| Records |
| 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 |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Özkan, Ş.; Vitali, A.; Lacetera, N.; Amon, B.; Bannink, A.; Bartley, D.J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; de Haas, Y.; Dufrasne, I.; Elliott, J.; Eory, V.; Fox, N.J.; Garnsworthy, P.C.; Gengler, N.; Hammami, H.; Kyriazakis, I.; Leclère, D.; Lessire, F.; Macleod, M.; Robinson, T.P.; Ruete, A.; Sandars, D.L.; Shrestha, S.; Stott, A.W.; Twardy, S.; Vanrobays, M.L.; Ahmadi, B.V.; Weindl, I.; Wheelhouse, N.; Williams, A.G.; Williams, H.W.; Wilson, A.J.; Østergaard, S.; Kipling, R.P. |
| Title |
Challenges and priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens in the context of climate change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Environmental Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Environ. Res. |
| Volume |
151 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
130-144 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Climate change has the potential to impair livestock health, with consequences for animal welfare, productivity, greenhouse gas emissions, and human livelihoods and health. Modelling has an important role in assessing the impacts of climate change on livestock systems and the efficacy of potential adaptation strategies, to support decision making for more efficient, resilient and sustainable production. However, a coherent set of challenges and research priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens under climate change has not previously been available. To identify such challenges and priorities, researchers from across Europe were engaged in a horizon-scanning study, involving workshop and questionnaire based exercises and focussed literature reviews. Eighteen key challenges were identified and grouped into six categories based on subject-specific and capacity building requirements. Across a number of challenges, the need for inventories relating model types to different applications (e.g. the pathogen species, region, scale of focus and purpose to which they can be applied) was identified, in order to identify gaps in capability in relation to the impacts of climate change on animal health. The need for collaboration and learning across disciplines was highlighted in several challenges, e.g. to better understand and model complex ecological interactions between pathogens, vectors, wildlife hosts and livestock in the context of climate change. Collaboration between socio-economic and biophysical disciplines was seen as important for better engagement with stakeholders and for improved modelling of the costs and benefits of poor livestock health. The need for more comprehensive validation of empirical relationships, for harmonising terminology and measurements, and for building capacity for under-researched nations, systems and health problems indicated the importance of joined up approaches across nations. The challenges and priorities identified can help focus the development of modelling capacity and future research structures in this vital field. Well-funded networks capable of managing the long-term development of shared resources are required in order to create a cohesive modelling community equipped to tackle the complex challenges of 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 |
0013-9351 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4766 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.; Topp, K.; Don, A. |
| Title |
Appropriate meta-data for modellers |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2014 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
3 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
D-L1.4.1 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Report D-L1.4.1 provided an overview of the data and related resources available online and through EU funded projects, relating to soil organic carbon (SOC), and carbon sequestration in grasslands in particular. Building on D-L1.4.1, the report presented here discusses how meta-data describing these types of data (and experimental data more generally) can best be presented in an online resource useful to grassland modellers requiring data to use in their modelling work. Identifying the useful categories of meta-data is a necessary precursor to providing such a resource, which could facilitate better communication between modelling and experimental research groups, allowing researchers to more efficiently locate relevant data and to link up with other scientists working on similar topics. A survey among grassland modelling teams and an assessment of online meta-data resources was used to produce recommendations about the meta-data categories that should be included in an online resource. The categories are generic, so that the recommendations can be followed in the design of meta-data resources for the more general agricultural modelling community. 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 |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2235 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Seddaiu, G.; Ruiu, M.L.; Kipling, R.P. |
| Title |
Report on Stakeholder Engagement Methodologies |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
4 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
