Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

Abstract: The region Auvergne (France) is a major livestock territory in Europe (beef and dairy cattle with permanent grasslands), with a place in climate change regional studies assisting policy makers and actors in identifying adaptation and mitigation measures. Vul’Clim is a research grant (Bourse Recherche Filière) of the region Auvergne (February 2014-September 2015) to develop model-based vulnerability analysis approaches for a detailed assessment of climate change impacts at regional scale. Its main goal is the creation of a computer-aided platform for vulnerability assessment of grasslands, in interaction with stakeholders from a cluster of eco-enterprises. A modelling engine provided by the mechanistic, biogeochemical model PaSim (Pasture Simulation model) is the core of the platform. An action studies the changes of scales by varying the granularity of the data available at a given scale (e.g. climate data supplied by global scenarios) to let them being exploited at another scale (e.g. high-resolution pixels). Another action is to develop an assessment framework linking modelling tools to entry data and outputs, including a variety of components: data-entry manager at different spatial resolutions; automatic computation of indicators; gap-filling and data quality check; simulation kernel with the model(s) used; device to represent results as maps and integrated indicators. No Label