Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Geographic distribution of the global agricultural workforce every decade for the years 2000-2100

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs the first globally gridded maps of the agricultural workforce for every decade from 2000 to 2100, at about 10 km resolution, under five socioeconomic scenarios, using a Beta-regression generalized additive mixed…

desk verdict A genuinely useful, reproducible dataset: 10-km agricultural workforce projections to 2100 under all SSPs, with honest validation but a clearly stated, untested stationarity assumption that keeps the far-future maps in 'scenario-conditional' territory. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15841 v2 pith:OQZ772ET submitted 2024-12-20 stat.AP

Naia Ormaza-Zulueta , Steve Miller , Zia Mehrabi This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP
keywords agriculturalworkforcegriddeddatadownscalinggeneralizedadditivemixedmodelsharedsocioeconomicpathwaysrurallabourspatiotemporalprojectionsubnationalstatistics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the geographic distribution of the world's agricultural workforce can be estimated and projected at roughly 10 km resolution from four socioeconomic predictors: median income, total population density, rural population share, and agricultural land. It presents a new gridded dataset covering every decade from 2000 to 2100 under all five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, built with a Beta-regression generalized additive mixed model trained on national and subnational employment statistics from 2000 to 2020. The point of the exercise is practical: without such maps, studies of heat stress, pollution, disease, and climate migration among farm workers are stuck at country-level averages and cannot anticipate where the workforce will grow or shrink. If the projections are right, agricultural employment keeps rising in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia through mid-century and then falls globally, with China's workforce shrinking by over 150 million people by 2100 under the middle-of-the-road scenario. The authors' claim is that the dataset is accurate enough for these downstream uses and is released openly with code.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a Beta regression generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) with logit link, equation (3). Let $X = [\ln(R), \ln(P), \ln(G_{50}), \ln(AL)]$ denote rural proportion, population density, median GDP per capita, and agricultural land fraction; the model sets $E(y) = \mathrm{logit}^{-1}(\beta_0 + \sum_k \gamma_k b_k(X) + \text{interaction smooths} + \delta_{j[i]})$, where $\delta_{j[i]}$ is a country-level random effect and the response is a Beta-distributed proportion. This machinery carries the argument because the Beta distribution keeps predictions between zero and one, thin-plate splines capture non-linear urbanization and income effects, interactions let the income pull vary with density and rurality, and random effects let the model borrow strength across countries and predict for countries absent from training using regional random effects. The same machinery is deployed for all future decades, with median GDP per capita assigned at administrative level 2 to each grid cell and an optional bias-correction factor rescaling predictions to official national totals.

What would settle it

Compare the dataset's SSP2 maps against newly observed national and subnational agricultural employment shares as they become available after 2020; if countries undergoing rapid structural change, such as India or Nigeria, show declines far steeper than projected while population growth continues, the stationarity assumption fails and the 2050-2100 maps would be systematically overestimating the agricultural workforce. A quicker, purely data-side test is to re-estimate equation (3) on post-2020 records and check whether the fitted smooths shift by more than the reported validation RMSE.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a publicly available gridded dataset of the share and number of employed persons working in agriculture, at $0.083^\circ \times 0.083^\circ$ resolution, for every decade 2000-2100 and for all five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. The model is a Beta-regression generalized additive mixed model with a logit link (Eq. 3): the expected agricultural workforce ratio in a geographic unit is a function of spline smooths of the logarithms of rural proportion, population density, median GDP per capita, and agricultural land fraction, with interaction terms and a random intercept for country. Cropland and pasture fractions are held fixed at year-2000 values, and validation is carried out spatially, temporally (forward and backward), and across scales by training on national data and testing on subnational units. Under the central scenario, the model yields 1.22 billion agricultural workers in 2020, rising to 1.33 billion in 2050 and falling to 1.06 billion in 2100, with the largest projected increases in Sub-Saharan Africa and the largest declines in East Asia and Pacific.

