Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and nonparticipants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES valuation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed.

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS): An evaluation of success factors in the agricultural sector. The case of Italy's Emilia Romagna region.

Different tools have been used to set up and adopt the model for the fulfillment of the objective of this research. 1. The Model The base model that has been used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) adapted with the aim to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis. The AHP developed by Thomas Saaty is a multicriteria decision - making technique which decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discreet and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. These comparisons may be taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale that reflects the relative strength of preferences and feelings. 2. Tools and methods 2.1. The Expert Choice Software The software Expert Choice is a tool that allows each operator to easily implement the AHP model in every stage of the problem. 2.2. Personal Interviews to the farms For this research, the farms of the region Emilia Romagna certified EMAS have been detected. Information has been given by EMAS center in Wien. Personal interviews have been carried out to each farm in order to have a complete and realistic judgment of each criteria of the hierarchy. 2.3. Questionnaire A supporting questionnaire has also been delivered and used for the interviews . 3. Elaboration of the data After data collection, the data elaboration has taken place. The software support Expert Choice has been used . 4. Results of the Analysis The result of the figures above (vedere altro documento) gives a series of numbers which are fractions of the unit. This has to be interpreted as the relative contribution of each element to the fulfillment of the relative objective. So calculating the Benefits/costs ratio for each alternative the following will be obtained: Alternative One: Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0, 877 Costs ratio: 0, 815 Benfit/Cost ratio: 0,877/0,815=1,08 Alternative Two: Not Implement EMAS Benefits ratio: 0,123 Costs ration: 0,185 Benefit/Cost ratio: 0,123/0,185=0,66 As stated above, the alternative with the highest ratio will be the best solution for the organization. This means that the research carried out and the model implemented suggests that EMAS adoption in the agricultural sector is the best alternative. It has to be noted that the ratio is 1,08 which is a relatively low positive value. This shows the fragility of this conclusion and suggests a careful exam of the benefits and costs for each farm before adopting the scheme. On the other part, the result needs to be taken in consideration by the policy makers in order to enhance their intervention regarding the scheme adoption on the agricultural sector. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Benefits: - Legal compliance seems to be the most important benefit for the agricultural sector since its rank is 0,471 - The next two most important benefits are Improved internal organization (ranking 0,230) followed by Competitive advantage (ranking 0, 221) mostly due to the sub-element Improved image (ranking 0,743) Finally, even though Incentives are not ranked among the most important elements, the financial ones seem to have been decisive on the decision making process. According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Costs: - External costs seem to be largely more important than the internal ones (ranking 0, 857 over 0,143) suggesting that Emas costs over consultancy and verification remain the biggest obstacle. - The implementation of the EMS is the most challenging element regarding the internal costs (ranking 0,750).

Decision evaluation in complex risk network systems (DecernsSDSS) demo and Black River case study

The selection of metrics for ecosystem restoration programs is critical for improving the quality of monitoring programs and characterizing project success. Moreover it is oftentimes very difficult to balance the importance of multiple ecological, social, and economical metrics. Metric selection process is a complex and must simultaneously take into account monitoring data, environmental models, socio-economic considerations, and stakeholder interests. We propose multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, broadly defined, for the selection of optimal sets of metrics to enhance evaluation of ecosystem restoration alternatives. Two MCDA methods, a multiattribute utility analysis (MAUT), and a probabilistic multicriteria acceptability analysis (ProMAA), are applied and compared for a hypothetical case study of a river restoration involving multiple stakeholders. Overall, the MCDA results in a systematic, unbiased, and transparent solution, informing restoration alternatives evaluation. The two methods provide comparable results in terms of selected metrics. However, because ProMAA can consider probability distributions for weights and utility values of metrics for each criteria, it is suggested as the best option if data uncertainty is high. Despite the increase in complexity in the metric selection process, MCDA improves upon the current ad-hoc decision practice based on the consultations with stakeholders and experts, and encourages transparent and quantitative aggregation of data and judgement, increasing the transparency of decision making in restoration projects. We believe that MCDA can enhance the overall sustainability of ecosystem by enhancing both ecological and societal needs.

