|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Kipling, R.
Title LiveM and the knowledge hub concept: Grassland and livestock modelling in MACSUR Phase 2 Type
Year 2015 Publication FACCE MACSUR Reports Abbreviated Journal
Volume 4 Issue Pages SP4-8
Keywords
Abstract
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference TradeM International Workshop 2014 »Economics of integrated assessment approaches for agriculture and the food sector«, 25–27 November 2014, Hurdalsjø, Norway
Notes (down) Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2198
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Kipling, R.
Title Communicating Modelling Type
Year 2015 Publication FACCE MACSUR Reports Abbreviated Journal
Volume 4 Issue Pages SP4-7
Keywords
Abstract No abstract. No Label
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference TradeM International Workshop 2014 »Economics of integrated assessment approaches for agriculture and the food sector«, 25–27 November 2014, Hurdalsjø, Norway
Notes (down) Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2197
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Scollan, N.; Bannink, A.; Kipling, R.; Saetnan, E.; Van Middelkoop, J.
Title Livestock and feed production, especially dairy and beef Type Conference Article
Year 2015 Publication FACCE MACSUR Reports Abbreviated Journal
Volume 6 Issue Pages Sp6-3
Keywords
Abstract Improving health and welfare is an important adaptation and mitigation strategyDeveloping process based modelling, responsive to adaptationLinks to climate and land use change modelling are essential Livestock systems likely to be hit hardest by climate changeNeed to develop animal health models that respond to adaptation by farmersBringing together direct and indirect impacts of climate change vitalAdaptation and mitigation need to be considered and modelled togetherLinking models across scales is important to support policy decisionsLearning between sectors carries potential for novel solutions and methodological advancesEffective communication of outcomes to stakeholders (how?) No Label
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Brussels Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference Climate-change impacts on farming systems in the next decades: Why worry when you have CAP? A FACCE MACSUR workshop for policymakers
Notes (down) Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2084
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Köchy, M.; Bishop, J.; Lehtonen, H.; Scollan, N.; Webber, H.; Zimmermann, A.; Bellocchi, G.; Bannink, A.; Biewald, A.; Ferrise, R.; Helming, K.; Kipling, R.P.; Milford, A.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Curth-van Middelkoop, J.
Title Challenges and research gaps in the area of integrated climate change risk assessment for European agriculture and food security Type Report
Year 2017 Publication FACCE MACSUR Reports Abbreviated Journal
Volume 10 Issue Pages H0.1-D
Keywords
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.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes (down) Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4950
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author König, H.J.; Helming, K.; Seddaiu, G.; Kipling, R.; Köchy, M.; Graversgaard, M.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Nguyen, T.P.L.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Sieber, S.; Ithes, S.; Kjeldsen, C.; Turner, K.G.; Dalgaard, T.; Roggero, P.P.
Title Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how? Type Manuscript
Year Publication Abbreviated Journal
Volume Issue Pages
Keywords
Abstract Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ;
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes (down) Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2564
Permanent link to this record