Load-bearing premise

The full 2100 projection rests on the assumption that the statistical relationships between income, population, rurality, and farmland observed in 2000-2020 continue unchanged through 2100, and that cropland and pasture stay fixed at year-2000 levels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the central scenario, the global agricultural workforce peaks around 2050 at about 1.33 billion and then falls to about 1.06 billion by 2100.
  • Sub-Saharan Africa becomes the main growth pole: its workforce is projected to rise 44 percent by 2050, with Nigeria gaining about 19 million workers by 2050 and about 34 million by 2100.
  • East Asia and Pacific loses about 10.6 percent of its agricultural workforce by 2050 and about 40.5 percent by 2100, with China down by roughly 153 million by 2100.
  • Because the full series covers all five socioeconomic scenarios, the dataset allows like-for-like comparison of how sustainable, regional-rivalry, inequality, and fossil-fueled futures redistribute agricultural labor.
  • Both bias-corrected and uncorrected maps are released, so users can choose consistency with national statistics or raw model output.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: rerunning the same model with dynamic cropland and pasture projections would isolate how much of the future workforce change is driven by land availability rather than income and population shifts.
  • A natural downstream use, only gestured at in the text, is to overlay the projected worker counts with climate hazard layers to map where heat-stress exposure and labour capacity losses will concentrate by 2050 and 2100.
  • Because deployment assigns a single median income value to all grid cells within an administrative level-2 unit, local income variation inside a unit is deliberately lost; users who need community-scale estimates should treat the maps as unit-averaged.
  • The error metrics report point accuracy, not prediction intervals; a direct next step would be to add per-cell uncertainty bands, since deployment relies on extrapolation far outside the training years.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a global gridded dataset of the proportion of employed population working in agriculture (EPWA), mapped every decade from 2000 to 2100 at 0.083° resolution under SSP1–SSP5. The modeling framework is a Beta-regression generalized additive mixed model (Eq. 3) with country random effects and interaction smooth terms, trained on ILO national data and subnational data for 37 countries, with features including median GDP per capita, rural population proportion, population density, and agricultural land cover (held constant at 2000 values). Validation is multi-stage: spatial, temporal (forward and backward), and multi-scale, with reported RMSE values around 0.04–0.05 for unit-level validation and roughly double for multi-scale validation. The authors release both bias-corrected and uncorrected maps, code, and data. The central result is therefore not a single estimate but a reproducible set of decade-by-decade, scenario-specific spatial projections of the agricultural workforce to 2100.

