|
|
Kipling, R. P., & Özkan Gülzari, Ş. (2016). Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: how agricultural modellers view challenges to communication. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 240–241.
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R., & Özkan, Ş. (2016). Stakeholder engagement and the perceptions of researchers: How agricultural modellers view challenges to communication (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
|
König, H. J., Helming, K., Seddaiu, G., Kipling, R., Köchy, M., Graversgaard, M., et al. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how?.
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. ;
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R., Topp, K., & Don, A. (2015). The availability of carbon sequestration data in Europe (Vol. 4).
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
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R. P., Topp, C. F. E., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2019). To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers. Env. Model. Softw., 120, Unsp 104492.
Abstract: Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change.
|
|
