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: This paper assesses the cost-effectiveness of a mixed policy in attempts to reduce the presence of three nitrogen pollutants: NO (3), N O-2, and NH (3). The policy under study combines a tax on nitrogen input and incentives promoting perennial crops assumed to require low input. We show that the mixed policy improves the cost-effectiveness of regulation with regard to nitrates, whereas no improvement occurs, except for a very low level of subsidy in some cases, for gas pollutants. A quantitative analysis provides an assessment of impacts in terms of land use, farmers’ income, and nitrogen losses throughout France and at river-basin scale.

Abstract: EU rural development policy (RDP) regulation 1305/2013 aims to protect farmers’ incomes from ongoing change of climate variability (CCV), and the increase in frequency of adverse climatic events. An income stabilization tool (IST) is provided to compensate drastic drops in income, including those caused by climatic events. The present study examines some aspect of its application focussing on Mediterranean irrigation area where frequent water shortages may generate significant income reductions in the current climate conditions, and may be further exacerbated by climate change. This enhanced loss of income in the future would occur due to a change in climate variability. This change would appreciably reduce the probability of weather conditions that are favourable for irrigation, but would not significantly increase either the probability of unfavourable weather conditions or the magnitude of their impact. As the IST and other insurance tools that protect against adversity and catastrophic events are only activated under extreme conditions, farmers may not consider them to be suitable in dealing with the new climate regime. This would leave a portion of the financial resources allocated by the RDP unused, resulting in less support for climate change adaptation.