Abstract: Future farming systems are challenged to adapt to the changing socio-economic and bio-physical environment in order to remain competitive and to meet the increasing requirements for food and fibres. The scientific challenge is to evaluate the consequences of predefined scenarios, identify current “best” practices and explore future adaptation strategies at farm level. The objective of this article is to assess the impact of different climate change and socio-economic scenarios on arable farming systems in Flevoland (the Netherlands) and to explore possible adaptation strategies. Data Envelopment Analysis was used to identify these current “best” practices while bio-economic modelling was used to calculate a number of important economic and environmental indicators in scenarios for 2050. Relative differences between yields with and without climate change and technological change were simulated with a crop bio-physical model and used as a correction factors for the observed crop yields of current “best” practices. We demonstrated the capacity of the proposed methodology to explore multiple scenarios by analysing the importance of drivers of change, while accounting for variation between individual farms. It was found that farmers in Flevoland are in general technically efficient and a substantial share of the arable land is currently under profit maximization. We found that climate change increased productivity in all tested scenarios. However, the effects of different socio-economic scenarios (globalized and regionalized economies) on the economic and environmental performance of the farms were variable. Scenarios of a globalized economy where the prices of outputs were simulated to increase substantially might result in increased average gross margin and lower average (per ha) applications of crop protection and fertilizers. However, the effects might differ between different farm types. It was found that, the abolishment of sugar beet quota and changes of future prices of agricultural inputs and outputs in such socio-economic scenario (i.e. globalized economy) caused a decrease in gross margins of smaller (in terms of economic size) farms, while gross margin of larger farms increased. In scenarios where more regionalized economies and a moderate climate change are assumed, the future price ratios between inputs and outputs are shown to be the key factors for the viability of arable farms in our simulations. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) used for the purpose of developing the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). By ‘non-standardised’ we mean not strictly following a published MRA method. The underlying question we are interested in addressing is how non-standardised methods, often employed in research driven projects, compare to defined methods with more standardised structure, with regards their ability to capture model requirements effectively, and with regards their overall usability. Through describing and critically assessing the specific features of the non-standardised MRA employed, the ambition of this paper is to provide insights useful for impact assessment tool (IAT) development. Specifically, the paper will (i) characterise kinds of user requirements relevant to the functionality and design of IATs; (ii) highlight the strengths and weaknesses of non-standardised MRA for user requirements capture, analysis and reflection in the context of IAT; (iii) critically reflect on the process and outcomes of having used a non-standardised MRA in comparison with other more standardised approaches. To accomplish these aims, we first review methods available for IAT development before describing the SIAT development process, including the MRA employed. Major strengths and weaknesses of the MRA method are then discussed in terms of user identification and characterisation, organisational characterisation and embedding, and ability to capture design options for ensuring usability and usefulness. A detailed assessment on the structural differences of MRA with two advanced approaches (Integrated DSS design and goal directed design) and their role in performance of the MRA tool is used to critique the approach employed. The results show that MRA is able to bring thematic integration, establish system performance and technical thresholds as well as detailing quality and transparency guidelines. Nevertheless the discussion points out to a number of deficiencies in application – (i) a need to more effectively characterise potential users, and; (ii) a need to better foster communication among the distinguished roles in the development process. If addressed these deficiencies, SIAT non-standardised MRA could have brought out better outcomes in terms of tool usability and usefulness, and improved embedding of the tool into conditions of targeted end-users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Decisions for agricultural management are taken at farm scale. However, such decisions may well impact upon regional sustainability. Two of the likely agricultural management responses to future challenges are extended use of irrigation and increased production of energy crops. The drivers for these are high commodity prices and subsidy policies for renewable energy. However, the impacts of these responses upon regional sustainability are unknown. Thus, we conducted integrated impact assessments for agricultural intensification scenarios in the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany, for 2025. One Irrigation scenario and one Energy scenario were contrasted with the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. We applied nine indicators to analyze the economic, social and environmental effects at the regional, in this case district scale, which is the smallest administrative unit in Brandenburg. Assessment results were discussed in a stakeholder workshop involving 16 experts from the state government. The simulated area shares of silage maize for fodder and energy were 29%, 37% and 49% for the BAU, Irrigation, and Energy scenarios, respectively. The Energy scenario increased bio-electricity production to 41% of the demand of Brandenburg, and it resulted in CO2 savings of up to 3.5 million tons. However, it resulted in loss of biodiversity, loss of landscape scenery, increased soil erosion risk, and increased area demand for water protection requirements. The Irrigation scenario led to yield increases of 7% (rapeseed), 18% (wheat, sugar beet), and 40% (maize) compared to the BAU scenario. It also reduced the year-to-year yield variability. Water demand for irrigation was found to be in conflict with other water uses for two of the 14 districts. Spatial differentiation of scenario impacts showed that districts with medium to low yield potentials were more affected by negative impacts than districts with high yield potentials. In this first comprehensive sustainability impact assessment of agricultural intensification scenarios at regional level, we showed that a considerable potential for agricultural intensification exists. The intensification is accompanied by adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts. The novelty lies in the multiscale integration of comprehensive, agricultural management simulations with regional level impact assessment, which was achieved with the adequate use of indicators. It provided relevant evidence for policy decision making. Stakeholders appreciated the integrative approach of the assessment, which substantiated ongoing discussions among the government bodies. The assessment approach and the Brandenburg case study may stay exemplary for other regions in the world where similar economic and policy driving forces are likely to lead to agricultural intensification. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.