Advertisement

Integrating Environmental, Sociopolitical, Economic, and Technological Dimensions for the Assessment of Climate Policy Instruments

  • Stelios Grafakos
  • Alexandros Flamos
  • Vlasis Oikonomou
  • Dimitrios Zevgolis
Conference paper
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

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

Climate policy aspects Climate policy interactions Criteria weights Evaluation criteria Integrated approach Stakeholders’ perspectives 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blyth W, Lefevre N (2004) Energy security and climate change interactions: an assessment framework. OECD/International Energy Agency, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges P, Villavicencio A (2004) Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emission abatement studies with MCDA: The Peruvian case. Eur J Oper Res 152:641–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bondansky D (2003) Climate Commitments – Assessing the Options. Advancing the international effort against climate change, Technical Report, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Beyond KyotoGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2001) Directive COM 2001/77/EC, On Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Commission of the European Communities (2003a) Directive 2003/30/EC, On the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Commission of the European Communities (2003b) Directive 2003/54/EC, Common rules for the internal market of electricity, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2003c) Directive 2003/87/EC, Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 13:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajkowicz S, Young M, Wheeler S, MacDonald DH (2000) and Young, D. Supporting Decisions, Understanding Natural Resource Management Assessment Techniques, CSIRO Land and Water, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamalainen R, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecol Econ 68:556–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayashi K (2000) Multi criteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. Eur J Oper Res 122:486–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney R (1982) Decision analysis: An overview. Oper Res 30:803–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (1997) Evaluating economic instruments for environmental policy. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (2001) Environmentally related taxes in OECD countries: issues and strategies. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)Google Scholar
  21. Oikonomou V, Jepma C (2008) A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 13(2):131–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):240–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poyhonen M, Vrolijk H, Hamalainen P (2001) Behavioural and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees. Eur J Oper Res 134:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty TL (1987) Concepts, theory, and techniques rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decis Sci 18:157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strager M, Rosenberger R (2006) Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA. Ecol Econ 58:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weber M, Eisenfuhr F, von Winterfeldt D (1988) The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Manage Sci 34(4):431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stelios Grafakos
    • 1
  • Alexandros Flamos
    • 1
  • Vlasis Oikonomou
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Zevgolis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)Rotterdam Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations