Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Abstract: Highlights •Fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM)can help to improve agricultural policy design. •We analyse the views on regulation between farmers and non-farmers. •We demonstrate the utility of FCM in disentangling reasons for non-compliance. •Non-compliance is a result of dis-alignment of views rather than unwillingness. •FCM offers a critical, reflexive approach to how a regulatory process is conceived. Agricultural environmental regulation often fails to deliver the desired effects because of farmers adopting the related measures incorrectly or not at all. This is due to several barriers to the uptake of the prescribed environmentally beneficial farm management practices, most of which have been well established by social science research. Yet it is unclear why these barriers remain so difficult to overcome despite numerous and persistent attempts at the design, communication and enforcement of related agricultural policies. This paper examines the potential of fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) as a tool to disentangle the underlying reasons of this persistent problem. We present the FCM methodology as adapted to the application in a Scottish case study on how environmental regulation affects farmers and farming practice and what factors are important for compliance or non-compliance with this regulation. The study compares the views of two different stakeholder groups on this matter using FCM network visualizations that were validated by interviews and a workshop session. There was a farmers group representing a typical mix of Scottish farming systems and a non-farmers group, the latter comprising professionals from the fields of design, implementation, administration, consulting on and enforcement of agricultural policies. Between the two groups, the FCM process reveals a very different perception of importance and interaction of factors and strongly suggests that the problem lies in an institutional failure rather than in a simple unwillingness of farmers to obey the rules. FCM allows for a structured process of identifying areas of conflicting perceptions, but also areas where strongly differing groups of stakeholders might be able to gain common ground. In this way, FCM can help to identify anchoring points for targeted policy development and has the potential of becoming a useful tool in agricultural policy design and communication. Our results show the utility of FCM by pointing out how Scottish environmental regulation could be altered to increase compliance with the rules and where the reasons for the identified institutional failure might be sought.