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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DecisionSupport 7Case Study 2: Adaptation Options for Viticulture in Tuscany, ItalyWine production is one of the most important, traditional economic activities for Tuscan farmers, andviticulture shapes the Tuscan hills unique landscape, which has high tourism benefits (Trombi et al.2011). Recent wine production has moved to high-quality production, with lower yield, lesschemicals and increased value, and there is an increasing number of agri-tourism farms (Trombi andBindi, 2008). However, climate change will increase temperatures, and is considered likely todecrease precipitation and increase variability (Moriondo et al., 2011). These changes have thepotential to lower yields and increase the variability of production and quality of wine (Bernetti et al.,2012; Moriondo et al. 2013). Whilst there are many potential adaptation options for preserving thequality and quantity of production, further analysis and appraisal is required to identify which optionscan successfully be applied to the particular context of Tuscan viticulture.Appraising optionsThe goal of this AHP exercise was to identify “the best adaptation measure for Tuscan viticulture in aclimate change scenario”. The analysis identified the following three adaptation options:• Selection: set up a genetic selection program in order to make the current cultivated varietiesmore suitable for projected climate conditions. This option was chosen based on expertjudgment, and because it could help in the analysis of the preferences expressed;• Relocation: relocation of the vineyards towards higher elevations, to reduce the impact ofchanges in temperature and keep cultivation in conditions similar to the present; and• Switch: switch to other, southern varieties, more suitable for the warmer and drier conditionsprojected for the region.The “Selection” option was chosen on the basis of expert judgment, while the other two(“Relocation” and “Switch”) were chosen on the basis of a previous study (Moriondo et al., 2011).Four criteria were used in the AHP exercise: Economical Profitability and Cost, Technical Feasibility,Social-Institutional Acceptability and Flexibility of the Measure. The selection of the criteria wasbased on expert judgment. The hierarchy is shown in the Figure below.Figure 3. Hierarchy of the AHP exercise in the online tool.A range of local stakeholders were selected and participated in the AHP exercise including technicians,landscape architects, representatives from the scientific community, producers’ associations/extensionservices, agriculture, an environmental association and a politician/administrator. A web-basedapplication 2 was developed to allow the remote participation of the stakeholders and to increase theprobability of a higher number of participants. The software reproduced the steps of the AHP method,6
Analytic Hierarchy Processwith an animated help function to facilitate the user during the process.ResultsThe stakeholders chose the Selection option as the best adaptation measure for Tuscan viticulture(0.603) by some margin, followed by Relocation (0.200) and then by the Switch (0.197) option (Table 1).Economic profitability and costs was ranked as the most important criterion by the stakeholders, at0.470 (Table 2) and performed well against all the other criteria (Table 3). Technical feasibility was rankedas the second most important criterion (0.262), and performed well against the Social-Institutionalacceptability criterion (3.492), and slightly better than Flexibility (1.578). The Flexibility of the measurewas ranked third (0.141) and was considered only slightly more important than the Social-Institutionalacceptability, which was ranked as the least important criterion (0.127) in the decision process.Table 1. Stakeholders’ prioritisation of theadaptation optionsOptionPrioritySelection 0.603Relocation 0.200Switch 0.197Table 2. Stakeholders’ prioritisation of the criteria.CriterionPriorityEconomic profitability and costs 0.470Technical feasibility 0.262Flexibility 0.141Social-institutional acceptability 0.127Table 4 shows the performance of each option against the others, under all the criteria: e.g. theSelection option performed quite well under all criteria compared to both other options. i.e. theSelection option was considered from moderately to definitively better/more important thanRelocation, in particular, with respect to Flexibility, Social-institutional acceptability, and Technicalfeasibility (first data row of Table 4). The Selection option showed a similar performance with respectto the Switch option. The Relocation option ranked slightly better than the Switch option (seconddata row of Table 4). However, the Switch option, was chosen once by stakeholders, when comparedwith Relocation, due to its slightly better Technical feasibility (red cell in third data row of Table 4). Theresults reveal that the most preferred option is Selection, which allows current cultivated varieties tocontinue and the preservation of tradition, quality and brand. It is also perceived as profitable, flexible,easy to implement and would probably incur less resistance from society than the other options.Table 3. Criteria performanceECO FLX SOC TECECO - 2.917 3.016 2.749FLX 0.343 - 0.922 0.634SOC 0.332 1.085 - 0.286TEC 0.364 1.578 3.492 -Table 4. Options performance for each criterionECO FLX SOC TECRelocationSelection 2.816 3.857 3.857 3.762SwitchSelection 3.068 1.943 3.286 2.886SwitchRelocation 1.335 1.238 1.057 0.712The exercise allowed different stakeholders – who often do not often communicate with each other – tointeract, and to produce a final, coherent and quantitative result, highlighting priorities for further research.2For more information about the web-based AHP application, please contact Giacomo Trombi (giacomo.trombi@unifi.it).7
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 47 and 48: Decision SupportMethods for Climate
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 and 88: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe AHP m
Page 89: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe resul
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?