| Records |
| Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş. |
| Title |
Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: how agricultural modellers view challenges to communication |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
| Volume |
7 |
Issue |
03 |
Pages |
240-241 |
| 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 |
2040-4700 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition  |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4870 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.; Özkan, Ş. |
| Title |
Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: How agricultural modellers view challenges to communication |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
8 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
SP8-20 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Conference presentation PDF |
| 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 |
LiveM2016: International livestock modelling conference – Modelling grassland-livestock systems under climate change |
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4835 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Virkajärvi, P.; Breitsameter, L.; Curnel, Y.; De Swaef, T.; Gustavsson, A.-M.; Hennart, S.; Höglind, M.; Järvenranta, K.; Minet, J.; Nendel, C.; Persson, T.; Picon-Cochard, C.; Rolinski, S.; Sandars, D.L.; Scollan, N.D.; Sebek, L.; Seddaiu, G.; Topp, C.F.E.; Twardy, S.; Van Middelkoop, J.; Wu, L.; Bellocchi, G. |
| Title |
Key challenges and priorities for modelling European grasslands under climate change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Science of the Total Environment |
Abbreviated Journal |
Science of the Total Environment |
| Volume |
566-567 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
851-864 |
| Keywords |
Climate change; Grasslands; Horizon scanning; Livestock production; Models; Research agenda |
| Abstract |
Grassland-based ruminant production systems are integral to sustainable food production in Europe, converting plant materials indigestible to humans into nutritious food, while providing a range of environmental and cultural benefits. Climate change poses significant challenges for such systems, their productivity and the wider benefits they supply. In this context, grassland models have an important role in predicting and understanding the impacts of climate change on grassland systems, and assessing the efficacy of potential adaptation and mitigation strategies. In order to identify the key challenges for European grassland modelling under climate change, modellers and researchers from across Europe were consulted via workshop and questionnaire. Participants identified fifteen challenges and considered the current state of modelling and priorities for future research in relation to each. A review of literature was undertaken to corroborate and enrich the information provided during the horizon scanning activities. Challenges were in four categories relating to: 1) the direct and indirect effects of climate change on the sward 2) climate change effects on grassland systems outputs 3) mediation of climate change impacts by site, system and management and 4) cross-cutting methodological issues. While research priorities differed between challenges, an underlying theme was the need for accessible, shared inventories of models, approaches and data, as a resource for stakeholders and to stimulate new research. Developing grassland models to effectively support efforts to tackle climate change impacts, while increasing productivity and enhancing ecosystem services, will require engagement with stakeholders and policy-makers, as well as modellers and experimental researchers across many disciplines. The challenges and priorities identified are intended to be a resource 1) for grassland modellers and experimental researchers, to stimulate the development of new research directions and collaborative opportunities, and 2) for policy-makers involved in shaping the research agenda for European grassland modelling under climate change. |
| 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 |
0048-9697 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4761 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Saetnan, E.R.; Kipling, R.P. |
| Title |
Evaluating a European knowledge hub on climate change in agriculture: Are we building a better connected community |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Scientometrics |
Abbreviated Journal |
Scientometrics |
| Volume |
109 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
1057-1074 |
| Keywords |
Agriculture; Climate change; Interdisciplinary collaboration; Co-authorship; networks; EU research policy; Collaborative funding initiatives; Knowledge hub |
| Abstract |
In order to maintain food security and sustainability of production under climate change, interdisciplinary and international collaboration in research is essential. In the EU, knowledge hubs are important funding instruments for the development of an interconnected European Research Area. Here, network analysis was used to assess whether the pilot knowledge hub MACSUR has affected interdisciplinary collaboration, using co-authorship of peer reviewed articles as a measure of collaboration. The broad community of all authors identified as active in the field of agriculture and climate change was increasingly well connected over the period studied. Between knowledge hub members, changes in network parameters suggest an increase in collaborative interaction beyond that expected due to network growth, and greater than that found in the broader community. Given that interdisciplinary networks often take several years to have an impact on research outputs, these changes within the relatively new MACSUR community provide evidence that the knowledge hub structure has been effective in stimulating collaboration. However, analysis showed that knowledge hub partners were initially well-connected, suggesting that the initiative may have gathered together researchers with particular resources or inclinations towards collaborative working. Long term, consistent funding and ongoing reflection to improve networking structures may be necessary to sustain the early positive signs from MACSUR, to extend its success to a wider community of researchers, or to repeat it in less connected fields of science. Tackling complex challenges such as climate change will require research structures that can effectively support and utilise the diversity of talents beyond the already well-connected core of scientists at major research institutes. But network research shows that this core, well-connected group are vital brokers in achieving wider integration. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
Language |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0138-9130 1588-2861 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
LiveM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM; wos; ft=macsur; macsur-text; wsnotyet |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4760 |
| 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 |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2564 |
| Permanent link to this record |
