Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery

Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future.This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. T.A. was supported by the European Commission's Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship Programme (PIIF-GA-2011-303221) and the Isaac Newton Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.00

Engaging citizens in sustainability research: Comparing survey recruitment and responses between Facebook, Twitter and Qualtrics

Purpose The study aims to compare survey recruitment rates between Facebook, Twitter and Qualtrics and to assess the impact of recruitment method on estimates of energy content, food safety, carbon footprint and animal welfare across 29 foods. Design/methodology/approach Two versions of an online survey were developed on the citizen science platform, Zooniverse. The surveys explored citizen estimations of energy density (kcal) or carbon footprint (Co2) and food safety or animal welfare of 29 commonly eaten foods. Survey recruitment was conducted via paid promotions on Twitter and Facebook and via paid respondent invites on Qualtrics. The study included approximately 500 participants (Facebook, N˜11 (ratings 358), Twitter, N˜85 (ratings 2,184), Qualtrics, N = 398 (ratings 11,910)). Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-square analyses compared citizen estimations with validated values and assessed the impact of the variables on estimations. Findings Citizens were unable to accurately estimate carbon footprint and energy content, with most citizens overestimating values. Citizen estimates were most accurate for meat products. Qualtrics was the most successful recruitment method for the online survey. Citizen estimates between platforms were significantly different, suggesting that Facebook and Twitter may not be suitable recruitment methods for citizen online surveys. Practical implications Qualtrics was the favourable platform for survey recruitment. However, estimates across all recruitment platforms were poor. As paid recruitment methods such as Qualtrics are costly, the authors recommend continued examination of the social media environment to develop appropriate, affordable and timely online recruitment strategies for citizen science. Originality/value The findings indicate that citizens are unable to accurately estimate the carbon footprint and energy content of foods suggesting a focus on consumer education is needed to enable consumers to move towards more sustainable and healthy diets. Essential if we are to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals of zero hunger, good health and wellbeing and responsible consumption and production. The study highlights the utility of Zooniverse for assessing citizen estimates of carbon footprint, energy content, animal welfare and safety of foods

Northern grazing carbon farming – integrating production and greenhouse gas outcomes 1 : Climate Clever Beef Final Report

This project targeted three large and diverse regions across northern Australia: the Queensland Gulf, the Queensland Fitzroy Basin and the Northern Territory (Victoria River District, Douglas Daly and Barkly Tableland regions). Eleven grazing businesses across three broad regions were engaged as case studies to undertake demonstrations and evaluations within their businesses. These businesses manage more than 1,281,000 ha and 97,600 cattle. The project provided an excellent opportunity to capitalize on established networks and genuine producer interest and participation built up in recent initiatives (e.g. CCRP Climate Clever Beef (Bray et al. 2014), Northern Grazing Systems project (Phelps et al. 2014), RELRP, SCaRP, SavannaPlan, CQ Beef). The project team included research and extension professionals with decades of combined experience working with northern beef producers. The knowledge and analytical tools developed during previous projects identified practices to: reduce the greenhouse gas emissions impact of beef businesses, manage climate variability, improve land condition and increase business profitability

Northern grazing carbon farming – integrating production and greenhouse gas outcomes 1 : Climate Clever Beef Final Report

This project targeted three large and diverse regions across northern Australia: the Queensland Gulf, the Queensland Fitzroy Basin and the Northern Territory (Victoria River District, Douglas Daly and Barkly Tableland regions). Eleven grazing businesses across three broad regions were engaged as case studies to undertake demonstrations and evaluations within their businesses. These businesses manage more than 1,281,000 ha and 97,600 cattle. The project provided an excellent opportunity to capitalize on established networks and genuine producer interest and participation built up in recent initiatives (e.g. CCRP Climate Clever Beef (Bray et al. 2014), Northern Grazing Systems project (Phelps et al. 2014), RELRP, SCaRP, SavannaPlan, CQ Beef). The project team included research and extension professionals with decades of combined experience working with northern beef producers. The knowledge and analytical tools developed during previous projects identified practices to: reduce the greenhouse gas emissions impact of beef businesses, manage climate variability, improve land condition and increase business profitability

My own affairs,

Mode of access: Internet

Paediatric admission into the Intensive Care Unit of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital

No Abstract. NQJHM Vol. 8 (1) 1998: pp. 52-5