-2016-0087
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2013) Final UK
greenhouse gas emissions. Available from: 〈https://www.gov.uk/
government/publications/final-uk-emissions-estimate〉
Diallo A, Donkor E, Owusu V (2020) Climate change adaptation strate-
gies, productivity and sustainable food security in southern Mali.
Clim Chang 159:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02684-8
Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for
autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366a):
427–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Dogan E, Sebri M, Turkekul B (2016) Exploring the relationship between
agricultural electricity consumption and output: new evidence from
Turkish regional data. Energy Policy 95:370–377. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.018
Dong K, Dong X, Dong C (2019) Determinants of the global and regional
CO2 emissions: what causes what and where? Appl Econ 51(46):
5031–5044. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1606410
Fernández FJ, Blanco M, Ponce RD, Vásquez-Lavín F, Roco L (2019)
Implications of climate change for semi-arid dualistic agriculture: a
case study in Central Chile. Reg Environ Chang 19(1):89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1380-0
Glenk K, Eory V, Colombo S, Barnes A (2014) Adoption of greenhouse
gas mitigation in agriculture: an analysis of dairy farmers’ percep-
tions and adoption behaviour. Ecol Econ 108:49–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.027
Gollehon NR, Moore MR, AiLLery M, Kramer M, Schaible G (2019)
Modeling western irrigated agriculture and water policy: climate-
change considerations. In: Economic issues in global climate
change. CRC Press, pp 148–167
Han XP, Hubbert B, Hubbert ME, Reinhardt CD (2016) Overview of the
beef cattle industry in China: the widening deficit between demand
and output in a vicious circle. J Fisheries Livest Prod 4(190):2.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2608.1000190
Hao Y, Chen H, Wei YM, Li YM (2016) The influence of climate change
on CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions: an empirical estimation based
on Chinese provincial panel data. J Clean Prod 131:667–677. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.117
Hao Y, Hu X, Chen H (2019a) On the relationship between water use and
economic growth in China: new evidence from simultaneous equa-
tion model analysis. J Clean Prod 235:953–965. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.024
Hao Y, Xu Y, Zhang J, Hu X, Huang J, Chang CP, Guo Y (2019b)
Relationship between forest resources and economic growth: empir-
ical evidence from China. J Clean Prod 214:848–859. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.314
Hasegawa T, Matsuoka Y (2015) Climate change mitigation strategies in
agriculture and land use in Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob
Chang 20(3):409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9498-3
Hoffman AL, Kemanian AR, Forest CE (2018) Analysis of climate sig-
nals in the crop yield record of sub-Saharan Africa. Glob Chang Biol
24(1):143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13901
Huong NTL, Bo YS, Fahad S (2019) Economic impact of climate change
on agriculture using Ricardian approach: a case of northwest
Vietnam. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 18(4):449–457. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jssas.2018.02.006
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Contribution of
working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change
IsmaelM,SroujiF,BoutabbaMA(2018)Agriculturaltechnologiesandcarbon
emissions: evidence from Jordanian economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res
25(11):10867–10877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1327-5
Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and in-
ference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for mon-
ey. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52(2):169–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
Karlsson S (2013) Forecasting with Bayesian vector autoregression. In
Handbook of economic forecasting (Vol. 2, pp. 791-897). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62731-5.00015-4
Knox J, Morris J, Hess T (2010) Identifying future risks to UK agricul-
tural crop production: putting climate change in context. Outlook
Agric 39(4):249–256. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2010.0016
Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Distribution of
the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Econ
54(1–3):159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
Lee T, Van de Meene S (2013) Comparative studies of urban climate co-
benefits in Asian cities: an analysis of relationships between CO2
Environ Sci Pollut Res
emissions and environmental indicators. J Clean Prod 58:15–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.047
Li S, Zhou C, Wang S (2019) Does modernization affect carbon dioxide
emissions? A panel data analysis. Sci Total Environ 663:426–435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.373
Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J (2011) Climate trends and
global crop production since 1980. Science 333(6042):616–620.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531
Martín-Arias J, Martínez-Santos P, Andreo B (2020) Modelling the effects of
climate change and population growth in four intensively exploited
Mediterranean aquifers. The Mijas range, southern Spain. J Environ
Manag 262:110316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110316
Moore AD, Ghahramani A (2013) Climate change and broadacre live-
stock production across southern A ustralia. 1. Impacts of climate
change on pasture and livestock productivity, and on sustainable
levels of profitability. Glob Chang Biol 19(5):1440–1455. https://
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12150
Moore FC, Lobell DB (2014) Adaptation potential of European agricul-
ture in response to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 4(7):610–614.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2228
Murshed M, Dao NTT (2020) Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced EKC
hypothesis in South Asia: the role of Export Quality Improvement.
GeoJournal:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10270-9
Ouedraogo BI, Levermore GJ, Parkinson JB (2012) Future energy de-
mand for public buildings in the context of climate change for
Burkina Faso. Build Environ 49:270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2011.10.003
Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regres-
sion. Biometrika 75(2):335–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.
