|
|
Stewart, D. (2013). A strategy for the dissemination outputs at the national, EU and global levels (Vol. 2).
Abstract: To effectively communicate and disseminate the outputs of CropM and MACSUR per se at national, EU and global levels it is essential that we engage with the appropriate audiences and tailor the level and depth of the outputs accordingly. Consequently for the range of stakeholder outputs there will be a staged period of engagement with stakeholders in the policy and industry sectors (and where appropriate others). This will be driven by the strategies outlined in WP6.3-4 (Strategies for engagement on adaptation and mitigation with national and EU policy makers and with the agro-food chain sector). Once enacted and the feedback collated these response will facilitate the co-construction of an appropriate dissemination strategy. Aligned with this will be a series of standardised dissemination routes that will deliver globally but will then often be followed up by a more local (national) output/dissemination activity tailored for that region. The dissemination strategy will include but will not be limited to multiple and various methods of information distribution including Scientific papers and presentations. Agricultural sector/industry focused talks/presentations and workshops. A fully developed and interactive website (part of the larger project). Social Media Podcasts and WebTV with key actors in the crop and climate change arena including scientists, and stakeholders (policy, agriculturalists and industry representatives). Integration with the cognate EU platforms, e.g. EIP Agricultural and Sustainability, EIT-KIC Climate Change(ETP), the appropriate ETPs (http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/individual_en.html) and major EU projects such as SUSFOOD etc. No Label
|
|
|
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2015). A prototype stochastic dynamic equilibrium model of the global food system (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The risks of food consumption are primarily linked to those of food production due to stochastic weather. Other sources of risk are associated with break-down of food trade or transport for weather or political reasons. Hopefully, future cures against increased risk due to climate change may be found with new agricultural technologies, systems of storage from favorable to unfavorable periods, more flexible trade-arrangements between favorable and unfavorable places. However, in the short run one has to rely on the available technology, storage facilities and trade agreements. With a realistic model of the stochastic global food system, it should be possible to measure risks of certain extreme unfavorable events.A realistic case will have countries with different climate in different growing seasons. Markets will be open for trade at a number of points per year, in which decisions of production, storage, trade and consumption can be coordinated as a static equilibrium. Determinants of this equilibrium are the weather up to this date reflected in the state of crops, the available harvested stocks and the decision-maker’s preferences. With a global stochastic process of weather, a stochastic sequence of equilibria follows. No Label
|
|
|
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2015). A prototype dynamic stochastic equilibrium model of the global food system (Vol. 4).
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework structure to integrate improved methods for uncertainty evaluation, and protocols for methods application (Vol. 3).
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework for assessing the uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 3).
Abstract: It is of major importance in modeling to understand and quantify the uncertainty in model predictions, both in order to know how much confidence to have in those predictions, and as a first step toward model improvement. Here we show that there are basically three different approaches to evaluating uncertainty, and we explain the advantages and drawbacks of each. This is a necessary first step toward developing protocols for evaluation of uncertainty and so obtaining a clearer picture of the reliability of crop models. No Label
|
|