Systematic Approach for the selection of monitoring technologies in CO2 geological storage projects. Application of multicriteria decision making

Geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been proposed as a viable means for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Once injection begins, a program for measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) of CO2 distribution is required in order to: a) research key features, effects and processes needed for risk assessment; b) manage the injection process; c) delineate and identify leakage risk and surface escape; d) provide early warnings of failure near the reservoir; and f) verify storage for accounting and crediting. The selection of the methodology of monitoring (characterization of site and control and verification in the post-injection phase) is influenced by economic and technological variables. Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) refers to a methodology developed for making decisions in the presence of multiple criteria. MCDM as a discipline has only a relatively short history of 40 years, and it has been closely related to advancements on computer technology. Evaluation methods and multicriteria decisions include the selection of a set of feasible alternatives, the simultaneous optimization of several objective functions, and a decision-making process and evaluation procedures that must be rational and consistent. The application of a mathematical model of decision-making will help to find the best solution, establishing the mechanisms to facilitate the management of information generated by number of disciplines of knowledge. Those problems in which decision alternatives are finite are called Discrete Multicriteria Decision problems. Such problems are most common in reality and this case scenario will be applied in solving the problem of site selection for storing CO2. Discrete MCDM is used to assess and decide on issues that by nature or design support a finite number of alternative solutions. Recently, Multicriteria Decision Analysis has been applied to hierarchy policy incentives for CCS, to assess the role of CCS, and to select potential areas which could be suitable to store. For those reasons, MCDM have been considered in the monitoring phase of CO2 storage, in order to select suitable technologies which could be techno-economical viable. In this paper, we identify techniques of gas measurements in subsurface which are currently applying in the phase of characterization (pre-injection); MCDM will help decision-makers to hierarchy the most suitable technique which fit the purpose to monitor the specific physic-chemical parameter.

Evaluation of cover crops based on characteristics of nitrogen use, and aerial and root growth

