IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v221y2010i18p2136-2152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy relevance of three integrated assessment tools—A comparison with specific reference to agricultural policies

Author

Listed:
  • Uthes, Sandra
  • Fricke, Katharina
  • König, Hannes
  • Zander, Peter
  • van Ittersum, Martin
  • Sieber, Stefan
  • Helming, Katharina
  • Piorr, Annette
  • Müller, Klaus

Abstract

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a system of market support instruments, direct income transfers, and rural development measures, has been put through an ongoing reform process in recent decades. This paper introduces three policy impact assessment tools (SIAT, SEAMLESS-IF, MEA-Scope tool) and analyses how these tools have responded to a number of challenges for integrated assessment modelling as reported in the international literature. Significant progress has been made with regard to modelling linkages whereas other challenges, particularly those related to issues of scale and uncertainty management, require further efforts. It is also analysed which CAP instruments are represented and what kinds of effects can be analysed at different scales. Market instruments and direct payments are comparatively well represented, while the ability to model rural development measures is mostly beyond the scope of these tools. Because each tool has found a different solution for coping with the common challenges of integrated assessment modelling, the choice of one of the tools for a particular application depends strongly on the policy questions being asked. The SIAT provides the big picture via its ability to represent broad changes in policy instruments with EU-wide cross-sector impacts. The most comprehensive analysis of agricultural policy instruments can be obtained with SEAMLESS-IF. The MEA-Scope tool complements the other two approaches with detailed regional profiles.

Suggested Citation

  • Uthes, Sandra & Fricke, Katharina & König, Hannes & Zander, Peter & van Ittersum, Martin & Sieber, Stefan & Helming, Katharina & Piorr, Annette & Müller, Klaus, 2010. "Policy relevance of three integrated assessment tools—A comparison with specific reference to agricultural policies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2136-2152.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:221:y:2010:i:18:p:2136-2152
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.08.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380009005705
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons & Kellermann, Konrad & Sahrbacher, Christoph, 2008. "Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 431-444, August.
    2. Peter Zander & Jeroen C.J. Groot & Etienne Josien & Isabella Karpinski & Andrea Knierim & Burghard C. Meyer & Livia Madureira & Mbolatiana Rambonilaza & Walter A.H. Rossing, 2008. "Farm models and economic valuation in the context of multifunctionality: a review of approaches from France, Germany, The Netherlands and Portugal," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(4/5), pages 339-360.
    3. Mann, Stefan & Wustemann, Henry, 2008. "Multifunctionality and a new focus on externalities," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 293-307, February.
    4. Zander, P. & Kachele, H., 1999. "Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 311-325, March.
    5. Happe, Kathrin & Damgaard, Martin & Osuch, Amanda & Sattler, Claudia & Zander, Peter & Uthes, Sandra & Schuler, Johannes & Piorr, Annette, 2006. "CAP-reform and the provision of non-commodity outputs in Brandenburg," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 55(05-06), pages 1-12.
    6. Parson, Edward A, 1995. "Integrated assessment and environmental policy making : In pursuit of usefulness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 463-475.
    7. Happe, Kathrin & Kellermann, Konrad & Balmann, Alfons, 2006. "Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: An illustration of the agricultural policy simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation and behavior," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Berntsen, J. & Petersen, B. M. & Jacobsen, B. H. & Olesen, J. E. & Hutchings, N. J., 2003. "Evaluating nitrogen taxation scenarios using the dynamic whole farm simulation model FASSET," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 817-839, June.
    9. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    10. Verboom, Jana & Alkemade, Rob & Klijn, Jan & Metzger, Marc J. & Reijnen, Rien, 2007. "Combining biodiversity modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 267-276, April.
    11. Hertel, Thomas & Rose, Steven & Tol, Richard, 2008. "Land Use in Computable General Equilibrium Models: An Overview," GTAP Working Papers 2595, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.
    12. Scrieciu, S. Serban, 2007. "The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Bohringer and Loschel (2006)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 678-684, February.
    13. Boumans, Roelof & Costanza, Robert & Farley, Joshua & Wilson, Matthew A. & Portela, Rosimeiry & Rotmans, Jan & Villa, Ferdinando & Grasso, Monica, 2002. "Modeling the dynamics of the integrated earth system and the value of global ecosystem services using the GUMBO model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 529-560, June.
    14. Claudia Sattler & Johannes Schuler & Peter Zander, 2006. "Determination of trade-off-functions to analyse the provision of agricultural non-commodities," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(2/3), pages 309-325.
    15. Stefan Tangermann, 2005. "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Area Agricultural Policies and the Interests of Developing Countries," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1128-1144.
    16. van Ittersum, Martin K. & Ewert, Frank & Heckelei, Thomas & Wery, Jacques & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Andersen, Erling & Bezlepkina, Irina & Brouwer, Floor & Donatelli, Marcello & Flichman, Guillermo & , 2008. "Integrated assessment of agricultural systems - A component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 150-165, March.
    17. Brecard, Dorothee & Fougeyrollas, Arnaud & Le Mouel, Pierre & Lemiale, Lionel & Zagame, Paul, 2006. "Macro-economic consequences of European research policy: Prospects of the Nemesis model in the year 2030," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 910-924, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. E. M. Nkoana & T. Waas & A. Verbruggen & C. J. Burman & J. Hugé, 2017. "Analytic framework for assessing participation processes and outcomes of climate change adaptation tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1731-1760, October.
    2. Hannes J. König & Frieder Graef & Jana Schindler & Anja Fasse & Khamaldin Daud Mutabazi & Christine Lambert & Pamela Ngwenya & Götz Uckert & Henry Mahoo & Fred F. Hattermann & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Combining participatory, qualitative and quantitative methods for impact assessment of food value chains into an integrated framework," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1309-1321, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:221:y:2010:i:18:p:2136-2152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.