| |
Records |
Links |
|
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 |
Seddaiu, G.; Iocola, I.; Farina, R.; Orsini, R.; Iezzi, G.; Roggero, P.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Long term effects of tillage practices and N fertilization in rainfed Mediterranean cropping systems: durum wheat, sunflower and maize grain yield |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
77 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
166-178 |
|
| |
Keywords |
No tillage; Minimum tillage; Silty-clay soil; Yield stability; Recursive partitioning analysis; Rainfed cropping systems; northern Great-Plains; clay loam soil; nitrogen-fertilization; conventional tillage; winter-wheat; growth; quality; rotation; crops; water |
|
| |
Abstract |
Long term investigations on the combined effects of tillage systems and other agronomic practices such as mineral N fertilization under Mediterranean conditions on durum wheat are very scanty and findings are often contradictory. Moreover, no studies are available on the long term effect of the adoption of conservation tillage on grain yield of maize and sunflower grown in rotation with durum wheat under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. This paper reports the results of a 20-years experiment on a durum wheat-sunflower (7 years) and durum wheat–maize (13 years) two-year rotation, whose main objective was to quantify the long term effects of different tillage practices (CT = conventional tillage; MT = minimum tillage; NT = no tillage) combined with different nitrogen fertilizer rates (N0, N1, N2 corresponding to 0, 45 and 90 kg N ha−1 for sunflower, and 0, 90 and 180 kg N ha−1 for wheat and maize) on grain yield, yield components and yield stability for the three crops. In addition, the influence of meteorological factors on the interannual variability of studied variables was also assessed. For durum wheat, NT did not allow substantial yield benefits leading to comparable yields with respect to CT in ten out of twenty years. For both sunflower and maize, NT under rainfed conditions was not a viable options, because of the unsuitable (i.e., too wet) soil conditions of the clayish soil at sowing. Both spring crops performed well with MT. No significant N × tillage interaction was found for the three crops. As expected, the response of durum wheat and maize grain yield to N was remarkable, while sunflower grain yield was not significantly influenced by N rate. Wheat yield was constrained by high temperatures in January during tillering and drought in April during heading. The interannual yield variability of sunflower was mainly associated to soil water deficit at flowering and air temperature during seed filling. Heavy rains during this latter phase strongly constrained sunflower grain yield. Maize grain yield was negatively affected by high temperatures in June and drought in July, this latter factor was particularly important in the fertilized maize. Considering both yield and yield stability, durum wheat and sunflower performed better under MT and N1 while maize performed better under both CT and MT and with N2 rates. The results of this long term study are suitable for supporting policies on sustainable Mediterranean rainfed cropping systems and also for cropping system modelling. |
|
| |
Address |
2016-07-22 |
|
| |
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 |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4722 |
|
| 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 |
Nguyen, T.P.L.; Seddaiu, G.; Virdis, S.G.P.; Tidore, C.; Pasqui, M.; Roggero, P.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Perceiving to learn or learning to perceive? Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate uncertainties |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agricultural Systems |
|
| |
Volume |
143 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
205-216 |
|
| |
Keywords |
climate variability; socio-cognitive learning process; adaptation strategies; mediterranean agricultural systems; agricultural land-use; adaptive capacity; farming systems; variability; knowledge; risk; drought; africa; future; rain |
|
| |
Abstract |
Perception not only shapes knowledge but knowledge also shapes perception. Humans adapt to the natural world through a process of learning in which they interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment and act accordingly. In this research, we examined how farmers’ decision making is shaped in the context of changing climate. Using empirical data (face-to-face semi-structured interviews and questionnaires) on four Mediterranean farming systems from a case study located in Oristano (Sardinia, Italy) we sought to understand farmers’ perception of climate change and their behaviors in adjustment of farming practices. We found different perceptions among farmer groups were mainly associated with the different socio-cultural and institutional settings and perceived relationships between climate factors and impacts on each farming systems. The research findings on different perceptions among farmer groups can help to understand farmers’ current choices and attitudes of adaptation for supporting the development of appropriate adaptation strategies. In addition, the knowledge of socio-cultural and economic factors that lead to biases in climate perceptions can help to integrate climate communication into adaptation research for making sense of climate impacts and responses at farm level. |
|
| |
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 |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4707 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Sándor, R.; Ma, S.; Acutis, M.; Barcza, Z.; Ben Touhami, H.; Doro, L.; Hidy, D.; Köchy, M.; Lellei-Kovács, E.; Minet, J.; Perego, A.; Rolinski, S.; Ruget, F.; Seddaiu, G.; Wu, L.; Bellocchi, G. |
|
| |
Title |
Uncertainty in simulating biomass yield and carbon–water fluxes from grasslands under climate change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
|
| |
Volume |
6 |
Issue |
01 |
Pages |
49-51 |
|
| |
Keywords |
grassland productivity; carbon balance; model simulation; uncertainty; sensitivity |
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
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 |
2040-4700 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4651 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
