|
|
Helming, K., Podhora, A., & König, H. (2014). Policy impact assessment – a venue for the science policy interface. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Policy making aims to align agricultural production with multifunctional services such as environmental conservation, rural development, and economic competitiveness. Policies counteract or reinforce external driving forces such as climate change, global economic developments, demography, consumption patterns. They considerably affect decision making of farmers. Because of the interaction and non-linear feedback loops with socio-economic and geophysical processes of the land use systems, policies are difficult to design, and their impacts are difficult to anticipate. The policy making community articulates an emerging demand for science based evidence in support of the policy process. Ex-ante impact assessment of policy making provides the legal basis to fuel scientific evidence into the policy process. For researchers, impact assessment is a means to structure the analysis of human-environment interactions. For policy makers, impact assessment is a means to better target policy decisions towards sustainable development. The integration of both requires a mutual understanding of the respective objectives and operational restrictions within the scientific and policy-making domains. This paper provides insight into the process of policy impact assessment and how research based methods and tools can best feed into it. Three aspects are outlined: the co-design of the assessment between policy makers and researchers; the integration of quantitative analysis with participatory valuation methods; and the robustness and transparency of the analytical methods.
|
|
|
|
Köchy, M., Bishop, J., Lehtonen, H., Scollan, N., Webber, H., Zimmermann, A., et al. (2017). Challenges and research gaps in the area of integrated climate change risk assessment for European agriculture and food security (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Priorities in addressing research gaps and challenges should follow the order of importance, which in itself would be a matter of defining goals and metrics of importance, e.g. the extent, impact and likelihood of occurrence. For improving assessments of climate change impacts on agriculture for achieving food security and other sustainable development goals across the European continent, the most important research gaps and challenges appear to be the agreement on goals with a wide range of stakeholders from policy, science, producers and society, better reflection of political and societal preferences in the modelling process, and the reflection of economic decisions in farm management within models. These and other challenges could be approached in phase 3 of MACSUR.
|
|
|
|
Mueller, L., Schindler, U., Shepherd, T. G., Ball, B. C., Smolentseva, E., Hu, C., et al. (2012). A framework for assessing agricultural soil quality on a global scale. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 58(sup1), S76–S82.
Abstract: This paper provides information about a novel approach of rating agricultural soil quality (SQ) and crop yield potentials consistently over a range of spatial scales. The Muencheberg Soil Quality Rating is an indicator-based straightforward overall assessment method of agricultural SQ. It is a framework covering aspects of soil texture, structure, topography and climate which is based on 8 basic indicators and more than 12 hazard indicators. Ratings are performed by visual methods of soil evaluation. A field manual is then used to provide ratings from tables based on indicator thresholds. Finally, overall rating scores are given, ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) to characterise crop yield potentials. The current approach is valid for grassland and cropland. Field tests in several countries confirmed the practicability and reliability of the method. At field scale, soil structure is a crucial, management induced criterion of agricultural SQ. At the global scale, climate controlled hazard indicators of drought risk and soil thermal regime are crucial for SQ and crop yield potentials. Final rating scores are well correlated with crop yields. We conclude that this system could be evolved for ranking and controlling agricultural SQ on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
Gutzler, C., Helming, K., Balla, D., Dannowski, R., Deumlich, D., Glemnitz, M., et al. (2015). Agricultural land use changes – a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for Brandenburg, Germany. Ecological Indicators, 48, 505–517.
Abstract: Decisions for agricultural management are taken at farm scale. However, such decisions may well impact upon regional sustainability. Two of the likely agricultural management responses to future challenges are extended use of irrigation and increased production of energy crops. The drivers for these are high commodity prices and subsidy policies for renewable energy. However, the impacts of these responses upon regional sustainability are unknown. Thus, we conducted integrated impact assessments for agricultural intensification scenarios in the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany, for 2025. One Irrigation scenario and one Energy scenario were contrasted with the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. We applied nine indicators to analyze the economic, social and environmental effects at the regional, in this case district scale, which is the smallest administrative unit in Brandenburg. Assessment results were discussed in a stakeholder workshop involving 16 experts from the state government. The simulated area shares of silage maize for fodder and energy were 29%, 37% and 49% for the BAU, Irrigation, and Energy scenarios, respectively. The Energy scenario increased bio-electricity production to 41% of the demand of Brandenburg, and it resulted in CO2 savings of up to 3.5 million tons. However, it resulted in loss of biodiversity, loss of landscape scenery, increased soil erosion risk, and increased area demand for water protection requirements. The Irrigation scenario led to yield increases of 7% (rapeseed), 18% (wheat, sugar beet), and 40% (maize) compared to the BAU scenario. It also reduced the year-to-year yield variability. Water demand for irrigation was found to be in conflict with other water uses for two of the 14 districts. Spatial differentiation of scenario impacts showed that districts with medium to low yield potentials were more affected by negative impacts than districts with high yield potentials. In this first comprehensive sustainability impact assessment of agricultural intensification scenarios at regional level, we showed that a considerable potential for agricultural intensification exists. The intensification is accompanied by adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts. The novelty lies in the multiscale integration of comprehensive, agricultural management simulations with regional level impact assessment, which was achieved with the adequate use of indicators. It provided relevant evidence for policy decision making. Stakeholders appreciated the integrative approach of the assessment, which substantiated ongoing discussions among the government bodies. The assessment approach and the Brandenburg case study may stay exemplary for other regions in the world where similar economic and policy driving forces are likely to lead to agricultural intensification. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Sieber, S., Amjath-Babu, T. S., McIntosh, B. S., Tscherning, K., Müller, K., Helming, K., et al. (2013). Evaluating the characteristics of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) for the development of policy impact assessment tools. Env. Model. Softw., 49, 53–63.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) used for the purpose of developing the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). By ‘non-standardised’ we mean not strictly following a published MRA method. The underlying question we are interested in addressing is how non-standardised methods, often employed in research driven projects, compare to defined methods with more standardised structure, with regards their ability to capture model requirements effectively, and with regards their overall usability. Through describing and critically assessing the specific features of the non-standardised MRA employed, the ambition of this paper is to provide insights useful for impact assessment tool (IAT) development. Specifically, the paper will (i) characterise kinds of user requirements relevant to the functionality and design of IATs; (ii) highlight the strengths and weaknesses of non-standardised MRA for user requirements capture, analysis and reflection in the context of IAT; (iii) critically reflect on the process and outcomes of having used a non-standardised MRA in comparison with other more standardised approaches. To accomplish these aims, we first review methods available for IAT development before describing the SIAT development process, including the MRA employed. Major strengths and weaknesses of the MRA method are then discussed in terms of user identification and characterisation, organisational characterisation and embedding, and ability to capture design options for ensuring usability and usefulness. A detailed assessment on the structural differences of MRA with two advanced approaches (Integrated DSS design and goal directed design) and their role in performance of the MRA tool is used to critique the approach employed. The results show that MRA is able to bring thematic integration, establish system performance and technical thresholds as well as detailing quality and transparency guidelines. Nevertheless the discussion points out to a number of deficiencies in application – (i) a need to more effectively characterise potential users, and; (ii) a need to better foster communication among the distinguished roles in the development process. If addressed these deficiencies, SIAT non-standardised MRA could have brought out better outcomes in terms of tool usability and usefulness, and improved embedding of the tool into conditions of targeted end-users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
