No abstract

Climate change is expected to have negative impacts but also bring opportunities for agriculture and increase crop productivity in the Nordic countries. Little research has been conducted at the farmer level to identify what adaptation measures are being considered or already taken, and transformative these are. Based on semi-structured interviews with farmers and extension officers from two of the most fertile agricultural areas of Finland and Sweden, this study examines to what extent Nordic farmers are engaged in transforming their farming systems. The results show that some transformational changes are taking place already but most changes are incremental. Currently, farmers perceive agricultural policies and regulations as a greater challenge than climate change.

The use of digital tools and interactive technologies for farming systems has increased rapidly in recent years and is likely to continue to play a significant role in meeting future challenges. Particularly games and gaming are promising new and innovative communication strategies to inform and engage public and stakeholders with scientific research. This study offers an analysis of how a research based game on climate change maladaptation can support, but also hinder players’ sense-making processes. Through the analysis of eight gaming workshops, this study identifies challenges and support for the players’ sense-making. While it concludes that conceptual thinking of game content sometimes clashes with players’ everyday experiences and practice, possibly resulting in loss of credibility, this study also concludes that gaming may function as an eye-opener to new ways of thinking. Overall, this paper suggests that the communication of (social) science and agricultural practices through serious gaming has great potential but at the same time poses challenges due to different knowledge systems and interpretive frameworks among researchers and practitioners.

In light of the increased focus on climate change adaptation, there is a need to understand when and how adaptation decisionmaking generates trade-offs. This study presents a novel framework for adaptation trade-off assessments, which integrates (I) two trade-off mechanisms (direct and interactions) and (II) two types of trade-off characteristics (substantive and processual). Perspectives on adaptation trade-offs were collected from 37 Swedish and Finnish agricultural experts through semi-structured interviews supported by serious gaming and visualization. The data were thematically analysed based on the provided analytical framework. The results show that trade-offs in agricultural adaptation decision-making processes involve balancing a number of socio-ecological system aspects that are of different character and have different functions. The study identified 20 aspects generating trade-offs related to adaptation management in Swedish and Finnish agriculture, among which 'crop yield and profitability', 'farm economy', 'pest and weed robustness' and 'soil quality' were discussed as the most prominent by respondents. The framework enables an examination of complex trade-off structures that can have implications for adaptation management decisions. The results show that the identified aspects constitute different components and functions of trade-offs, including both processual and/or substantive ones. In conclusion, the 20 identified aspects and the framework together demonstrate the importance of the two types of adaptation trade-offs and the resulting complexity of climate change adaptation decisionmaking in Swedish and Finnish agriculture. Furthermore, the study asserts the potential of applying the framework for various strategic contexts-to recognize and cope with trade-offs in adaptation management.

The need for climate change adaptation has been widely recognised and examples of successful adaptation are increasingly reported in the literature, but little attention has so far been paid to the potential negative impacts of implemented adaptation measures. As the agricultural sector is implementing measures to adapt to or cope with climatic variability and change, the potential negative consequences of these measures need to be explored in order to avoid increased vulnerability or (unintended) environmental impacts. This paper employs serious gaming and focus group methodology to study how agricultural stakeholders in Sweden and Finland frame and negotiate the unintended negative impacts of adaptation measures. The results of our interactional frame analysis suggest that the participants negotiated the potential maladaptive outcomes depending on: (1) whether they agreed that this was indeed a potential consequence of an adaptation measure, (2) whether they considered this to be a negative outcome, and if so whether it was (3) a negative outcome which they could adapt to, (4) a negative outcome that would make it preferable not to adapt at all (5) negotiable in terms of a trade-off with alternative outcomes. While it may be obvious that adaptation options