Significance. If the future projections are accepted, this would be a valuable public good: it is the first high-resolution, century-scale, multi-SSP dataset of agricultural workforce distributions, with potential applications in climate-health impact assessment, labor market analysis, and food-systems planning. The paper deserves credit for a transparent modeling pipeline, explicit model comparison (including the documented failure of tree-based methods to extrapolate), and a broader-than-usual validation strategy that includes spatial, temporal, and multi-scale components, together with public code and data. However, the definitive contribution is the 2050 and 2100 maps, and those rest on a stationarity assumption that the validation design does not actually test. The main significance therefore depends on whether the authors either provide evidence for that assumption or substantially reframe the contribution as conditional scenario projections with commensurate caveats.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4] The stationarity assumption stated in Section 2.4 is load-bearing for the 2050 and 2100 maps, but the temporal validation does not test it. The forward split trains on 2000–2017 and validates on 2018–2020; the backward split trains on 2005–2020 and validates on 2000–2004. Both periods are within the same historical regime, so they cannot detect a gradual change in the GDP–population–rurality–employment relationship over multiple decades. The paper should report the predictor ranges in the training data versus the projection scenarios (e.g., SSP3 2100 population/rurality, SSP5 2100 GDP), identify where the model is extrapolating outside the observed support, and provide sensitivity analyses such as fitting on 2000–2010 and validating on 2011–2020 or using an alternative trend- or scenario-aware specification. Without such evidence, the century-scale projections are driven by an assumption that the validation design does not check.
  2. [Section 2.2.2] Keeping cropland and pasture constant at year-2000 values throughout both training and all future projections is an additional strong restriction on the very mechanism through which SSPs differ. Agricultural land is a model predictor (ln(AL) in Eq. 4), so holding it fixed means the land-use channel is absent from the SSP differentiation; all scenario spread comes only from population and GDP inputs. The text in Section 2.2.2 states this choice, but the impact is not quantified. At minimum, the authors should provide a sensitivity test that varies future land use (e.g., using available land-use scenario products) or explicitly acknowledge that the product is conditional on no future land-use change, and adjust the abstract's claim that the predictions are 'consistent with Shared Socio-economic Pathways'.
  3. [Section 2.4 / Section 2.5] There is a scale mismatch between the validation and the shipped product. The spatial and temporal validations are conducted at the administrative-unit level, where the training labels exist, while the deployed output is a 0.083° grid. The multi-scale validation partially addresses national-to-subnational transfer, but it does not validate the final subnational-to-grid-cell step, and Section 2.5 introduces an additional mixed-granularity setup (median GDP per capita assigned from admin-2 units while population and rural proportion are grid-cell values). The paper should either provide some form of grid-cell-level or intra-unit validation, or state explicitly that the sub-grid spatial pattern is an unvalidated modeling assumption and should not be interpreted as measured heterogeneity.
  4. [Section 2.2.1] The label heterogeneity described in Section 2.2.1 is not merely a data-cleaning footnote. Differences in working-age thresholds (18+ for subnational data versus 15+ in many ILO national series), sector coverage (hunting included or excluded), and the systematic omission of migrant and undocumented workers change the target variable itself across observations. Country-level random effects can absorb some of this, but that also means the country random effect is partly a definitional artifact. The paper should quantify how sensitive the fitted model is to these definitional shifts, or at least show that excluding the most heterogeneous sources does not change the main regional projections.
  5. [Introduction / Section 3.1.3] The introduction states that the paper 'attempts to compute this uncertainty,' but what is delivered is a set of aggregate validation RMSE values (Table 2), not uncertainty estimates that accompany the actual product. For a dataset intended for downstream risk and health analyses, per-unit or per-grid-cell uncertainty intervals are important; even approximate intervals from the GAMM posterior or from the bias-correction procedure would help. If such layers cannot be produced, the text should be revised so as not to overstate the uncertainty quantification, and the lack of pixel-level uncertainty should be listed as an explicit limitation in the conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation 3] The summation notation in Eq. 3 is malformed: '2X l=1 MlX ml=1' does not render as a proper double sum, and there is a mismatched parenthesis in the interaction term. Please rewrite as a conventional double summation with clear index bounds.
  2. [Appendix A, Table 5] The country name 'Côte d?Ivoire' contains a literal question mark instead of an accent; this should be corrected to 'Côte d’Ivoire'.
  3. [Section 3.1.3 / Table 2] Table 2 would be more informative with sample sizes or numbers of geographic units per validation split, particularly for the multi-scale rows where the RMSE ranges from 0.033 to 0.103; without sample sizes it is hard to judge which regional differences are meaningful.
  4. [Appendix C.1] There is a typo in 'perfomance' in the first sentence of Appendix C.1; it should be 'performance'.
  5. [Page 10 footnote] The footnote beginning '0 any grid cell where the population is less than 1 but greater than 0' appears truncated or malformed and should be rewritten as a complete sentence.
  6. [Section 2.6.1] In Eq. 11, the correction factor is defined with subnational ratios in the numerator and denominator, but the deployment uses grid-cell predictions; it would help to state more explicitly that the correction is applied to ratios within each administrative unit and that it cannot correct for errors in the spatial distribution within that unit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are empirical model outputs from historical labels and SSP inputs; the stationarity limitation and ILO bias-correction are disclosed extrapolation risks and post-processing, not constructional equivalences.

