Abstract: Changes in climate, technology, policy and prices affect agricultural and rural development. To evaluate whether this development is sustainable, impacts of these multiple drivers need to be assessed for multiple indicators. In a case study area in the Netherlands, a bio-economic farm model, an agent-based land-use change model, and a regional emission model have been used to simulate rural development under two plausible global change scenarios at both farm and landscape level. Results show that in this area, climate change will have mainly negative economic impacts (dairy gross margin, arable gross margin, economic efficiency, milk production) in the warmer and drier W+ scenario, while impacts are slightly positive in the G scenario with moderate climate change. Dairy farmers are worse off than arable farmers in both scenarios. Conversely, when the W+ scenario is embedded in the socio-economic Global Economy (GE) scenario, changes in technology, prices, and policy are projected to have a positive economic impact, more than offsetting the negative climate impacts. Important is, however, that environmental impacts (global warming, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication) are largely negative and social impacts (farm size, number of farms, nature area, odour) are mixed. In the G scenario combined with the socio-economic Regional Communities (RC) scenario the average dairy gross margin in particular is negatively affected. Social impacts are similarly mixed as in the GE scenario, while environmental impacts are less severe. Our results suggest that integrated assessments at farm and landscape level can be used to guide decision-makers in spatial planning policies and climate change adaptation. As there will always be trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental impacts stakeholders need to interact and decide upon most important directions for policies. This implies a choice between production and income on the one hand and social and environmental services on the other hand

Abstract: Climate change poses a major challenge for farmers, but agricultural sustainability, mitigation, and adaptation can effectively decrease climate impacts on agricultural systems. Changes in farming practices are necessary to reduce emissions and to adapt to climate change. However, such modifications to common practices depend, to a large extent, on farmers’ knowledge and attitudes towards climate risks. An empirical study of farmers’ attitudes and knowledge of climate change mitigation and adaptation practices is useful to understand how farmers’ knowledge influences their attitudes and practices towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. Based on a case study characterised by four agricultural farming systems (extensive dairy sheep, intensive dairy cattle, horticultural farming, and rice farming) in the Province of Oristano in Italy, this study contains an investigation of (i) farmers’ knowledge of climate change causes and effects, how they construct such knowledge, and how they adapt to the phenomenon; (ii) what and how are farmers’ attitudes towards climate change causes are shaped under their contextual social interests and values; and (iii) if their practices in responding to climate variability are influenced by their constructed knowledge. The research results showed that farmers’ declarative knowledge of climate change did not affect their adaptation practices but directed farmers’ attitudes towards climate change causes. The findings also underscore the necessity of facilitating social learning spaces for enhancing virtuous behaviours towards climate change mitigation and the sharing and co-production of procedural knowledge for developing shared sustainable climate adaptation practices at the farm level.

Abstract: Due to their diversity and voluntariness, agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are among the Common Agricultural Policy instruments that are most difficult to assess. We provide an EU-wide analysis of AEM adoption and farm’s total AEM support over total Utilised Agricultural Area using a Heckman sample selection approach and single farm data. Our analysis covers 22 Member States over the 2000-2009 period, assesses the entire portfolio of AEMs and focuses on the relationship between AEM participation and farming system. Results show that participation in AEMs is more likely in less intensive production systems, where, however, per committed hectare AEM premiums tend to be lower. Member States group into three categories: high/low intensity farming systems with low/high AEM enrollment rates, respectively, and large high diversity countries with medium AEM enrollment rates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.