Browsing by Author "Sandars, Daniel"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Determining sectoral and regional sensitivity to climate and socio-economic change in Europe using impact response surfaces
    (Springer, 2018-10-02) Fronzek, Stefan; Carter, Timothy R.; Pirttioja, Nina; Alkemade, Rob; Audsley, Eric; Bugmann, Harald; Florke, Martina; Holman, Ian P.; Honda, Yasushi; Ito, Akihiko; Janes-Bassett, Victoria; Lafond, Valentine; Leemans, Rik; Mokrech, Marc; Nunez, Sarahi; Sandars, Daniel; Snell, Rebecca; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Tanaka, Akemi; Wimmer, Florian; Yoshikawa, Minoru
    Responses to future changes in climatic and socio-economic conditions can be expected to vary between sectors and regions, reflecting differential sensitivity to these highly uncertain factors. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using a suite of impact models (for health, agriculture, biodiversity, land use, floods and forestry) across Europe with respect to changes in key climate and socio-economic variables. Depending on the indicators, aggregated grid or indicative site results are reported for eight rectangular sub-regions that together span Europe from northern Finland to southern Spain and from western Ireland to the Baltic States and eastern Mediterranean, each plotted as scenario-neutral impact response surfaces (IRSs). These depict the modelled behaviour of an impact variable in response to changes in two key explanatory variables. To our knowledge, this is the first time the IRS approach has been applied to changes in socio-economic drivers and over such large regions. The British Isles region showed the smallest sensitivity to both temperature and precipitation, whereas Central Europe showed the strongest responses to temperature and Eastern Europe to precipitation. Across the regions, sensitivity to temperature was lowest for the two indicators of river discharge and highest for Norway spruce productivity. Sensitivity to precipitation was lowest for intensive agricultural land use, maize and potato yields and Scots pine productivity, and highest for Norway spruce productivity. Under future climate projections, North-eastern Europe showed increases in yields of all crops and productivity of all tree species, whereas Central and East Europe showed declines. River discharge indicators and forest productivity (except Holm oak) were projected to decline over southern European regions. Responses were more sensitive to socio-economic than to climate drivers for some impact indicators, as demonstrated for heat-related mortality, coastal flooding and land use.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors
    (Springer, 2018-05-18) Harrison, Paula A.; Dunford, Rob W.; Holman, Ian P.; Cojocaru, George; Madsen, Marianne S.; Chen, Pei-Yuan; Pedde, Simona; Sandars, Daniel
    The Paris Agreement established the 1.5 and 2 °C targets based on the recognition “that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”. We tested this assertion by comparing impacts at the regional scale between low-end (< 2 °C; RCP2.6) and high-end (> 4 °C; RCP8.5) climate change scenarios accounting for interactions across six sectors (agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, water, coasts and urban) using an integrated assessment model. Results show that there are only minor differences in most impact indicators for the 2020s time slice, but impacts are considerably greater under high-end than low-end climate change in the 2050s and 2080s. For example, for the 2080s, mitigation consistent with the Paris Agreement would reduce aggregate Europe-wide impacts on the area of intensive agriculture by 21% (on average across climate models), on the area of managed forests by 34%, on water stress by 14%, on people flooded by 10% and on biodiversity vulnerability by 16%. Including socio-economic scenarios (SSPs 1, 3, 4, 5) results in considerably greater variation in the magnitude, range and direction of change of the majority of impact indicators than climate change alone. In particular, socio-economic factors much more strongly drive changes in land use and food production than changes in climate, sometimes overriding the differences due to low-end and high-end climate change. Such impacts pose significant challenges for adaptation and highlight the importance of searching for synergies between adaptation and mitigation and linking them to sustainable development goals.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Environmental resource use by agricultural and horticultural commodities - Defra project report IS0205
    (Cranfield University, 2019-02-05 09:24) Williams, Adrian; Audsley, Eric; Sandars, Daniel
    Underlying models used in the report: "Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities." Defra project report IS0205 by the Natural Resource Management Institute, Cranfield University, August 2006. The final report and executive summary are available from the defra site at the link provided.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production?
    (Cambridge University Press, 2018-01-09) Hutchings, N. J.; Özkan Gülzari, S; de Haan, M; Sandars, Daniel
    The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DairyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet)×two soil types (sandy and clayey)×two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower:cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO2e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Towards net zero in agriculture: future challenges and opportunities for arable, livestock and protected cropping systems in the UK
    (SAGE, 2023-06-12) Sakrabani, Ruben; Garnett, Kenisha; Knox, Jerry W.; Rickson, R. Jane; Pawlett, Mark; Falagán Sama, Natalia; Girkin, Nicholas T.; Cain, Michelle; Alamar, M Carmen; Burgess, Paul; Harris, Jim A.; Patchigolla, Kumar; Sandars, Daniel; Graves, Anil; Hannam, Jacqueline A.; Simmons, Robert
    The agricultural sector faces multiple challenges linked to increased climate uncertainty, causing severe shocks including increased frequency of extreme weather events, new pest and disease risks, soil degradation, and pre and postharvest food losses. This situation is further exacerbated by geopolitical instability and volatility in energy prices impacting on fertiliser supplies and production costs. Net zero strategies are vital to achieve both food security and address negative environmental impacts. This perspective paper reviews and assesses the most viable options (actions) to achieve net zero with a focus on the arable/livestock and protected cropping sectors in the UK. The methodology was based on a synthesis of relevant literature, coupled with expert opinions using the holistic PESTLE (Political, Environmental, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental) approach to categorise actions, leading to formulation of a roadmap to achieve net zero. The PESTLE analysis indicated that there are technically and economically viable actions available which need to be prioritised depending on the ease of their implementation within the two crop sectors investigated. These actions include (i) policy changes that are better aligned to net zero; (ii) circular economy approaches; (iii) connectivity and accessibility of information; (iv) increased resilience to shocks; (v) changing diets, nutrition and lifestyles; (vi) target setting and attainment; and (vii) farm economics and livelihoods. The outputs can be used by stakeholders and decision makers to inform policy and drive meaningful changes in global food and environmental security.