full rationale

The central claim is a new gridded EPWA dataset generated by a Beta-regression GAMM (Eq. 3) fitted to ILO national and subnational EPWA labels (Eq. 1) with socioeconomic predictors. Future maps are out-of-sample model outputs driven by SSP population, GDP, and rurality trajectories; they are not defined in terms of the target variable. Eq. 11 is a bias-correction factor that rescales predicted ratios so that observational-period aggregates match observed ILO totals, but the paper explicitly labels this as a correction for consistency with original statistics and distributes both corrected and uncorrected versions, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reliance on Mehrabi (2023) [7] for feature selection and comparison is a self-citation by one author, but it is not load-bearing in the derivation: the model is fit and validated independently, and no uniqueness or equivalence claim is imported from [7]. The paper's stationarity assumption (Section 2.4) is a genuine limitation: temporal validation covers only 2000-2020, so the 2050-2100 extrapolation is untested against structural breaks, and fixed cropland and pasture remove a land-use channel. However, an untested extrapolation assumption is a correctness risk, not circularity; it does not reduce any prediction to its inputs by construction. No circular step satisfying the required quote-and-reduction standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is empirical; all coefficients are fitted. The main extra assumptions are stationarity, constant land use, and label comparability. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • GAMM intercept and smooth-term coefficients = Estimated from training data
    All beta0 and spline coefficients in Eq. 3 are fitted to the ILO national and subnational EPWA labels; every prediction is a function of these fitted values.
  • Interaction smooth-term coefficients = Estimated from training data
    Interactions between ln(G50) and population density/rural proportion are fitted and selected by AIC; they add flexibility and are used in the final deployed model.
  • Country-level random effects (delta_j) = Estimated from training data
    Random intercepts for each country absorb country-specific deviations; for countries not in the training set, regional random effects are substituted (Section 2.5).
  • Beta regression precision parameter (phi) = Estimated from training data
    The precision parameter in Eq. 2 controls the variance of the Beta distribution and is estimated as part of the GAMM fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Relationships between predictors and agricultural workforce observed in 2000-2020 remain valid through 2100
    Stated in Section 2.4: 'we assume that the relationships captured by the model in the baseline years remain consistent over time.' This is load-bearing for all future projections.
  • domain assumption Spatial relationships at administrative scales are maintained at finer grid-cell scales
    Section 2.4: 'we assume that the spatial relationships identified at higher scales are maintained at lower scales.' The multiscale validation tests this only for a subset of regions.
  • domain assumption Cropland and pasture areas remain constant from 2000 through 2100 in projections
    Section 2.2.2: 'We keep cropland and pasture constant in all training and future projections.' Land use change is ignored in the future scenarios.
  • domain assumption Employable-to-total-population ratio is uniform within each administrative unit
    Section 2.6: 'We assume the employable-to-population ratio to be the same for any grid cell in a unit i time t.' This converts ratio predictions to worker counts.
  • domain assumption National and subnational EPWA labels are comparable despite differing working-age definitions and exclusion of undocumented and migrant workers
    Section 2.2.1 notes working age varies (15+ vs 18+) and that undocumented and international migrant workers are not captured; the model treats all labels as a single consistent target.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geographic distribution of the global agricultural workforce every decade for the years 2000-2100." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQZ772ET

@misc{pith2026241215841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geographic distribution of the global agricultural workforce every decade for the years 2000-2100},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQZ772ET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15841}
}
abstract

Agricultural workers play a vital role in the global economy and food security by cultivating, transporting, and processing food for populations worldwide. Despite their importance, detailed spatial data on the global agricultural workforce have remained scarce. Here, we present a new gridded dataset that maps the global distribution of agricultural workers for every decade over the years 2000-2100, distributed at 0.083$\times$0.083 degrees resolution, roughly $\sim$10km$\times$10km at the Equator. The dataset is developed using an empirical modeling framework relying on generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs) that integrate socioeconomic variables, including gross domestic product per capita, total population, rural population size, and agricultural land use. The predictions are consistent with Shared Socio-economic Pathways and we distribute full time series data for all SSPs 1 to 5. This dataset opens new avenues for future research on labour force health, productivity and risk, and could be very useful for developing informed, forward-looking strategies that address the challenges of climate resilience in agriculture. The dataset and code for reproducing it are available for the user community [publicly available on publication at DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14443333].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Covid-19andthecrisisinfoodsystems: Symptoms, causes, andpotential solutions, March 2024

    IPES-Food. Covid-19andthecrisisinfoodsystems: Symptoms, causes, andpotential solutions, March 2024. URLhttps://ipes-food.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/ 03/COVID-19_CommuniqueEN3.pdf. Communiqué

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Christopher B. Barrett. Actions now can curb food systems fallout from covid-19. Nature Food, 1(6):319–320, 2020. ISSN 2662-1355. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0085-y. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0085-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0085-y 2020

  3. [3]

    Halwani, Layal Hneiny, Ibrahim Alameddine, Mustapha A

    Moussa El Khayat, Dana A. Halwani, Layal Hneiny, Ibrahim Alameddine, Mustapha A. Haidar, and Rima R. Habib. Impacts of climate change and heat stress on farmworkers’ health: A scoping review.Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 2022. ISSN 2296-2565. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.782811. URLhttps://www.frontiersin.org/ journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.20...

