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.

Abstract: Highlights • Regularization techniques for regression outperformed the classical regression techniques in predicting crop yields. • Different regression techniques with similar prediction accuracy showed different responses of major climatic variables to crop yield. • The regression models showed some responses of crop yield to climatic conditions that is mostly absent in process based crop models. Abstract Statistical regression models represent alternatives to process-based dynamic models for predicting the response of crop yields to variation in climatic conditions. Regression models can be used to quantify the effect of change in temperature and precipitation on yields. However, it is difficult to identify the most relevant input variables that should be included in regression models due to the high number of candidate variables and to their correlations. This paper compares several regression techniques for modeling response of winter oilseed rape yield to a high number of correlated input variables. Several statistical regression methods were fitted to a dataset including 689 observations of winter oilseed rape yield from replicated field experiments conducted in 239 sites in Denmark, covering nearly all regions of the country from 1992 to 2013. Regression methods were compared by cross-validation. The regression methods leading to the most accurate yield predictions were Lasso and Elastic Net, and the least accurate methods were ordinary least squares and stepwise regression. Partial least squares and ridge regression methods gave intermediate results. The estimated relative yield change for a +1°C temperature increase during flowering was estimated to range between 0 and +6 %, depending on choice of regression method. Precipitation was found to have an adverse effect on yield during autumn and winter. It was estimated that an increase in precipitation of +1 mm/day would result in a relative yield change ranging from 0 to −4 %. Soil type was also important for crop yields with lower yields on sandy soils compared to loamy soils. Later sowing was found to result in increased crop yield. The estimated effect of climate on yield was highly sensitive to the chosen regression method. Regression models showing similar performance led in some cases to different conclusions with respect to effect of temperature and precipitation. Hence, it is recommended to apply an ensemble of regression models, in order to account for the sensitivity of the data driven models for projecting crop yield under climate change.