Search

Supply chain disruptions, a pandemic, and war in Ukraine have exposed faultlines in a globalised food system that depends on a few staple crops grown in a few exporting regions and transported to consumers around the world. In the UK, just three crops, (wheat, barley, and oilseed rape), account for 75 per cent of the UK's 4.5 million hectares of arable land whilst the country imports around half its food—nearly 40 per cent—from just four EU countries (The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, and France). Poor diets contribute to one in seven deaths in the UK, 63 per cent of the population is overweight or obese and health inequality is increasing between the poorest and most affluent regions. The food security and health of the UK population is therefore dependent on a small number of locally grown crops, vulnerable supply chains, and an unhealthy, obesogenic diet. The UK food system must diversify if it is to become food and nutritionally secure, meet its climate and biodiversity goals and have a healthy and active population. Climate-resilient and nutritious underutilised crops can help diversify the UK agrifood system, but research and investment in them is sporadic, piecemeal, and unfocused. In this paper, we compare two approaches to identifying potentially suitable underutilised crops for the UK. The first, based on UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Project CH0224, was delivered through literature and database searches and the expertise of growers, advisers, breeders, seed suppliers, processors, traders, and researchers. The second used the CropBASE digital knowledge base for underutilised crops. The two approaches produced no single crop that was common to both shortlists. We propose that the analytical and predictive tools derived from CropBASE could be combined with local knowledge and expertise from the Defra project to provide a common framework for the identification of underutilised crops that are best suited to local UK circumstances now and in climates of the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a systematic framework for nationwide crop suitability assessment within the UK to improve the resilience in cropping systems and nutrition security of the UK population. An initial suitability analysis was performed using data from 1842 crops at 2862 grid locations within the UK, using climate (temperature and rainfall) and soil (pH, depth, and texture) data from the UK Met Office and British Geological Survey. In the second phase, additional qualitative and quantitative data are collected on 56 crops with the highest pedoclimatic suitability and coverage across the UK. An exercise was conducted on crops within each category using a systematic ranking methodology that shortlists crops with high value across a multitude of traits. Crops were ranked based on their nutritional value (macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals) and on adaptive (resistance to waterlogging/flood, frost, shade, pest, weed, and diseases and suitability in poor soils) and physiological traits (water-use efficiency and yield). Other characteristics such as the number of special uses, available germplasm through the number of institutions working on the crops, and production knowledge were considered in shortlisting. The shortlisted crops in each category are bulbous barley (cereal), colonial bentgrass (fodder), Russian wildrye (forage), sea buckthorn (fruit), blue lupin (legume), shoestring acacia (nut), ochrus vetch (vegetable), spear wattle (industrial), scallion (medicinal), and velvet bentgrass (ornamental/landscape). These crops were identified as suitable crops that can be adopted in the UK. We further discuss steps in mainstreaming these and other potential crops based on a systematic framework that takes into account local farming system issues, land suitability, and crop performance modelling at the field scale across the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mass valuation of properties is important for purposes like property tax, price indices construction, and understanding market dynamics. There are several ways that the mass valuation can be carried out. This paper reviews the conventional MRA and several other advanced methods such as SAR, Kriging, GWR, and MWR. SAR and Kriging are good for modeling spatial dependence while GWR and MWR are good for modeling spatial heterogeneity. The difference between SAR and Kriging is the calculation of weights. Kriging weights are based on the spatial dependence or so called the semi-variogram analysis of the price data whereas the weights in SAR are based on the spatial contiguity between the sample data. MWR and GWR are special types of regression where study region is subdivided into local sections to increase the accuracy of prediction through neutralizing the heterogeneity of autocorrelations. MWR assigns equal weights for observations within a window while GWR uses distance decay functions. The merits and drawbacks of each method are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]