|
|
Dono, G., Cortignani, R., Dell’Unto, D., Deligios, P., Doro, L., Lacetera, N., et al. (2016). Winners and losers from climate change in agriculture: Insights from a case study in the Mediterranean basin. Agricultural Systems, 147, 65–75.
Abstract: The Mediterranean region has always shown a marked inter-annual variability in seasonal weather, creating uncertainty in decisional processes of cultivation and livestock breeding that should not be neglected when modeling farmers’ adaptive responses. This is especially relevant when assessing the impact of climate change (CC), which modifies the atmospheric variability and generates new uncertainty conditions, and the possibility of adaptation of agriculture. Our analysis examines this aspect reconstructing the effects of inter-annual climate variability in a diversified farming district that well represents a wide range of rainfed and irrigated agricultural systems in the Mediterranean area. We used a Regional Atmospheric Modelling System and a weather generator to generate 150 stochastic years of the present and near future climate. Then, we implemented calibrated crop and livestock models to estimate the corresponding productive responses in the form of probability distribution functions (PDFs) under the two climatic conditions. We assumed these PDFs able to represent the expectations of farmers in a discrete stochastic programming (DSP) model that reproduced their economic behaviour under uncertainty conditions. The comparison of the results in the two scenarios provided an assessment of the impact of CC, also taking into account the possibility of adjustment allowed by present technologies and price regimes. The DSP model is built in blocks that represent the farm typologies operating in the study area, each one with its own resource endowment, decisional constraints and economic response. Under this latter aspect, major differences emerged among farm typologies and sub-zones of the study area. A crucial element of differentiation was water availability, since only irrigated C3 crops took full advantage from the fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Rainfed crop production was depressed by the expected reduction of spring rainfall associated to the higher temperatures. So, a dualism emerges between the smaller impact on crop production in the irrigated plain sub-zone, equipped with collective water networks and abundant irrigation resources, and the major negative impact in the hilly area, where these facilities and resources are absent. However intensive dairy farming was also negatively affected in terms of milk production and quality, and cattle mortality because of the increasing summer temperatures. This provides explicit guidance for addressing strategic adaptation policies and for framing farmers’ perception of CC, in order to help them to develop an awareness of the phenomena that are already in progress, which is a prerequisite for effective adaptation responses.
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|
|
|
Lorite, I. J., García-Vila, M., Santos, C., Ruiz-Ramos, M., & Fereres, E. (2013). AquaData and AquaGIS: Two computer utilities for temporal and spatial simulations of water-limited yield with AquaCrop. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 96, 227–237.
Abstract: The crop simulation model AquaCrop, recently developed by FAO can be used for a wide range of purposes. However, in its present form, its use over large areas or for applications that require a large number of simulations runs (e.g., long-term analysis), is not practical without developing software to facilitate such applications. Two tools for managing the inputs and outputs of AquaCrop, named AquaData and AquaGIS, have been developed for this purpose and are presented here. Both software utilities have been programmed in Delphi v. 5 and in addition, AquaGIS requires the Geographic Information System (GIS) programming tool MapObjects. These utilities allow the efficient management of input and output files, along with a GIS module to develop spatial analysis and effect spatial visualization of the results, facilitating knowledge dissemination. A sample of application of the utilities is given here, as an AquaCrop simulation analysis of impact of climate change on wheat yield in Southern Spain, which requires extensive input data preparation and output processing. The use of AquaCrop without the two utilities would have required approximately 1000 h of work, while the utilization of AquaData and AquaGIS reduced that time by more than 99%. Furthermore, the use of GIS, made it possible to perform a spatial analysis of the results, thus providing a new option to extend the use of the AquaCrop model to scales requiring spatial and temporal analyses. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Bourgeois, C., Fradj, N. B., & Jayet, P. - A. (2014). How cost-effective is a mixed policy targeting the management of three agricultural N-pollutants. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 19(5), 389–405.
Abstract: This paper assesses the cost-effectiveness of a mixed policy in attempts to reduce the presence of three nitrogen pollutants: NO (3), N O-2, and NH (3). The policy under study combines a tax on nitrogen input and incentives promoting perennial crops assumed to require low input. We show that the mixed policy improves the cost-effectiveness of regulation with regard to nitrates, whereas no improvement occurs, except for a very low level of subsidy in some cases, for gas pollutants. A quantitative analysis provides an assessment of impacts in terms of land use, farmers’ income, and nitrogen losses throughout France and at river-basin scale.
|
|
|
|
Jayet, P., & Petsakos, A. (2013). Evaluating the efficiency of a uniform N-input tax under different policy scenarios at different scales. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 18(1), 57–72.
Abstract: Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union ’ s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
|
|
