School of Water, Energy and Environment (SWEE)
Permanent URI for this community
Browse
Browsing School of Water, Energy and Environment (SWEE) by Type "Technical Report"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access AGFORWARD Project Final Report(Cranfield University, 2018-02-28) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Mirck, J.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.Executive summary: The AGFORWARD project (Grant Agreement N° 613520) had the overall goal to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development. It had four objectives (described below) which address 1) the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe, 2) identifying, developing and field-testing agroforestry innovations through participatory networks, 3) evaluating innovative designs and practices at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales, and promoting agroforestry in Europe through policy development and dissemination. Agroforestry is defined as the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. Context: European agroforestry has been estimated to cover 10.6 Mha (using a literature review) and 15.4 Mha using the pan-European LUCAS dataset (i.e. 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area). Livestock agroforestry (15.1 Mha) is, by far, the dominant type of agroforestry. The LUCAS analysis provides a uniform method to compare agroforestry areas between countries and over time. Identify, develop and field-test agroforestry innovations: 40 stakeholder groups (involving about 820 stakeholders across 13 European countries) developed and field-tested agroforestry innovations which have been reported in 40 “lesson learnt” reports, and in a user-friendly format in 46 “Agroforestry innovation leaflets”. The innovations for agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value included cheaper methods of tree protection and guidance for establishing legumes in wood pastures. Innovations for agroforestry with timber plantations, olive groves and apple orchards include the use of medicinal plants and reduction of mowing costs. Innovations for integrating trees on arable farms included assessments of yield benefits by providing wind protection. Innovations for livestock farms included using trees to enhance animal welfare, shade protection, and as a source of fodder. Peer-reviewed journal papers and conference presentations on these and other related topics were developed. Evaluation of agroforestry designs and practices at field- and landscape-scale: a range of publicly available field-scale analysis tools are available on the AGFORWARD website. These include the “CliPick” climate database, and web-applications of the Farm-SAFE and Hi-sAFe model. The results of field- and landscape-scale analysis, written up as peer-reviewed papers, highlight the benefits of agroforestry (relative to agriculture) for biodiversity enhancement and providing regulating ecosystem services, such as for climate and water regulation and purification. Policy development and dissemination: detailed reviews of existing policy and recommendations for future European agroforestry policy have been produced. The support provided is far wider than the single specified agroforestry measures. The recommendations included the collation of existing measures, and that agroforestry systems should not forfeit Pillar I payments. Opportunities for farmlevel and landscape-level measures were also identified. The project results can be found on the project website (www.agforward.eu), a Facebook account (www.facebook.com/AgforwardProject), a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/AGFORWARD_EU), and a quarterly electronic newsletter (http://www.agforward.eu/index.php/en/newsletters-1514.html). The number of national associations in Europe was extended to twelve, and a web-based training resource on agroforestry (http://train.agforward.eu/language/en/agforall/) created. AGFORWARD also supported the Third European Agroforestry Conference in Montpellier in 2016 attracting 287 delegates from 26 countries including many farmers. We also initiated another 21 national conferences or conference sessions on agroforestry, made about 240 oral presentations, 61 poster presentations, produced about 50 news articles, and supported about 87 workshop, training or field-visit activities (in addition to the stakeholder groups).Item Open Access AGFORWARD Third Periodic Report: July 2016 to December 2017(Cranfield University, 2018-03-01) Burgess, Paul; den Herder, M.; Dupraz, C.; Garnett, Kenisha; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Hermansen, J. E.; Kanzler, M.; Liagre, F.; Moreno, G.; Mosquera-Losada, M. R.; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, A.; Plieninger, T.Project context The European Union has targets to improve the competitiveness of European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment and the quality of rural life. At the same time there is a need to improve our resilience to climate change and to enhance biodiversity. During the twentieth century, large productivity advances were made by managing agriculture and forestry as separate practices, but often at a high environmental cost. In order to address landscape-scale issues such as biodiversity and water quality, we argue that farmers and society will benefit from considering landuse as a continuum including both agriculture and trees, and that there are significant opportunities for European farmers and society to benefit from a closer integration of trees with agriculture. Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions.Item Open Access Designing safety interventions for specific contexts(Lloyd’s Register Foundation, 2022-04-30) Pilbeam, Colin; Karanikas, Nektarios; Steinmann, Fabian; Baker, Philip; Khan, ShanchitaExecutive Summary Workplace health and safety (H&S) is a significant global issue; around 500 million people are adversely affected by work-related injuries and illnesses each year, while the number of daily workplace fatalities runs into the thousands. One explanation for these alarming statistics may lie in the way safety interventions are introduced and implemented in different contexts. A ‘safety intervention’ could be any physical artefact, process, procedure, skills, or specialist knowledge that restores, maintains, or strengthens safety (i.e., prevents or mitigates safety risks; influences culture and behaviours; improves health and wellbeing; ensures compliance with legal requirements). Misalignment between interventions and context increases the possibility of failure with adverse consequences. Where interventions ‘fit’ the context safety performance is high. There is a clear requirement to minimise harm and maximise worker well-being in the workplace, a change that can be driven by the implementation of context-appropriate safety interventions. However, the degree to which organisations and occupational H&S researchers, and trainers contemplate contextualisation processes, and the variables that influence these processes, when sourcing, designing and implementing safety interventions is unclear and may account for the lack of success observed for some