Urbanization, socio-economic changes and population growth in Brazil: dietary shifts and environmental implications.

Population growth, economic globalization, improving living standards and urbanization are causing important changes in the global food system and modifying the dietary habits in many parts of the world (Molden, 2007; Godfray et al., 2010). The nutritional transition (linked to the development of countries and the increasing wealth of its population) implies a shift away from traditional staple food such as roots and tuber vegetables and a rise in consumption of meat and milk products, refined and processed foods, as well as sugars, oils and fats (Ambler-Edwards et al., 2009). The contemporary food system puts significant pressure on natural resources, especially on land and water, because the growing food demand pushes the agricultural frontier beyond, causing large impacts on ecosystems (Ambler-Edwards et al. 2009: 11-18). Also, the trend towards richer diets in animal proteins and processed food adds further pressure on the environment, since it requires larger amount of water and land to be produced (Allan, 2011; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012).

Farmers behaviour on mitigation and adaptation to climate change: A case study in Kenya.

Farmers in Africa are facing climate change and challenging rural livelihoods while maintaining agricultural systems that are not resilient. By 2050 the mean estimates of production of key staple crops in Africa such as maize, sorghum, millet, groundnut, and cassava are expected to decrease by between 8 and 22 percent (Schlenker and Lobell 2010). In Kenya, although projections of rainfall do not show dramatic decreases, the distribution of impacts is clearly negative for most crops. As increases in temperature will lead to increases in evapotranspiration, a potential increase in rainfall in Kenya may not offset the expected increases in agricultural water needs (Herrero et al. 2010). In order to respond to these present and future challenges, potential mitigation and adaptation options have been developed. However, implementation is not evident. In addition to their benefits in either mitigating or reducing the vulnerability of climate change effects, many of these options do not have economic costs and even provide economic benefits (e.g. savings in the consumption of energy or natural resources). Nevertheless, it is demonstrated that even when there are no biophysical, technological or economic constraints and despite their potential benefits from either the economic or environmental climate change point of view, not all farmers are willing to adopt these measures. This reflects the key role that behavioural barriers can play in the uptake of mitigation and adaptation measures.