| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author  |
Below, T.B.; Mutabazi, K.D.; Kirschke, D.; Franke, C.; Sieber, S.; Siebert, R.; Tscherning, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Global Environmental Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Environ. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
22 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
223-235 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Sub-Saharan Africa; Tanzania; Adaptive capacity; Index; Vulnerability; Adaptation; adaptive capacity; environmental-change; south-africa; vulnerability; variability; resilience; tanzania; framework; drought; policy |
|
| |
Abstract |
A better understanding of processes that shape farmers’ adaptation to climate change is critical to identify vulnerable entities and to develop well-targeted adaptation policies. However, it is currently poorly understood what determines farmers’ adaptation and how to measure it. In this study, we develop an activity-based adaptation index (AAI) and explore the relationship between socioeconomic variables and farmers’ adaptation behavior by means of an explanatory factor analysis and a multiple linear regression model using latent variables. The model was tested in six villages situated in two administrative wards in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. The Mlali ward represents a system of relatively high agricultural potential, whereas the Gairo ward represents a system of low agricultural potential. A household survey, a rapid rural appraisal and, a stakeholder workshop were used for data collection. The data were analyzed using factor analysis, multiple linear regression, descriptive statistical methods and qualitative content analysis. The empirical results are discussed in the context of theoretical concepts of adaptation and the sustainable livelihood approach. We found that public investment in rural infrastructure, in the availability and technically efficient use of inputs, in a good education system that provides equal chances for women, and in the strengthening of social capital, agricultural extension and, microcredit services are the best means of improving the adaptation of the farmers from the six villages in Gairo and Mlali. We conclude that the newly developed AAI is a simple but promising way to capture the complexity of adaptation processes that addresses a number of shortcomings of previous index studies. |
|
| |
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 |
0959-3780 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4467 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Bonatti, M.; Schlindwein, S.L.; De Vasconcelos, A.C.F.; Sieber, S.; Agostini, L.R.D.; Lana, M.A.; Fantini, A.C.; Homem, L.H.I.; Canci, A. |
|
| |
Title |
Social organization and agricultural strategies to face climate variability: a case study in Guaraciaba, southern Brazil |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
Sustainable Agriculture Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Sustainable Agriculture Research |
|
| |
Volume |
2 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
118 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Climate scenarios and projections have suggested that the impacts of climate change on land use will be noticed particularly by the communities that depend on natural resources for their subsistence. The climate vulnerability of poor communities varies greatly, but in general, climate change combines with other threats and becomes superimposed on existing vulnerabilities. This paper presents a case study that strives to understand the social organization in a vulnerable community of Guaraciaba, in southern Brazil, to investigate aspects of an adaptation strategy to climate change based on the local development and conservation of landraces of a set of crop species. Landraces are varieties better adapted to adversities, especially drought, which is an important threat to the famers in the region. Every farmer receives annually a “kit of biodiversity”, a set of local varieties with the amount of seeds necessary to be cultivated in order to produce enough food for the family. The study had a qualitative approach and was carried out through semi-structured interviews with technicians and 30% of the rural families who farm with landraces. The study concludes that the factors that make this adaptation strategy sustainable are: the ability to undertake actions strongly based on local socio-cultural needs (a social support network), biodiversity management practices designed to reduce external economic dependence, self management of genetic resources, the establishment of priorities based on locally available resources, a work plan for community participation (field days, a community based festival), the establishment of the roles of community in the planning and implementation of programs for biodiversity management. |
|
| |
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 |
1927-0518 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4600 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Graef, F.; Sieber, S.; Mutabazi, K.; Asch, F.; Biesalski, H.K.; Bitegeko, J.; Bokelmann, W.; Bruentrup, M.; Dietrich, O.; Elly, N.; Fasse, A.; Germer, J.U.; Grote, U.; Herrmann, L.; Herrmann, R.; Hoffmann, H.; Kahimba, F.C.; Kaufmann, B.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Kilembe, C.; Kimaro, A.; Kinabo, J.; König, B.; König, H.; Lana, M.; Levy, C.; Lyimo-Macha, J.; Makoko, B.; Mazoko, G.; Mbaga, S.H.; Mbogoro, W.; Milling, H.; Mtambo, K.; Mueller, J.; Mueller, C.; Mueller, K.; Nkonja, E.; Reif, C.; Ringler, C.; Ruvuga, S.; Schaefer, M.; Sikira, A.; Silayo, V.; Stahr, K.; Swai, E.; Tumbo, S.; Uckert, G. |
|
| |
Title |
Framework for participatory food security research in rural food value chains |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
Global Food Security |
Abbreviated Journal |
Global Food Security |
|
| |
Volume |
3 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
8-15 |
|
| |
Keywords |
food security; food value chain; action research; tanzania; research framework |
|
| |
Abstract |
Enhancing food security for poor and vulnerable people requires adapting rural food systems to various driving factors. Food security-related research should apply participatory action research that considers the entire food value chain to ensure sustained success. This article presents a research framework that focusses on determining, prioritising, testing, adapting and disseminating food securing upgrading strategies across the multiple components of rural food value chains. These include natural resources, Food production, processing, markets, consumption and waste management. Scientists and policy makers jointly use tools developed for assessing potentials for enhancing regional food security at multiple spatial and temporal scales. The research is being conducted in Tanzania as a case study for Sub-Saharan countries and is done in close collaboration with local, regional and national stakeholders, encompassing all activities across all different food sectors. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
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 |
2211-9124 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4523 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Gutzler, C.; Helming, K.; Balla, D.; Dannowski, R.; Deumlich, D.; Glemnitz, M.; Knierim, A.; Mirschel, W.; Nendel, C.; Paul, C.; Sieber, S.; Stachow, U.; Starick, A.; Wieland, R.; Wurbs, A.; Zander, P. |
|
| |
Title |
Agricultural land use changes – a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for Brandenburg, Germany |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Ecological Indicators |
Abbreviated Journal |
Ecological Indicators |
|
| |
Volume |
48 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
505-517 |
|
| |
Keywords |
scenarios; impact assessment; agricultural intensification; land use change; irrigation; bioenergy; social and environmental indicators; climate-change; landscape; model |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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 |
1470-160x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4561 |
|
| 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 |