interventions. In this report we attempt to address this knowledge gap and present the findings of our investigation into whether and how researchers, trainers, and organisations consider contextual factors in safety interventions. The study comprised of three broad strands. Firstly, a comprehensive Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) reviewed scholarly work published in peer-reviewed journals between 2011 and 2021; from an initial sample of 3,450 studies, 73 studies were included in the final review. Secondly, a screen of nationally and internationally recognised training materials, coupled with 12 semi-structured interviews with experienced trainers, was performed to determine how frequently safety courses considered context. Finally, further interviews with industry stakeholders were performed to identify both successful and unsuccessful interventions and to ascertain if context was a factor in outcomes. We identified that training and education was the most frequently applied intervention, and training providers confirm that they believe appropriate consideration of context would increase the effectiveness of interventions. However, it was also clear that few courses consider the influence of context on the interventions or describe a framework whereby such contextualisation could occur. For example, interventions are often ‘borrowed’ from other organisations and are not adjusted to meet the specific needs of the new environment. This, coupled with the observation of a widespread failure of organisations to review the impact of their safety training in a continuous fashion and update and improve its implementation, suggests that there is a need for organisational level adjustments. We, therefore, suggest that the following five recommendations are developed to improve the training of workplace H&S, and thus its implementation: 1. Organisations should begin considering the context of interventions as much as the intervention itself during implementation. This process can be assisted via the development of the processes detailed below. 2. Organisations, occupational safety and health (OSH) training providers, OSH institutions and agencies, and academia should develop guidelines that indicate key success factors (KSFs) for safety training effectiveness within the organisational context, and how these 3 KSFs can be achieved. These would consider organisational characteristics, trainee demographics and features of the intervention. 3. Organisations, OSH training providers, OSH institutions and agencies, and academia should develop guidelines for designing online safety training materials that consider context. This should consider aesthetics, usability and usefulness drawing on existing knowledge of technology acceptance. 4. Organisations, OSH training providers, OSH institutions and agencies, and academia should develop guidelines to produce immersive, interactive, digital content for contextually relevant safety training materials to meet growing demand. 5. OSH training providers, OSH institutions and agencies and OSH regulators should promote the need to review the benefits of safety training after the event and to review current understanding before re-training. In addition, the field would benefit from further research to better describe methodologies and frameworks that will allow for efficient contextualisation of H&S interventions across a wide range of industries. These have been specified in a further set of 11 recommendations.Item Open Access High level review of the Optimum Water Use methodology for agriculture following the 2018 drought in England(Cranfield University, 2019-04-25) Knox, Jerry W.; Hess, Tim1. Context. After a spate of relatively average to ‘wet’ summers in England from an irrigation perspective, the heatwave and protracted dry conditions in 2018 highlighted the significant agronomic and economic importance of water resources for agricultural irrigation and the risks to production that can arise when abstractions are restricted. From an abstraction licensing perspective (licensed volume and reasonable need) 2018 also provides a useful ‘reference’ year against which actual irrigation applications (depths applied) can be compared against theoretical ‘design’ dry year requirements. It also offers an opportunity to gather feedback from abstractors on their management practices, how they coped with the drought conditions and any lessons learnt in order to support the EA in providing abstractor guidance to support improved decision-making in future drought years. Following discussion with EA staff, this short study was commissioned to produce a Technical Briefing Note for the irrigated agriculture sector in England ahead of the 2019 spray irrigation season. The intention was that the report would include a brief agroclimatic assessment of 2018 and provide additional information to complement the EA Spray Irrigation (SI) Prospects Information which is distributed to abstractors each year. This Technical Briefing Note summarises the aim and objectives of the study, the methodological approaches developed and the key findings that emerged from the analyses.Item Open Access Towards the operationalization of water sharing for irrigation in England(2021-07) Rey Vicario, Dolores; Holman, Ian P.; Knox, Jerry W.INTRODUCTION: Many catchments in England are over-abstracted and/or over-licensed and have no spare summer water that can be allocated to support business expansion, meaning that access to water is increasingly becoming a constraint on economic growth. This situation is particularly acute in eastern England. The legislation for managing water abstraction was introduced in the 1960s and is currently under review. A key limitation is its inflexible approach which limits the capacity to cope with the changing environmental pressures of increasing demand for water, or to allow abstractors access to additional water when available (e.g. peak flows). To address these and other water regulatory limitations, the government is implementing a raft of reforms to the abstraction licensing regime in England. While water trading can support more efficient water allocation, high transaction costs and delays in approvals have often limited abstractor uptake. Water sharing is an alternative approach to formal water trading that is gaining more attention in the so-called Priority Catchments2, where the development and testing of innovative abstraction management approaches is underway. However, there remains a widespread lack of understanding of what water sharing means from hydrological and regulatory perspectives - what are the available sharing options along the spectrum from informal to formal arrangements? What are the different scales at which sharing might be feasible (neighbouring businesses to catchment scale) and how might the approval process for authorising and monitoring sharing be operationalized by the Environment Agency (EA)? The aim of this short study was to explore these unresolved issues through the development of a range of realistic water sharing ‘scenarios’ between agricultural abstractors coupled with a mock evaluation process led by the Environment Agency.