La caracterización de los cultivos cubierta (cover crops) puede permitir comparar la idoneidad de diferentes especies para proporcionar servicios ecológicos como el control de la erosión, el reciclado de nutrientes o la producción de forrajes. En este trabajo se estudiaron bajo condiciones de campo diferentes técnicas para caracterizar el dosel vegetal con objeto de establecer una metodología para medir y comparar las arquitecturas de los cultivos cubierta más comunes. Se estableció un ensayo de campo en Madrid (España central) para determinar la relación entre el índice de área foliar (LAI) y la cobertura del suelo (GC) para un cultivo de gramínea, uno de leguminosa y uno de crucífera. Para ello se sembraron doce parcelas con cebada (Hordeum vulgare L.), veza (Vicia sativa L.), y colza (Brassica napus L.). En 10 fechas de muestreo se midieron el LAI (con estimaciones directas y del LAI-2000), la fracción interceptada de la radiación fotosintéticamente activa (FIPAR) y la GC. Un experimento de campo de dos años (Octubre-Abril) se estableció en la misma localización para evaluar diferentes especies (Hordeum vulgare L., Secale cereale L., x Triticosecale Whim, Sinapis alba L., Vicia sativa L.) y cultivares (20) en relación con su idoneidad para ser usadas como cultivos cubierta. La GC se monitorizó mediante análisis de imágenes digitales con 21 y 22 muestreos, y la biomasa se midió 8 y 10 veces, respectivamente para cada año. Un modelo de Gompertz caracterizó la cobertura del suelo hasta el decaimiento observado tras las heladas, mientras que la biomasa se ajustó a ecuaciones de Gompertz, logísticas y lineales-exponenciales. Al final del experimento se determinaron el C, el N y el contenido en fibra (neutrodetergente, ácidodetergente y lignina), así como el N fijado por las leguminosas. Se aplicó el análisis de decisión multicriterio (MCDA) con objeto de obtener un ranking de especies y cultivares de acuerdo con su idoneidad para actuar como cultivos cubierta en cuatro modalidades diferentes: cultivo de cobertura, cultivo captura, abono verde y forraje. Las asociaciones de cultivos leguminosas con no leguminosas pueden afectar al crecimiento radicular y a la absorción de N de ambos componentes de la mezcla. El conocimiento de cómo los sistemas radiculares específicos afectan al crecimiento individual de las especies es útil para entender las interacciones en las asociaciones, así como para planificar estrategias de cultivos cubierta. En un tercer ensayo se combinaron estudios en rhizotrones con extracción de raíces e identificación de especies por microscopía, así como con estudios de crecimiento, absorción de N y 15N en capas profundas del suelo. Las interacciones entre raíces en su crecimiento y en el aprovisionamiento de N se estudiaron para dos de los cultivares mejor valorados en el estudio previo: uno de cebada (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Hispanic) y otro de veza (Vicia sativa L. cv. Aitana). Se añadió N en dosis de 0 (N0), 50 (N1) y 150 (N2) kg N ha-1. Como resultados del primer estudio, se ajustaron correctamente modelos lineales y cuadráticos a la relación entre la GC y el LAI para todos los cultivos, pero en la gramínea alcanzaron una meseta para un LAI>4. Antes de alcanzar la cobertura total, la pendiente de la relación lineal entre ambas variables se situó en un rango entre 0.025 y 0.030. Las lecturas del LAI-2000 estuvieron correlacionadas linealmente con el LAI, aunque con tendencia a la sobreestimación. Las correcciones basadas en el efecto de aglutinación redujeron el error cuadrático medio del LAI estimado por el LAI-2000 desde 1.2 hasta 0.5 para la crucífera y la leguminosa, no siendo efectivas para la cebada. Esto determinó que para los siguientes estudios se midieran únicamente la GC y la biomasa. En el segundo experimento, las gramíneas alcanzaron la mayor cobertura del suelo (83-99%) y la mayor biomasa (1226-1928 g m-2) al final del mismo. Con la mayor relación C/N (27-39) y contenido en fibra digestible (53-60%) y la menor calidad de residuo (~68%). La mostaza presentó elevadas GC, biomasa y absorción de N en el año más templado en similitud con las gramíneas, aunque escasa calidad como forraje en ambos años. La veza presentó la menor absorción de N (2.4-0.7 g N m-2) debido a la fijación de N (9.8-1.6 g N m-2) y escasa acumulación de N. El tiempo térmico hasta alcanzar el 30% de GC constituyó un buen indicador de especies de rápida cubrición. La cuantificación de las variables permitió hallar variabilidad entre las especies y proporcionó información para posteriores decisiones sobre la selección y manejo de los cultivos cubierta. La agregación de dichas variables a través de funciones de utilidad permitió confeccionar rankings de especies y cultivares para cada uso. Las gramíneas fueron las más indicadas para los usos de cultivo de cobertura, cultivo captura y forraje, mientras que las vezas fueron las mejor como abono verde. La mostaza alcanzó altos valores como cultivo de cobertura y captura en el primer año, pero el segundo decayó debido a su pobre actuación en los inviernos fríos. Hispanic fue el mejor cultivar de cebada como cultivo de cobertura y captura, mientras que Albacete como forraje. El triticale Titania alcanzó la posición más alta como cultiva de cobertura, captura y forraje. Las vezas Aitana y BGE014897 mostraron buenas aptitudes como abono verde y cultivo captura. El MCDA permitió la comparación entre especies y cultivares proporcionando información relevante para la selección y manejo de cultivos cubierta. En el estudio en rhizotrones tanto la mezcla de especies como la cebada alcanzaron mayor intensidad de raíces (RI) y profundidad (RD) que la veza, con valores alrededor de 150 cruces m-1 y 1.4 m respectivamente, comparados con 50 cruces m-1 y 0.9 m para la veza. En las capas más profundas del suelo, la asociación de cultivos mostró valores de RI ligeramente mayores que la cebada en monocultivo. La cebada y la asociación obtuvieron mayores valores de densidad de raíces (RLD) (200-600 m m-3) que la veza (25-130) entre 0.8 y 1.2 m de profundidad. Los niveles de N no mostraron efectos claros en RI, RD ó RLD, sin embargo, el incremento de N favoreció la proliferación de raíces de veza en