|
|
Biewald, A., Sinabell, F., Lotze-Campen, H., Zimmermann, A., & Lehtonen, H. (2017). Global Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Agricultural elements have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) incompletely and pathways have not been specified for the future development of the European Union. We will therefore devise a general framework on European Representative Agricultural Pathways (EU-RAPs), where we cover different aspects of agricultural development, as for example European and domestic agricultural and environmental policies, or different livestock and crop management systems, and describe future developments of the confederation of the countries of the European Union. For the agricultural elements we distinguish between elements that can be derived from the definitions in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development, and elements that have to be newly devised such as the development of the Common Agricultural Policy. For the future of the European Union we develop five different worlds which correspond to the SSPs. Finally both frameworks are combined.
|
|
|
|
Schmid, E. (2017). Integrated land use modelling — a course for doctoral students (Vol. 10).
Abstract: The course on “Integrated land use modelling” took place at BOKU Vienna between 24. – 28. April 2017. It was a five-days course capturing many aspects in quantitative integrated land use modelling using GAMS (see course outline). 10 students have participated the course coming from several countries. Students finishing the course have received 3 ECTS points. The course was offered by BOKU and the Doctoral Certificate Program in Agricultural Economics (https://www.agraroekonomik.de/index.html ).
|
|
|
|
Janssen, S. (2017). Open data journal as a publishing and data sharing mechanism (Vol. 10).
Abstract: This deliverable lays out the work as done as part of MACSUR CropM on data publishing, with the focus on improving data sharing and discovery and have shared data curation for future use. As part of the first phase MACSUR, The Open Data Journal for Agricultural Research (www.odjar.org) was started and documented in Deliverable C2.2 as part of Crop M. Odjar.org mainly focuses on long term data archival and citation of data sets, as input and outputs to the modelling work, as part of MACSUR, lead by Wageningen UR This deliverable is a short update on the process of creating such a data journal by demonstrating a set of articles published through the journal, some of which are based on MACSUR results, as well as related networks. The deliverable does not further explain what the journal is, as this is part of the previous deliverable.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
