|
|
Sieber, S. (2013). Trans-SEC and the Tanzanian Case Studies Morogoro and Dodoma..
|
|
|
|
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. ;
|
|
|
|
Sieber, S. (2015). The Tanzanian case study in MACSUR II (Vol. 5).
Abstract: The objective of the Tanzanian case study region is to provide MACSUR II a platform to concentrate climate research to a focal region in Morogoro and Dodoma in Tanzania. Hence, synergies among a number of other research projects will be used, which all focus on food security related to climate change.Within the case study region the projects aim at improving the food situation for the most-vulnerable rural poor population in Tanzania. They are designed to identify successful food securing upgrading strategies and innovations along local and regional food value chains, test and adjust them to site-specific, sustainable settings and tailor these concepts to be disseminated for national outreach. After the project lifetime, the results can be implemented at different levels of policy, extension and research.The basic concept applies the following steps in an iterative and partly recurrent procedure: (1) A stakeholder involvement process will be set up from the beginning as an integral part of most analytical steps; (2) case study sites within the focal regions Morogoro and Dodoma will be selected, set up and typologies of food value chains developed; (3) success stories of secure food production and/or good practice along the food value chains will be screened and inventoried; (4) an integrated in-depth analyses of food value chain components, their costs, benefits and impacts will be carried out; (5) a few of the most promising good practices with regard to positive impacts and implementation will be participatively discussed and identified for subsequent in-depth testing; (6) an in-depth participative field testing and/or analysis of selected, most promising technologies will be conducted for all food value chain components and requirements for implementation identified; (7) transferability and implementation capability will be assessed for different scenarios and for future condition simulations (model analysis); (8) a meta-model analysis including risk analysis and final proofing will identify hot spots of most sensitive, fragile regions and the potentials for alleviating food insecurity. Hence, the research concept`s main focuses on local and regional food security related to climate change, but the research design implies a national outreach for Tanzania as a whole.The research activities will be embedded into local and regional strategies to assess potential impacts and trade-offs and to be able to up-scale lessons learnt in a generic manner to regions with specific bio-physical, socio-cultural and economic conditions.Spatial Design: Conducting a literature research on relevant characteristic a considering the spatial design:two focal regions in Tanzania (Morogoro, Dodoma),each region with two case study sites (CSS) consisting of at least one local marketplace and surrounding 2-3 villages,the two CSS among the target regions are selected to differ in factors such as market and capital access for investments, remoteness, population density, land availability, soil types, infrastructure, facilities, and others,create sufficiently diverse environmental and socio-economic conditions for investigating food securing technologies along FVC and allowing for testing the transfer of results to other Tanzanian regions.Main selection criteria for regions: two climates types:semi-arid Dodoma (350-500mm),semi-humid Morogoro region (600-800mm)clear distinction between the regions.other criteria within the regions:rather similar climate (must) +-80mm,weak and good market access (must) (=market and capital access for investments),rainfed crop–livestock systems oriented, not too strongly paddy rice oriented (< 20% rice) (must),village size: approx. 800-1500 households (must)Stunting cases, logistics and infrastructure, different wards, land availability, facilities, capital, soil types, and population density etc. No Label
|
|
|
|
Graef, F., Sieber, S., Mutabazi, K., Asch, F., Biesalski, H. K., Bitegeko, J., et al. (2014). Framework for participatory food security research in rural food value chains. Global Food Security, 3(1), 8–15.
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.
|
|
|
|
Sieber, S., Amjath-Babu, T. S., McIntosh, B. S., Tscherning, K., Müller, K., Helming, K., et al. (2013). Evaluating the characteristics of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) for the development of policy impact assessment tools. Env. Model. Softw., 49, 53–63.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) used for the purpose of developing the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). By ‘non-standardised’ we mean not strictly following a published MRA method. The underlying question we are interested in addressing is how non-standardised methods, often employed in research driven projects, compare to defined methods with more standardised structure, with regards their ability to capture model requirements effectively, and with regards their overall usability. Through describing and critically assessing the specific features of the non-standardised MRA employed, the ambition of this paper is to provide insights useful for impact assessment tool (IAT) development. Specifically, the paper will (i) characterise kinds of user requirements relevant to the functionality and design of IATs; (ii) highlight the strengths and weaknesses of non-standardised MRA for user requirements capture, analysis and reflection in the context of IAT; (iii) critically reflect on the process and outcomes of having used a non-standardised MRA in comparison with other more standardised approaches. To accomplish these aims, we first review methods available for IAT development before describing the SIAT development process, including the MRA employed. Major strengths and weaknesses of the MRA method are then discussed in terms of user identification and characterisation, organisational characterisation and embedding, and ability to capture design options for ensuring usability and usefulness. A detailed assessment on the structural differences of MRA with two advanced approaches (Integrated DSS design and goal directed design) and their role in performance of the MRA tool is used to critique the approach employed. The results show that MRA is able to bring thematic integration, establish system performance and technical thresholds as well as detailing quality and transparency guidelines. Nevertheless the discussion points out to a number of deficiencies in application – (i) a need to more effectively characterise potential users, and; (ii) a need to better foster communication among the distinguished roles in the development process. If addressed these deficiencies, SIAT non-standardised MRA could have brought out better outcomes in terms of tool usability and usefulness, and improved embedding of the tool into conditions of targeted end-users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
