Abstract
Agriculture in Kazakhstan is sensitive to climate, and wheat yields could be reduced up to 70% under climate change. With the transition from a socialist economy to a free market economy, decisions are being made now that will affect Kazakhstan's ability to cope with climate change. A team of Kazakh and American researchers examined the cost-effectiveness and barriers to implementations of adaptation options for climate change. Twelve adaptation options that increase flexibility to respond to climate change were identified using a screening matrix. Four options, forecasting pest outbreaks, developing regional centers for preserving genetic diversity of seeds, supporting a transition to a free market, and reducing soil erosion through the use of changed farming practices, were examined. The Adaptation Decision Matrix (ADM) was then applied to estimate benefits using expert judgment (using an arbitrary numerical scale, not monetary values) and benefits estimates were compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The ADM uses subjective measures of how well adaptation options meet policy objectives. Controlling soil erosion was estimated to have the highest benefits, but the high costs of implementation appears to make it relatively cost-ineffective. Supporting a transition to a free market was ranked as the most cost-effective measure, with regional centers second. However, use of different scales to quantify benefits or different weights can result in regional centers being more cost-effective than the transition to a free market. Regional centers was also judged to have fewer barriers to implementation than a transition to a free market. These results will be incorporated in Kazakhstan's National Action Plan. The ADM and other tools are relatively easy to apply, but are quite subjective and difficult to evaluate. The tools can be quite useful by decision makers to analyze advantages and disadvantages between different adaptation options, but should be supplemented with additional, particularly quantitative analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benioff, R. and Warren, J.: 1996, Steps in Preparing Climate Change Action Plans: A Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Country Studies Program.
Dolgikh, S.A., and Yesserkepova, I.B.: 1997, ‘Evaluation of global warming impact on desertification process in Kazakhstan’. Hydrometeorology and Ecology, vol. 3. Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Callander, B.A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A. and Maskell K. (eds.): 1996, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kaliev, G.A. (ed.): 1994, Conceptual Program on Agriculture and Industry Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the 1993- 1995 and until 2000. Kazakh Academy of Agricultural Science: Bastau, Almaty, Kazakhstan. (in Russian).
McKenna, C.K.: 1980, Quantitative Methods for Public Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Mitchell, J.F.B., Manabe, S., Tokioka, T. and Meleshko, V.: 1990, ‘Equilibrium Change’. In Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mizina, S.V., Eserkepova, I.B. and Sutyushev, V.R.: 1997a, ‘Wheat Vulnerability Assessment under Possible Climate Change in Kazakhstan’. Hydrometeorology and Ecology. vol. 3. pp. 64–72, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Mizina, S.V., Smith, J.B. and Gossen, E.F.: 1997b, ‘Development of Wheat Management Strategy Taking into Account Possible Climate Change in Kazakhstan’. Hydrometeorology and Ecology. vol. 3. pp. 50–63, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Pilifosova, O.V., Eserkepova, I.B. and Dolgih, S.A.: 1997, ‘Regional Climate Change Scenarios Under Global Warming in Kazakhstan.’ Climatic Change 36, 23–40.
Pilifosova, O. et al.: 1996, ‘Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments for Kazakhstan.’ in Smith, J.B., S. Huq, S. Lenhart, L.J. Mata, I. Nemesova and S. Toure (eds.), Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Interim Results from the U.S. Country Studies Program. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Putzrath, R.M.: 1996, ‘Comparing Apples and Oranges: combining Data on Value Judgements.’ in C.R. Cothern (ed.), Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making: Balues, Perceptions, & Ethics. New York: Lewis Publishers.
Smith, J.B.: 1997, ‘Setting Priorities for Adapting to Climate Change.’ Global Environmental Change 7, 251–264.
Smith, J.B., Huq, S., Lenhart, S., Mata, L.J., Nemesova, I. and Toure, S.: 1996a, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Interim Results from the U.S. Country Studies Program. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, J.B., Ragland, S. and Pitts, G.: 1996b, ‘A Process for Evaluating Anticipatory Adaptation Measures for Climate Change.’ Water, Air & Soil Pollution 92, 229–238.
Spiecker, K.: 1997, ‘Kazakhstan Agricultural Cost Estimates.’ Internal Memorandum. Boulder, CO: Hagler Bailly Services, Inc. September 15.
Stokey, E. and Zeckhauser, R.: 1978, A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C. and Moss, R.H. (eds.): 1996, Climate Change 1995: The IPCC Second Assessment Report, Volume 2: Scientific-Technical Analyses of Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mizina, S.V., Smith, J.B., Gossen, E. et al. An evaluation of adaptation options for climate change impacts on agriculture in Kazakhstan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4, 25–41 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009626526883
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009626526883