| Records |
| Author |
Holman, I.P.; Brown, C.; Carter, T.R.; Harrison, P.A.; Rounsevell, M. |
| Title |
Improving the representation of adaptation in climate change impact models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Regional Environmental Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Reg. Environ. Change |
| Volume |
19 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
711-721 |
| Keywords |
Adaptive capacity; Limits; Water; Land; Decision making; Integrated assessment; Land-Cover Change; Global Change; River-Basin; Integrated Assessment; Adaptive Capacity; Vulnerability; Variability; Precautionary; Agriculture; Management |
| Abstract |
Climate change adaptation is a complex human process, framed by uncertainties and constraints, which is difficult to capture in existing assessment models. Attempts to improve model representations are hampered by a shortage of systematic descriptions of adaptation processes and their relevance to models. This paper reviews the scientific literature to investigate conceptualisations and models of climate change adaptation, and the ways in which representation of adaptation in models can be improved. The review shows that real-world adaptive responses can be differentiated along a number of dimensions including intent or purpose, timescale, spatial scale, beneficiaries and providers, type of action, and sector. However, models of climate change consequences for land use and water management currently provide poor coverage of these dimensions, instead modelling adaptation in an artificial and subjective manner. While different modelling approaches do capture distinct aspects of the adaptive process, they have done so in relative isolation, without producing improved unified representations. Furthermore, adaptation is often assumed to be objective, effective and consistent through time, with only a minority of models taking account of the human decisions underpinning the choice of adaptation measures (14%), the triggers that motivate actions (38%) or the time-lags and constraints that may limit their uptake and effectiveness (14%). No models included adaptation to take advantage of beneficial opportunities of climate change. Based on these insights, transferable recommendations are made on directions for future model development that may enhance realism within models, while also advancing our understanding of the processes and effectiveness of adaptation to a changing climate. |
| Address |
2019-04-27 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1436-3798 |
ISBN |
|
Medium  |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5220 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Topp, C.F.E.; Bannink, A.; Bartley, D.J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Cortignani, R.; del Prado, A.; Dono, G.; Faverdin, P.; Graux, A.-I.; Hutchings, N.J.; Lauwers, L.; Gulzari, S.O.; Reidsma, P.; Rolinski, S.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Sandars, D.L.; Sandor, R.; Schoenhart, M.; Seddaiu, G.; van Middelkoop, J.; Shrestha, S.; Weindl, I.; Eory, V. |
| Title |
To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
| Volume |
120 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Unsp 104492 |
| Keywords |
Adaptation; Agricultural modelling; Climate change; Research challenges; greenhouse-gas emissions; farm-level adaptation; land-use; food; security; adapting agriculture; livestock production; decision-making; change impacts; dairy farms; crop |
| Abstract |
Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change. |
| Address |
2020-02-14 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5223 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Casellas, E.; Hoffman, H.; Bindi, M.; Doro, L.; Eckersten, H.; Gaiser, T.; Grosz, B.; Haas, E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Klatt, S.; Kuhnert, M.; Lewan, E.; Maharjan, G.R.; Moriondo, M.; Nendel, C.; Roggero, P.P.; Specka, X.; Trombi, G.; Villa, A.; Wang, E.; Weihermueller, L.; Yeluripati, J.; Zhao, Z.; Ewert, F.; Bergez, J.-E. |
| Title |
Management and spatial resolution effects on yield and water balance at regional scale in crop models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology |
| Volume |
275 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
184-195 |
| Keywords |
Drainage; Evapotranspiration; Aggregation; Decision rules; Scaling; winter-wheat yield; data aggregation; sowing dates; area index; input; data; carbon; growth; irrigation; productivity; assimilation |
| Abstract |
Due to the more frequent use of crop models at regional and national scale, the effects of spatial data input resolution have gained increased attention. However, little is known about the influence of variability in crop management on model outputs. A constant and uniform crop management is often considered over the simulated area and period. This study determines the influence of crop management adapted to climatic conditions and input data resolution on regional-scale outputs of crop models. For this purpose, winter wheat and maize were simulated over 30 years with spatially and temporally uniform management or adaptive management for North Rhine-Westphalia ((similar to)34 083 km(2)), Germany. Adaptive management to local climatic conditions was used for 1) sowing date, 2) N fertilization dates, 3) N amounts, and 4) crop cycle length. Therefore, the models were applied with four different management sets for each crop. Input data for climate, soil and management were selected at five resolutions, from 1 x 1 km to 100 x 100 km grid size. Overall, 11 crop models were used to predict regional mean crop yield, actual evapotranspiration, and drainage. Adaptive management had little effect (< 10% difference) on the 30-year mean of the three output variables for most models and did not depend on soil, climate, and management resolution. Nevertheless, the effect was substantial for certain models, up to 31% on yield, 27% on evapotranspiration, and 12% on drainage compared to the uniform management reference. In general, effects were stronger on yield than on evapotranspiration and drainage, which had little sensitivity to changes in management. Scaling effects were generally lower than management effects on yield and evapotranspiration as opposed to drainage. Despite this trend, sensitivity to management and scaling varied greatly among the models. At the annual scale, effects were stronger in certain years, particularly the management effect on yield. These results imply that depending on the model, the representation of management should be carefully chosen, particularly when simulating yields and for predictions on annual scale. |
| Address |
2020-02-14 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0168-1923 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5225 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Bellocchi, G.; Rivington, M.; Matthews, K.; Acutis, M. |
| Title |
Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Agronomy for Sustainable Development |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agron. Sust. Developm. |
| Volume |
35 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
589-605 |
| Keywords |
component-oriented programing; deliberative approach; modeling; model evaluation; multiple metrics; stakeholders; decision-support-systems; environmental-models; performance evaluation; groundwater models; farming systems; climate-change; irene-dll; simulation; validation; integration |
| 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. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1774-0746 1773-0155 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Review |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
CropM, LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4551 |
| Permanent link to this record |