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Heat stress on agricultural workers ex- acerbates crop impacts of climate change

    Cicero Z de Lima, Jonathan R Buzan, Frances C Moore, Uris Lantz C Baldos, Matthew Huber, and Thomas W Hertel. Heat stress on agricultural workers ex- acerbates crop impacts of climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4): 044020, 3 2021. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abeb9f. URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1748-9326/abeb9f

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abeb9f 2021

  5. [5]

    Nelson, Jennifer Vanos, George Havenith, Ollie Jay, Kristie L

    Gerald C. Nelson, Jennifer Vanos, George Havenith, Ollie Jay, Kristie L. Ebi, and Robert J. Hijmans. Global reductions in manual agricultural work capacity due to climate change. Global Change Biology, 30(1):e17142, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/gcb.17142. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ gcb.17142. e17142 GCB-23-1369.R2

    work page doi:10.1111/gcb.17142 2024

  6. [6]

    Climate change and labor reallo- cation: Evidence from six decades of the indian census.American Economic Jour- nal: Economic Policy, 15(2):395–423, 5 2023

    Maggie Liu, Yogita Shamdasani, and Vis Taraz. Climate change and labor reallo- cation: Evidence from six decades of the indian census.American Economic Jour- nal: Economic Policy, 15(2):395–423, 5 2023. doi: 10.1257/pol.20210129. URL https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20210129

    doi:10.1257/pol.20210129 2023

  7. [7]

    Likely decline in the number of farms globally by the middle of the century

    Zia Mehrabi. Likely decline in the number of farms globally by the middle of the century. Nature Sustainability, 6(8):949–954, 2023. ISSN 2398-9629. doi: 10.1038/ s41893-023-01110-y. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01110-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01110-y 2023

  8. [8]

    Farmsize

    RobertEastwood, MichaelLipton, andAndrewNewell. Farmsize. InRobertEvenson and Prabhu Pingali, editors,Handbook of Agricultural Economics, pages 3323–3397. Elsevier, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in africa: A synthesis

    Thomas S Jayne, Jordan Chamberlin, and Derek D Headey. Land pressures, the evolution of farming systems, and development strategies in africa: A synthesis. Food policy, 48:1–17, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Edward Taylor and Philip L

    J. Edward Taylor and Philip L. Martin. Migration: The dynamics of labor out- migration from developing countries. In Bruce L. Gardner and Gordon C. Rausser, editors, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, pages 457–511. Elsevier, 2001. 15

    2001

  3. [11]

    Blumenstock

    Guanghua Chi, Han Fang, Sourav Chatterjee, and Joshua E. Blumenstock. Microes- timates of wealth for all low- and middle-income countries.Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 119(3):e2113658119, January 2022. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2113658119. URL https://www.pnas.or...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    High-resolution poverty maps in Sub- Saharan Africa

    Kamwoo Lee and Jeanine Braithwaite. High-resolution poverty maps in Sub- Saharan Africa. World Development, 159:106028, November 2022. ISSN 0305- 750X. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106028. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002182

    2022

  5. [13]

    Mapping geographical inequalities in access to drinking water and sanitation facilities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000–17

    Aniruddha Deshpande and et al. Mapping geographical inequalities in access to drinking water and sanitation facilities in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000–17. The Lancet Global Health, 8(9):e1162–e1185, September 2020. ISSN 2214- 109X. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30...

    doi

  6. [14]

    Millear, Rebecca W

    Aaron Osgood-Zimmerman, Anoushka I. Millear, Rebecca W. Stubbs, Chloe Shields, Brandon V. Pickering, Lucas Earl, Nicholas Graetz, Damaris K. Kinyoki, Sarah E. Ray, Samir Bhatt, Annie J. Browne, Roy Burstein, Ewan Cameron, Daniel C. Casey, Aniruddha Deshpande, Nancy Fullman, Pe...

