The pilot area of Auronzo di Cadore (Belluno) - Università Ca
The pilot area of Auronzo di Cadore (Belluno) - Università Ca
The pilot area of Auronzo di Cadore (Belluno) - Università Ca
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Fig. 21<br />
Weight elicitation exercise<br />
Tab. 17<br />
Outcome <strong>of</strong> collective<br />
weighting<br />
snow availability in <strong>Auronzo</strong> was described, as a driving factors for the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> the resort’s winter <strong>of</strong>fer (Table 16). <strong>The</strong> reader may notice the<br />
<strong>di</strong>fference in changes <strong>of</strong> snow days between Misurina and <strong>Auronzo</strong>, due<br />
primarily to the higher altitude <strong>of</strong> the former.<br />
<strong>The</strong> workshop then turned to in<strong>di</strong>vidual weight<br />
elicitation exercise (Figure 21).<br />
48<br />
CRITERIA<br />
Each stakeholder has 100 points to allocate<br />
among the criteria; the highest score goes to the<br />
most important criteria, and the total must add<br />
up to 100. Although this methodology is more<br />
vulnerable to in<strong>di</strong>vidual biases than the previously<br />
utilised SIMOS, in terms <strong>of</strong> time needed<br />
to calculate the result and insert them into the<br />
ClimAlpTour e-tool, this one is much faster,<br />
hence suitable to the half-day workshop.<br />
As it appears from Table 17, the macro-criteria,<br />
which describe impacts on local economy,<br />
scored the highest marks (score 26.31), whereas<br />
environmental criteria such as energy consumption<br />
and total garbage <strong>di</strong>sposal <strong>di</strong>d not<br />
seem to preoccupy stakeholders to any significant<br />
extent (score 8.25).<br />
CRITERIA’S<br />
SCORES<br />
Environmental impact 19.06<br />
Economic costs with<br />
environmental relevance<br />
8.25<br />
Impact on local economy 26.31<br />
Impact on tourist sector 16.19<br />
Strategy feasibility 9.19<br />
INDICATORS<br />
INDICATORS’<br />
WEIGHTS (%)<br />
Erosion 8.17<br />
Air quality 8.17<br />
Visibility 8.17<br />
Water consumption<br />
for snow-making<br />
8.17<br />
Total garbage <strong>di</strong>sposal 3.54<br />
Energy consumption 3.54<br />
Tourists' expen<strong>di</strong>tures 11.28<br />
Labour tourist sector 11.28<br />
Erosion 6.94<br />
Tourists' peaks 6.94<br />
Synergies with summer tourism 6.94<br />
CSI affected 3.94<br />
Investment costs 3.94<br />
Long-term sustainability 11.56 Long-term sustainability 4.96<br />
Innovativeness 9.44 Innovativeness 4.05