| Autor: |
Olsson, J.A., Theesfeld, I., Bellon, Stephane, Bousset, J.P. |
| Přispěvatelé: |
LUND UNIVERSITY SWE, Partenaires IRSTEA, Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA)-Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA), HUMBOLT UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN DEU, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Mutations des activités des espaces et des formes d'organisation dans les territoires ruraux (UMR METAFORT), Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs des Travaux Agricoles de Clermont-Ferrand (ENITAC)-Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural, des Eaux et des Forêts (ENGREF)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre national du machinisme agricole, du génie rural, des eaux et forêts (CEMAGREF), irstea, Lund University [Lund] |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2005 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
irstea. 2005, pp.55 |
| Popis: |
The systems that SEAMLESS aims to assess the impact of different policy options are today seen as more complex and it was not only one but several systems that the project will have to assess. Consequently the initial framework that was promised to be produced in WP 1 PD 1.2.1 could not be produced at that early point. In chapter 2 several general components of these systems has been identified Based on the ideas forwarded in WP1 and on literature reviews WP 2 has also developed two suggestions for how a SEAMLESS framework could look like. One is a framework based on themes and issues. This is a well known approach by policy makers but it risks creating a long list of indicators and have problems with the aggregation between the different dimensions of SD. The second proposal is a systems approach. This approach is more complex and less known by policy maker but it can serve as a basis for aggregation between SD dimensions. In chapter 3 the main methodologies that WP2 will be using for the purpose of specifying indicators, indicator calculation, calculation and qualification is outlined. This chapter also discusses the steps that have to be taken in order to translate a policy question into an indicator. The development of different methodologies for the specification of qualitative and quantitative indicators for Seamless will need a continued input form the scientific side. However as pointed out throughout the chapter the continuous interaction with stakeholders and end-users will be crucial for the success of the tool. In chapter 4 the PICA model is discussed. PICA is the institutional ingredient in the Seamless-IF. PICA is a model which will serve as a tool for analysing the plausibility of implementing a policy from data (pre modelling) and from output from the quantitative models (post-modelling). Pre-modelling analysis will be used to test whether a certain policy will be implemented or whether the institutional constraints will result in prohibitive transaction costs making it less probable that the policy will reach its objectives. In this case the analysis will be based on data i.e, there is no need to run, e.g., bio-physical farm models. The PICA model can also function as a post-model analysis for other models. In that sense, it facilitates the linking of models. In brief, PICA is a flexible tool. The results can serve for a qualitative pre-and post model analysis. The PICA model itself can have different places within the model chain depending on the issue under scrutiny. This PD has shown that WP2 has an accumulated knowledge related to indicator frameworks, indicator specification, user selection of indicators and methodologies for qualitative pre and post model analysis. However to make this knowledge useful for the SEAMLESS project is important that this knowledge is adjusted to the specific context of SEAMLESS. Throughout the PDs it has been concluded that to proceed in the development of these methodologies interaction with stakeholders is crucial. For the success of the developed tool it is important to define at which points and to which degrees interaction is needed. WP 7 has provided the methodologies for such an interaction and PD 2.6.1 as well as this PD has listed issues on which interaction with stakeholders is important. Preferably the issues for interaction should be divided in two stages, the pre-modelling stage and the post modelling stage. Two suggestions for future steps are to; 1. Produce a chronological list of these issues which is consulted and reduced by WP3- WP4-WP5-WP2 based on their needs and limitations 2. Build up a close cooperation between WP2-6-7 to develop the content of the written material that should be the basis for the stakeholder consultation as well as the time schedule of this consultation. Moreover, a few issues which seems to have fallen outside the responsibility of a WP or that have been disregarded have been identified: 1) The visualisation of indicators 2) The development of policy scenarios (which are relevant for the area of assessment of SEAMLESS). 3) The flexibility of the selection of indicators 4) The role and place of qualitative models in SEAMLESS-IF The suggestion for point 1 and 2 is that a special task force with members form relevant WP is created and that the points is taken into consideration when writing the new action plan. As for point 3 a discussion is necessary throughout the project. WP 2 suggests that this discussion is held relatively soon based on the existing draft of D 2.1.1. The suggestion for point 4 is that slightly more attention is given to the qualitative aspects of SEAMLESS IF. It is natural at this stage in the project when the first Prototype soon is to be delivered that more attention is given to SEAMFRAME. A discussion of the qualitative aspects of SEAMLESS IF would probably also clarify the possibilities as well as limitations of the quantitative models in SEAMFRAME in relation to the goal of the final SEAMLESS tool to take into consideration all dimensions of SD. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