  7. [15]

    Mehrabi, K

    Z. Mehrabi, K. Tong, J. Fortin, R. Stanimirova, M. Friedl, and N. Ramankutty. Global agricultural lands in the year 2015.Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2024:1–44, 2024. doi: 10.5194/essd-2024-279. URL https://essd.copernicus. org/preprints/essd-2024-279/

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Mueller, C

    V. Mueller, C. Gray, and K. Kosec. Heat stress increases long-term human migration in rural pakistan. Nature Climate Change, 4(3):182–185, March 2014. ISSN 1758- 678X. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2103

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Evan, Chad Monfreda, and Jonathan A

    Navin Ramankutty, Amato T. Evan, Chad Monfreda, and Jonathan A. Foley. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(1), 2008. ISSN 1944-9224. doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952. URL https://onlinelibrary....

    doi

  10. [18]

    Downscaling global spatial population projections from 1/8-degree to 1- km grid cells.National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 1105, 2017

    Jing Gao. Downscaling global spatial population projections from 1/8-degree to 1- km grid cells.National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 1105, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways

    B Jones and B C O’Neill. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8): 084003, 7 2016. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084003. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084003

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Global gridded GDP data set consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways

    Tingting Wang and Fubao Sun. Global gridded GDP data set consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways. Scientific Data, 9(1):221, May 2022. ISSN 2052-

    2022

  13. [21]

    Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming.Land Use Policy, 28:639–648, 10

    Ingo Zasada. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming.Land Use Policy, 28:639–648, 10

  14. [22]

    Ex- posure to pesticides and health effects on farm owners and workers from conventional and organic agricultural farms in costa rica: Protocol for a cross-sectional study

    Samuel Fuhrimann, Mirko S Winkler, Philipp Staudacher, Frederik T Weiss, Chris- tian Stamm, Rik IL Eggen, Christian H Lindh, José A Menezes-Filho, Joseph M Baker, Fernando Ramírez-Muñoz, Randall Gutiérrez-Vargas, and Ana M Mora. Ex- posure to pesticides and health effects on f...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Lindh, Ulla Stenius, Karin Leander, Marika Berglund, and Kristian Dreij

    Jessika Barrón Cuenca, Noemi Tirado, Max Vikström, Christian H. Lindh, Ulla Stenius, Karin Leander, Marika Berglund, and Kristian Dreij. Pesticide expo- sure among Bolivian farmers: associations between worker protection and expo- sure biomarkers. Journal of Exposure Science &...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Graham, Jessica H

    Jay P. Graham, Jessica H. Leibler, Lance B. Price, Joachim M. Otte, Dirk U. Pfeiffer, T. Tiensin, and Ellen K. Silbergeld. The animal-human interface and in- fectious disease in industrial food animal production: Rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment. Public Health Reports...

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Mark R Withers, Maria T Correa, Morgan Morrow, Martha E Stebbins, Jitvimol Seriwatana, W David Webster, Marshall B Boak, and David W Vaughn. Antibody levels to hepatitis e virus in north carolina swine workers, non-swine workers, swine, and murids.The American journal of tropi...

    2002

  18. [26]

    Nowak, Lucy Njuguna, Julian Ramirez-Villegas, Pytrik Reidsma, Krystal Crumpler, and Todd S

    Andreea C. Nowak, Lucy Njuguna, Julian Ramirez-Villegas, Pytrik Reidsma, Krystal Crumpler, and Todd S. Rosenstock. Opportunities to strengthen Africa’s efforts 17 to track national-level climate adaptation.Nature Climate Change, 14(8):876–882, August 2024. ISSN 1758-6798. doi:...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Documentation for the Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4)

    Center for International Earth Science Information Network - CIESIN - Columbia University. Documentation for the Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4). http://dx.doi.org/10.7927/H4D50JX4, 2016. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.7927/H4D50JX4. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioecon...

    2016 doi

  20. [2011]

    doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008

    2011 doi

  21. [4463]

    URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41597-022-01300-x

    doi: 10.1038/s41597-022-01300-x. URLhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ s41597-022-01300-x. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.