{"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"id": "10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"license": "Open Access", "updated": "2026-09-21T16:17:05Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2019-07-04", "title": "A rolling horizon simulation approach for managing demand with lead time variability", "description": "Open Access[EN] This paper proposes a rolling horizon (RH) approach to deal with management problems under dynamic demand in planning horizons with variable lead times using system dynamics (SD) simulation. Thus, the nature of dynamic RH solutions entails no inconveniences to contemplate planning horizons with unpredictable demands. This is mainly because information is periodically updated and replanning is done in time. Therefore, inventory and logistic costs may be lower. For the first time, an RH is applied for demand management with variable lead times along with SD simulation models, which allowed the use of lot-sizing techniques to be evaluated (Wagner-Whitin and Silver-Meal). The basic scenario is based on a real-world example from an automotive single-level SC composed of a first-tier supplier and a car assembler that contemplates uncertain demands while planning the RH and 216 subscenarios by modifying constant and variable lead times, holding costs and order costs, combined with lot-sizing techniques. Twenty-eight more replications comprising 504 new subscenarios with variable lead times are generated to represent a relative variation coefficient of the initial demand. We conclude that our RH simulation approach, along with lot-sizing techniques, can generate more sustainable planning results in total costs, fill rates and bullwhip effect terms.", "keywords": ["Demand management", "Supply chain dynamics", "ORGANIZACION DE EMPRESAS", "0211 other engineering and technologies", "Rolling horizon", "02 engineering and technology", "7. Clean energy", "Simulation"]}, "links": [{"href": "https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849"}, {"href": "https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849"}, {"rel": "related", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/International%20Journal%20of%20Production%20Research", "name": "related record", "description": "related record", "type": "application/json"}, {"rel": "self", "type": "application/geo+json", "title": "10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849", "name": "item", "description": "10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/10.1080/00207543.2019.1634849"}, {"rel": "collection", "type": "application/json", "title": "Collection", "name": "collection", "description": "Collection", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main"}], "time": {"date": "2019-07-03T00:00:00Z"}}, {"id": "10.1111/gcb.14878", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"updated": "2026-09-21T16:17:34Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2019-10-22", "title": "Which practices co\u2010deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?", "description": "Abstract

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.