Abstract
Climate policy assessments often appear to lack a multi-analytical approach capable of considering different dimensions of sustainability during policy design. This paper presents an integrated assessment framework of climate policy instrument interactions by reconciling environmental, socio-economic, political, and institutional aspects for the initial stage of policy development. Selected interacting policy instruments are categorized into their policy design characteristics, referring to parameters that describe the institutional context of each instrument. Criteria covering specific environmental, sociopolitical, macroeconomic, financial, and technological objectives for assessing the policy instruments are identified and selected. Complementarities and overlaps between different combinations of instruments are identified. These affect subsequently the likely values (scores) of policy instruments against the evaluation criteria. By applying an interactive weighting method, policy makers are able to assign weighting factors on the criteria expressing their perceptions and objectives. An overall assessment of combined instruments from these steps is therefore determined based on the input from policy makers. We found that the developed framework provides a transparent tool to stakeholders capable of highlighting potential synergies and conflicts between environmental, socio-economic, political, and technological criteria during the stage of climate policies design. The method merits further attention in group decision-making for mapping stakeholders’ preferences with diverse objectives.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Blyth W, Lefevre N (2004) Energy security and climate change interactions: an assessment framework. OECD/International Energy Agency, Paris, France
Borges P, Villavicencio A (2004) Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emission abatement studies with MCDA: The Peruvian case. Eur J Oper Res 152:641–654
Bondansky D (2003) Climate Commitments – Assessing the Options. Advancing the international effort against climate change, Technical Report, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Beyond Kyoto
Commission of the European Communities (2001) Directive COM 2001/77/EC, On Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (2003a) Directive 2003/30/EC, On the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (2003b) Directive 2003/54/EC, Common rules for the internal market of electricity, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (2003c) Directive 2003/87/EC, Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, European Communities, Brussels
Commission of the European Communities (2004) Directive 2004/101/EC, Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms, Brussels
Gaiza-Carmenates R, Altamirano-Cabrera C, Thalmann P, Drouet L (2010) Trade-offs and performances of a range of alternative climate architectures for post-2012. Environ Sci Policy 13:63–71
Grafakos S, Zevgolis D, Oikonomou V (2010) Towards a process for eliciting criteria weights and enhancing capacity of stakeholders in ex-ante evaluation of climate policies. In: Hardi P, Martinuzzi A (eds) Evaluating sustainable development, vol 3. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA
Hajkowicz S, Young M, Wheeler S, MacDonald DH (2000) and Young, D. Supporting Decisions, Understanding Natural Resource Management Assessment Techniques, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra
Hamalainen R, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecol Econ 68:556–569
Hayashi K (2000) Multi criteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. Eur J Oper Res 122:486–500
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
Keeney R (1982) Decision analysis: An overview. Oper Res 30:803–838
OECD (1997) Evaluating economic instruments for environmental policy. OECD, Paris
OECD (2001) Environmentally related taxes in OECD countries: issues and strategies. OECD, Paris
Oikonomou V, Flamos A, Zevgolis D, Grafakos S (2010) A qualitative assessment of EU policy interactions. Energy Sources Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy (in press)
Oikonomou V, Jepma C (2008) A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 13(2):131–156
Peterson G, Brown T (1998) Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom. Land Econ 74(2):240–261
Poyhonen M, Vrolijk H, Hamalainen P (2001) Behavioural and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees. Eur J Oper Res 134:216–227
Saaty TL (1987) Concepts, theory, and techniques rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decis Sci 18:157–177
Strager M, Rosenberger R (2006) Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA. Ecol Econ 58:79–92
Weber M, Eisenfuhr F, von Winterfeldt D (1988) The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Manage Sci 34(4):431–445
Acknowledgments
This paper was based on research conducted within the framework of a bilateral cooperation of the University of Groningen with the National Technical University of Athens. The authors would like to acknowledge the significant help provided by stakeholders who have tested ECPI and the weighting tool and provided their fruitful comments for the current application and suggestions for its further improvement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grafakos, S., Flamos, A., Oikonomou, V., Zevgolis, D. (2011). Integrating Environmental, Sociopolitical, Economic, and Technological Dimensions for the Assessment of Climate Policy Instruments. In: Leal Filho, W. (eds) The Economic, Social and Political Elements of Climate Change. Climate Change Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14776-0_38
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14776-0_38
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14775-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14776-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)