2.335
Qingquan J, Khattak SI, Ahmad M, Ping L (2020) A new approach to
environmental sustainability: assessing the impact of monetary pol-
icy on CO2 emissions in Asian economies. Sustain Dev 28(5):
1331–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2087
Ran Q, Zhang J, Hao Y (2020) Does environmental decentralization
exacerbate China’s carbon emissions? Evidence based on dynamic
threshold effect analysis. Sci Total Environ 721:137656. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137656
Rehman A, Ozturk I, Zhang D (2019) The causal connection between
CO2 emissions and agricultural productivity in Pakistan: empirical
evidence from an autoregressive distributed lag bounds testing ap-
proach. Appl Sci 9(8):1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9081692
Rehman A, Ma H, Ozturk I (2020a) Decoupling the climatic and carbon
dioxide emission influence to maize crop production in Pakistan. Air
Qual Atmos Health 13(6):695–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-
020-00825-7
Rehman A, Ma H, Irfan M, Ahmad M (2020b) Does carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, and GHG emissions influence the agricul-
ture? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(23):28768–
28779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08912-z
Rehman A, Ma H, Chishti MZ, Ozturk I, Irfan M, Ahmad M (2021)
Asymmetric investigation to track the effect of urbanization, energy
utilization, fossil fuel energy and CO 2 emission on economic effi-
ciency in China: another outlook. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12186-w
Reidsma P, Wolf J, Kanellopoulos A, Schaap BF, Mandryk M, Verhagen
J, van Ittersum MK (2015) Climate change impact and adaptation
research requires farming systems analysis and integrated assess-
ment: a case study in the Netherlands. Procedia Environ Sci 29:
286–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.216
Ripple WJ, Smith P, Haberl H, Montzka SA, McAlpine C, Boucher DH
(2014) Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat Clim
Chang 4(1):2–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2081
Sansilvestri R, Cuccarollo M, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Benito-Garzon M,
Fernandez-Manjarrés J (2020) Evaluating climate change adaptation
pathways through capital assessment: five case studies of forest
social-ecological systems in France. Sustain Sci 15(2):539–553.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00731-7
Shaik S, Yeboah OA (2018) Does climate influence energy demand? A
regional analysis. Appl Energy 212:691–703. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2017.11.109
Shukla JB, Verma M, Misra AK (2017) Effect of global warming on sea
level rise: a modeling study. Ecol Complex 32:99–110. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2017.10.007
Timilsina AP, Malla G, Paudel BP, Sharma A, Rimal R, Gaire A,
Bhandari HL (2020) Estimation of carbon emission from agricultur-
al and pasture field. J Biosci Agric Res 22(02):1835–1839. https://
doi.org/10.18801/jbar.220219.226
Tobin D, Radhakrishna R, Chatrchyan A, Allred SB (2017) Addressing
climate change impacts on agriculture and natural resources: barriers
and priorities for land-grant universities in the northeastern United
States. Weather Clim Soc 9(3):591–606. https://doi.org/10.1175/
WCAS-D-16-0106.1
Usman O, Akadiri SS, Adeshola I (2020) Role of renewable energy and
globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for
environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:30681–
30693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09170-9
Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JS (2012) Climate change and food
systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608
VijayaVenkataRaman S, Iniyan S, Goic R (2012) A review of climate
change, mitigation and adaptation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16(1):
878–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009
Wang J, Zhang K (2014) Convergence of carbon dioxide emissions in
different sectors in China. Energy 65:605–611. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2013.11.015
Wang D, Hao YU, Wang J (2018) Impact of climate change on China’s
rice production—an empirical estimation based on panel data
(1979–2011) from China’s main rice-producing areas. Singapore
Econ Rev 63(03):535–553. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S0217590817400240
Wesseh PK Jr, Lin B (2017) Climate change and agriculture under CO2
fertilization effects and farm level adaptation: where do the models
meet? Appl Energy 195:556–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.03.006
Xiong C, Yang D, Huo J (2016) Spatial-temporal characteristics and
LMDI-based impact factor decomposition of agricultural carbon
emissions in Hotan Prefecture, China. Sustainability 8(3):262.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030262
Zhangwei L, Xungangb Z (2011) Study on relationship between Sichuan
agricultural carbon dioxide emissions and agricultural economic
growth. Energy Procedia 5:1073–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2011.03.189
Zhou Y, Clarke L, Eom J, Kyle P, Patel P, Kim SH, Dirks J, Jensen E, Liu
Y, Rice J, Schmidt L (2014) Modeling the effect of climate change
on US state-level buildings energy demands in an integrated assess-
ment framework. Appl Energy 113:1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.034
Zougmoré R, Partey S, Ouédraogo M, Omitoyin B, Thomas T,
Ayantunde A, Ericksen P, Said M, Jalloh A (2016) Toward
climate-smart agriculture in West Africa: a review of climate change
impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the live-
stock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agric Food Secur 5(1):
26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0075-3
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Environ Sci Pollut Res