la asociación en capas profundas del suelo, con un ratio cebada/veza situado entre 25 a N0 y 5 a N2. La absorción de N de la cebada se incrementó en la asociación a expensas de la veza (de ~100 a 200 mg planta-1). Las raíces de cebada en la asociación absorbieron también más nitrógeno marcado de las capas profundas del suelo (0.6 mg 15N planta-1) que en el monocultivo (0.3 mg 15N planta-1). ABSTRACT Cover crop characterization may allow comparing the suitability of different species to provide ecological services such as erosion control, nutrient recycling or fodder production. Different techniques to characterize plant canopy were studied under field conditions in order to establish a methodology for measuring and comparing cover crops canopies. A field trial was established in Madrid (central Spain) to determine the relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and ground cover (GC) in a grass, a legume and a crucifer crop. Twelve plots were sown with either barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), vetch (Vicia sativa L.), or rape (Brassica napus L.). On 10 sampling dates the LAI (both direct and LAI-2000 estimations), fraction intercepted of photosynthetically active radiation (FIPAR) and GC were measured. A two-year field experiment (October-April) was established in the same location to evaluate different species (Hordeum vulgare L., Secale cereale L., x Triticosecale Whim, Sinapis alba L., Vicia sativa L.) and cultivars (20) according to their suitability to be used as cover crops. GC was monitored through digital image analysis with 21 and 22 samples, and biomass measured 8 and 10 times, respectively for each season. A Gompertz model characterized ground cover until the decay observed after frosts, while biomass was fitted to Gompertz, logistic and linear-exponential equations. At the end of the experiment C, N, and fiber (neutral detergent, acid and lignin) contents, and the N fixed by the legumes were determined. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied in order to rank the species and cultivars according to their suitability to perform as cover crops in four different modalities: cover crop, catch crop, green manure and fodder. Intercropping legumes and non-legumes may affect the root growth and N uptake of both components in the mixture. The knowledge of how specific root systems affect the growth of the individual species is useful for understanding the interactions in intercrops as well as for planning cover cropping strategies. In a third trial rhizotron studies were combined with root extraction and species identification by microscopy and with studies of growth, N uptake and 15N uptake from deeper soil layers. The root interactions of root growth and N foraging were studied for two of the best ranked cultivars in the previous study: a barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Hispanic) and a vetch (Vicia sativa L. cv. Aitana). N was added at 0 (N0), 50 (N1) and 150 (N2) kg N ha-1. As a result, linear and quadratic models fitted to the relationship between the GC and LAI for all of the crops, but they reached a plateau in the grass when the LAI > 4. Before reaching full cover, the slope of the linear relationship between both variables was within the range of 0.025 to 0.030. The LAI-2000 readings were linearly correlated with the LAI but they tended to overestimation. Corrections based on the clumping effect reduced the root mean square error of the estimated LAI from the LAI-2000 readings from 1.2 to less than 0.50 for the crucifer and the legume, but were not effective for barley. This determined that in the following studies only the GC and biomass were measured. In the second experiment, the grasses reached the highest ground cover (83- 99%) and biomass (1226-1928 g/m2) at the end of the experiment. The grasses had the highest C/N ratio (27-39) and dietary fiber (53-60%) and the lowest residue quality (~68%). The mustard presented high GC, biomass and N uptake in the warmer year with similarity to grasses, but low fodder capability in both years. The vetch presented the lowest N uptake (2.4-0.7 g N/m2) due to N fixation (9.8-1.6 g N/m2) and low biomass accumulation. The thermal time until reaching 30% ground cover was a good indicator of early coverage species. Variable quantification allowed finding variability among the species and provided information for further decisions involving cover crops selection and management. Aggregation of these variables through utility functions allowed ranking species and cultivars for each usage. Grasses were the most suitable for the cover crop, catch crop and fodder uses, while the vetches were the best as green manures. The mustard attained high ranks as cover and catch crop the first season, but the second decayed due to low performance in cold winters. Hispanic was the most suitable barley cultivar as cover and catch crop, and Albacete as fodder. The triticale Titania attained the highest rank as cover and catch crop and fodder. Vetches Aitana and BGE014897 showed good aptitudes as green manures and catch crops. MCDA allowed comparison among species and cultivars and might provide relevant information for cover crops selection and management. In the rhizotron study the intercrop and the barley attained slightly higher root intensity (RI) and root depth (RD) than the vetch, with values around 150 crosses m-1 and 1.4 m respectively, compared to 50 crosses m-1 and 0.9 m for the vetch. At deep soil layers, intercropping showed slightly larger RI values compared to the sole cropped barley. The barley and the intercropping had larger root length density (RLD) values (200-600 m m-3) than the vetch (25-130) at 0.8-1.2 m depth. The topsoil N supply did not show a clear effect on the RI, RD or RLD; however increasing topsoil N favored the proliferation of vetch roots in the intercropping at deep soil layers, with the barley/vetch root ratio ranging from 25 at N0 to 5 at N2. The N uptake of the barley was enhanced in the intercropping at the expense of the vetch (from ~100 mg plant-1 to 200). The intercropped barley roots took up more labeled nitrogen (0.6 mg 15N plant-1) than the sole-cropped barley roots (0.3 mg 15N plant-1) from deep layers.