K. Buchan

An integrated assessment approach to conduct analyses of climate change impacts on whole-farm systems

Abstract This paper argues that an integrated assessment (IA) approach, combining simulation modelling with deliberative processes involving decision makers and other stakeholders, has the potential to generate credible and relevant assessments of climate change impacts on farming systems. The justification for the approach proposed is that while simulation modelling provides an effective way of exploring the range of possible impacts of climate change and a means of testing the consequences of possible management or policy interventions, the interpretation of the outputs is highly dependent on the point of view of the stakeholder. Inevitably, whatever the responses to climate change, there will be trade-offs between the benefits and costs to a range of stakeholders. The use of a deliberative process that includes stakeholders, both in defining the topics addressed and in debating the interpretations of the outcomes, addresses many of the limitations that have been previously identified in the use of computer-based tools for agricultural decision support. The paper further argues that the concepts of resilience and adaptive capacity are useful for the assessment of climate change impacts as they provide an underpinning theory for processes of change in land use systems. The integrated modelling framework (IMF) developed for the simulation of whole-farm systems is detailed, including components for crop and soil processes, livestock systems and a tool for scheduling of resource use within management plans. The use of the IMF for assessing climate change impacts is then outlined to demonstrate the range of analyses possible. The paper concludes with a critique of the IA approach and notes that issues of quantification and communication of uncertainty are central to the success of the methodology.

Raising the bar? - The challenges of evaluating the outcomes of environmental modelling and software

The intention of this paper it to open up debate within the environmental modelling and software (EMS) community on how best to respond to the increasing desire to evaluate the success of EMS projects in terms of outcomes rather than outputs. Outcomes in these regards are changes beyond the walls of the research organisation (typically to values, attitudes and behaviour). The authors recognise that outcome evaluation is essential in ensuring the relevance and effectiveness of activities. To date, however, there is a limited appreciation within the EMS community of the nature of the challenge inherent in outcome evaluations. The paper presents an exploratory analysis of the challenges that outcome assessment raises for EMS. It does so using mutually reinforcing conceptual and practical perspectives. The paper presents a conceptual framework of three loosely coupled phases - research, development and operations. The nature of activities and their interactions within these phases is outlined and the forms of evaluation associated with each stage set out. The paper notes how existing forms of evaluation (e.g. peer review, validation and relevance) underpin the delivery of outcomes but do not of themselves evaluate outcomes. The paper proposes that outcomes need conceptually to be seen as an element of complex social processes mediated by government, regulation, markets and the media rather than as simply another form of output from research and development projects. As such outcomes of EMS are: less easily tangible than are outputs; more likely to occur at a significant time lag after any intervention; more difficult to assign causality for and to be subject to significant contestation. Thus EMS activity, however well conducted technically, may only have a minor influence on outcomes and EMS practitioners will have limited control over those outcomes that do occur. The paper uses a series of linked EMS projects to populate the conceptual framework showing the role of evaluations in research, development and operations phases. The paper then presents two forms (quantitative and qualitative) of outcome evaluation used as part of an operational phase evaluation of a project communicating the consequences of climate change to remote-rural land managers in Scotland. The authors conclude that while the challenges of EMS evaluation can be met, there needs to be care from the EMS community not to raise expectations of outcomes that cannot be met.