Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DecisionSupport 7Case Study 1 – Adaptation options for agriculture in the Guadiana River Basin, SpainThe first case study was focused on the Guadiana river basin in south-central Spain, with anapplication of AHP to adaptation in the agricultural and water sectors. This basin is expected to beone of the most seriously affected by climate change in Spain, with potentially high impacts onirrigated agriculture. The case study began by specifying the adaptation strategies being consideredby policy-makers at the national and regional level, representing the starting point for a stakeholderdrivenappraisal and prioritization of potential options.Options and criteriaThe Government of Extremadura initiated its Climate Change Strategy in 2009, which included a ClimateChange Adaptation Plan for the Agricultural Sector (Junta de Extremadura, 2011). This aimed to identifythe main impacts on the sector and define adaptation measures to guarantee its viability, minimizingthe negative consequences of climate change as well as maximizing potential new opportunities.The Plan contained seven programmes to tackle adaptation to climate change for the agricultural sectorin Extremadura: Increasing Water Availability; Management and Planning of New Crops; Reduction ofVulnerability against Extreme Climate Conditions; Plant Health; Research and Development; Training andInformation for farmers; and Leveraging positive impacts. Drawing from these programmes and thespecific measures they included, the AHP aimed to prioritize adaptation options in the Guadiana RiverBasin. Four options were identified according to their feasibility and their relevance for the area understudy, and a range of criterion were chosen. These are summarised in the hierarchy tree in Figure 1.Figure 1. AHP hierarchy for agricultural adaptation options.The next step was to carry out a pairwise comparison, comparing individual elements to one another,with respect to their impact or importance on an element above them in the hierarchy. Firstly,participants were asked to compare the relative preference for each of the measures with every criterion.For example, for the first criterion, feasibility of legal and political implementation (of the chosenmeasure), participants compared one option against another in relation to the ability of each option tobe designed, supported and implemented from a legal and political standpoint. This exercise wasrepeated with each of the six criteria. Secondly, participants were asked to assess the relativeimportance of each of the criteria with respect to the achievement of the goal. i.e. they compared therelative importance of each criteria for the adaptation of the agricultural sector to climate change in theGuadiana River Basin. Answers were processed using the decision-making software Expert Choice.The results are shown below in Figure 2.4
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe results are shown below in Figure 2.Figure 2. Aggregate results from the AHP exercise for adaptation options.The aggregated results show that the options Choice of new crop varieties best suited to newclimate conditions and Improving technical efficiency in the use of water were equal first positionin the ranking. Creation of agricultural insurance systems ranks third and finally Increase reservoirstorage capacity ranks fourth. Choice of new crop varieties best suited to new climate conditionsand Improving technical efficiency in the use of water performed well under all selected criteria,ranking first except for financial feasibility and speed of implementation, whereas Creation ofagricultural insurance systems ranked first due to its lower cost and ease of implementation. TheIncrease reservoir storage capacity option was ranked low in aggregate terms and was highlycontroversial and criticized by most respondents, who made reference to the high cost and largeenvironmental impact of this option.When analysing the criteria, the protection of environmental resources was the most influential criterionat the aggregate level with a weight of 35.4%, followed by financial feasibility and capacity to generateemployment. The protection of environmental resources was the dominant overall criterion givensupport by all respondent groups, even farmers. Similarly financial feasibility was highly ranked by mostgroups, especially policymakers.The AHP analysis showed that at an aggregate level, options related to private farming (new crops andirrigation efficiency) ranked highest, public-funded ‘hard’ measures (reservoirs) ranked lowest, andpublic ‘soft’ measures (insurance) fell in the middle. Environmental criteria were preferred to socioeconomicand technical criteria. There were, however, differences in the ranking between groups. Whilstenvironmental organisations and academics ranked climate change options similarly to the averageaggregate, policy makers preferred ‘soft’ measures (insurance) and discarded large irrigationinfrastructures (probably due to financial, political and environmental constraints). Farmers’ prioritieswere technically-oriented, giving the highest ranking to the construction of water storage infrastructure.5
Page 2 and 3:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 4:
DecisionSupport 1Stage three relate
Page 7 and 8:
Method OverviewAs a result there is
Page 9 and 10:
Method OverviewThe advantage of the
Page 11 and 12:
Method OverviewTable 1. Strengths a
Page 13 and 14:
Iterative Risk AssessmentMethod Ove
Page 15 and 16:
Method OverviewTable 3. Inputs, Ben
Page 17 and 18:
Method OverviewThird, there some di
Page 19 and 20:
Method Overviewhttp://reports.eea.e
Page 22 and 23:
Further informationThe research lea
Page 24 and 25:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 26 and 27:
DecisionSupport 2Box 2. Comparing M
Page 28 and 29:
DecisionSupport 2Table 1. Possible
Page 30 and 31:
DecisionSupport 2location and techn
Page 32 and 33:
DecisionSupport 2Discussion and App
Page 34:
DecisionSupport 2ReferencesBoyd, R
Page 37 and 38: Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 39 and 40: Robust Decision MakingIntroductionT
Page 41 and 42: Robust Decision Makingit more close
Page 43 and 44: Robust Decision MakingCase Study 2:
Page 45 and 46: Robust Decision MakingReferencesDes
Page 49 and 50: Real Options AnalysisIntroductionTh
Page 51 and 52: Real Options AnalysisBox 1: The Con
Page 53 and 54: Real Options AnalysisStrengths and
Page 55 and 56: Real Options AnalysisCase Study 2:
Page 57 and 58: Real Options AnalysisDiscussion and
Page 60 and 61: Further informationThe research lea
Page 62 and 63: Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 64 and 65: DecisionSupport 5portfolios of two
Page 66 and 67: DecisionSupport 5Case Study 1: Fore
Page 68: DecisionSupport 5Discussion and App
Page 73 and 74: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIntroduction
Page 75 and 76: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn the imple
Page 77 and 78: Multi-Criteria AnalysisBox 1. MCA f
Page 79 and 80: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn assessing
Page 81 and 82: Multi-Criteria Analysis3, 4 en 5),
Page 85 and 86: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessIntroduct
Page 87: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe AHP m
Page 91 and 92: Analytic Hierarchy Processwith an a
Page 93 and 94: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessRamanatha
Page 97 and 98: Social Network AnalysisIntroduction
Page 99 and 100: Social Network Analysistransfer, th
Page 101 and 102: Social Network Analysisadvantage of
Page 103 and 104: Social Network AnalysisBox 3. Netwo
Page 105 and 106: Social Network AnalysisThe overall
Page 107 and 108: Social Network AnalysisComparing th
Page 109 and 110: Social Network AnalysisCash, D., Cl
Page 113 and 114: Adaptation Turning PointsIntroducti
Page 115 and 116: Adaptation Turning Pointsalso be ro
Page 117 and 118: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Studi
Page 119 and 120: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Study
Page 121 and 122: Adaptation Turning PointsDiscussion
Page 123 and 124: Adaptation Turning PointsLeary, D.
show all

Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?