D-L4.2 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Stakeholder engagement in research projects can take a number of forms according to the scope of the project and the purpose of the interaction. L4.2. has focused on comparing different approaches to stakeholder engagement in collaborative projects. This report presents a synthesis of the experiences and lessons learnt through the stakeholder engagement activities of LiveM researchers within MACSUR, within an Italian (Oristano) case study, and within the SOLID (Sustainable, Organic and Low Input Dairying) project. An overview of these examples, and some of the lessons drawn from them, can also be found in the MACSUR paper on stakeholder engagement methods being developed by researchers from all three MACSUR themes (Koenig et al. under production). The first part of this report describes the stakeholder engagement strategy within the SOLID project. Stakeholder engagement methods are analysed through observations of activities and using semi-structured interviews with researchers and stakeholders. Two aspects of the SOLID approach are described – the stakeholder panel and the Future Dairying workshop. Transcripts of the workshop and the contribution of the stakeholder panel to the SOLID annual meeting in Helsinki are included (Appendices 1 and 2), as a contribution to the analysis of workshop outcomes being undertaken within the SOLID project. As part of a wider suite of stakeholder engagement activities, the SOLID stakeholder panel provided an example of how ongoing oversight of scientific outputs and direction by stakeholders can be effective in identifying weaknesses in approach and communication, and in suggesting relevant and effective directions for research activities. The stakeholder workshop demonstrated a useful structure for the exploration of stakeholder concerns, their view of ideal states and their solutions for reaching them. Low participation levels demonstrated the need to understand the motivations that drive stakeholders to engage in such projects, and highlighted the value of developing long-term relationships between stakeholders and researchers that allow scientific research to become an accepted part of practical problem-solving. The second part of the report describes stakeholder engagement activities carried out in the context of one of the MACSUR regional pilot studies (Oristanese case study in Sardinia, Italy). The Oristanese case study demonstrates the potentialities and constraints of participatory methodologies in relation to the different categories of stakeholder involved. It highlights the importance of creating new spaces for dialogue between farmers, researchers and policy makers in order to promote the generation of “hybrid knowledge” (Nguyen et al. 2013) for the emergence of more sustainable and longer-lasting strategies to adapt to CC. This would require the promotion of open knowledge generation platforms where multiple stakeholders are encouraged to participate and make their views heard. These approaches are designed in order to overcome the misalignment between scientists’ suggestions and policy implementation. In the third part of the report, the outcomes of a “learning event” held in Sassari (MACSUR mid-term meeting) with decision makers from different EU countries, are discussed. Finally, some reflections are presented on the importance of involving local stakeholders and decision makers in research projects, of sharing views and knowledge between scientists and stakeholders, and on the pros and cons of different methodologies at the different scales of stakeholder engagement, drawing on all three examples of practice. The research approach analysed includes two important components, which are represented by “transdisciplinarity” (to be included in the macro area of “scientific knowledge”) and “local knowledge”, as fundamental elements to fill the Science and Policy Gap. 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 |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2215 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.; Topp, K.; Don, A. |
| Title |
The availability of carbon sequestration data in Europe |
Type |
Report |
| Year |
2015 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
4 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
D-L1.4.2 |
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
With growing interest in the carbon sequestration potential of soils, experimental research and mapping projects have produced a wealth of datasets in this subject area. However, the coverage, quality and scope of available data vary widely across Europe, and the extent to which these data are accessible to experimental researchers and modellers is also highly variable. This report describes the availability of soil carbon data at the global and European levels, and reviews the on-line resources for accessing these data and meta-data. The extent to which researchers in the field share findings, based on institutional links in projects and on-line resources, is investigated. Future priorities for research and data accessibility relating to carbon sequestration are discussed. Many soil data resources are available online. Global and European soil data portals draw together much information from across Europe, and include the outcomes of major soil carbon mapping exercises. However, much project and national research is not accessible through these portals, and information on datasets derived from many research initiatives is difficult or impossible to locate online. Data on carbon sequestration (carbon fluxes in soils) specifically is more limited, although some such datasets are available through the general soil data resources described. Improved clarity in the presentation of research, and work to link more national and sub-national data to European and global online resources is required, with initiatives such as GSIF (Global Soil Information Facility) active in encouraging direct reporting of soil-related data at the global level. Priorities for research on SOC stocks include measuring carbon storage below the topsoil (>30cm), improving records of SOC in peatlands, improving the number and distribution of samples available for Europe-wide soil carbon mapping, and developing recognised methodological standards to allow easier comparisons of datasets. In the field of carbon sequestration research specifically, priorities include linking long-term SOC data to historical land use, developing understanding of the movement of SOC between top-soil and sub-soil and increasing dialogue between modellers and empirical researchers to improve dynamic modelling of SOC. 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 |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2214 |
| Permanent link to this record |
