1 / 30

A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs

A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs. The Case Study of Indiana Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 2008 Indiana GIS Conference February 19-20, 2008. C. Derya Özgöç-Çağlar Purdue University

varick
Download Presentation

A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Multiple Criteria Decision System to Improve Performance of Federal Conservation Programs The Case Study of Indiana Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 2008 Indiana GIS Conference February 19-20, 2008 C. Derya Özgöç-Çağlar Purdue University Dept. of Forestry and Natural Resources Phone: (765) 586 8304 E-mail: cozgoc@purdue.edu

  2. Outline • Introduction • 2005-2007 Indiana EQIP Model • Case Study: EQIP MCDA System • Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Agricultural activities contribute to numerous environmental and resources problems • Voluntary Federal programs (CRP, EQIP,WRP, CSP) offer technical, financial, and educationalsupport to farm and ranch operators • Long-term, continuing societal support depends on determining • Positive changes directly linked to the applied conservation practices, and • Beneficial changes are worth the large expenditures of Federal funds

  4. Federal Conservation Programs

  5. Federal Conservation Programs • Reasons for this disconnect • Voluntary program • Problematic, low productive lands • Program design • Not including all the objectives, • Mismatched objectives and criteria, • Weighting criteria without deliberate intent, • Inappropriate criteria and scoring methods for ranking applications

  6. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis • Provides guidance and structure • Leads to well-documented, reproducible decisions • Encourages precise explanations of a decision maker’s values and beliefs and the trade-offs • Can be used to assess and evaluate environmental policies and programs

  7. Objectives • Incorporate the broader, formal decision system and its associated framework • Structure • Generic specification • Correct several flaws through adoption of multiple criteria decision analysis procedures, methods, and tools • Integrate hydrologic simulation models to reintroduce spatial heterogeneity and quantitative attributes

  8. 2005 Indiana Application Selection

  9. OBJECTIVES ATTRIBUTES ALTERNATIVES EQIP Applications 2005 Indiana EQIP Model The components of 2005 Indiana EQIP program organized in a hierarchical structure GOAL OUTCOMES

  10. 2005 Indiana EQIP Model Weights of the four National Priorities Weights are equally distributed among the sub-objectives

  11. 2005 Indiana EQIP Model

  12. 2005 Indiana EQIP Model • Decision rule to rank, select and enroll applications • maximizing environmental benefits considering cost-effectiveness • TS – Total Score • AS – Application score • LS – Local score • TC – Total Cost

  13. 2007 Indiana Application Selection

  14. 2007 Indiana EQIP Model • National Programs Ranking Tool • To evaluate, rank and select applications for enrollment • Application Evaluation and Ranking Tool (AERT) • Based on the information in the Field Office Technical Guide • Made up of four basic components: • The Efficiency component • The National Priorities Component • The State Issues Component • The Local Issues component

  15. 2007 Indiana EQIP Model

  16. 2007 Indiana EQIP Model Application Evaluation and Ranking Tool (AERT) Cost Efficiency State Priorities Local Priorities National Priorities

  17. Indiana EQIP MCDA System • The multiple criteria decision system to accommodate requirements of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Indiana • The issues I am addressing • Identification of goals, objectives and attributes • Development of hierarchical structure • Evaluation of applications • Incorporation of GLEAMS-NAPRA model • Weighted-additive value function method

  18. Indiana EQIP MCDA Hierarchy • nitrate loading to surface water • phosphorus loading to surface water • nitrate loading to ground water • sediment loading • atrazine loading to surface water • atrazine loading to ground water

  19. Indiana EQIP MCDA System

  20. Indiana EQIP MCDA SystemConservation Practice Physical Effect (CPPE) Matrix • 86 eligible Best Management Practices (BMPs) • BMPs impact on environmental and natural resource problems • Same BMP – Same score

  21. Indiana EQIP MCDA System Measurement of Attributes • The hydrologic simulation models • Quantify the loadings of pollutant before and after implementation of BMPs • Consider heterogeneous physical conditions, climate, and BMPs • Produce the amount changes of major pollutants • Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems - National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Analysis (GLEAMS-NAPRA)

  22. Indiana EQIP MCDA System Measurement of Attributes - Scenarios • Base scenario – No BMPs have been applied • Remaining scenarios • Residue Management/No-Till • Filter Strip • Nutrient Management • Before BMP – 222 N kg/ha and 125 P2O5 kg/ha • After BMP – Tri-State Recommendation • Pest Management • Before BMP – 2 lb/ac • After BMP – 1.5 lb/acre or incorporation • Totally 16 scenarios

  23. Indiana EQIP MCDA System Measurement of Attributes • Six Outcomes: • nitrate loading to surface water, • phosphorus loading to surface water, • nitrate loading to ground water, • sediment loading, • atrazine loading to surface water and • atrazine loading to ground water.

  24. GLEAMS - NAPRA Nitrate Loading to Surface Water After No-Till Nitrate Loading to Surface Water - Base Scenario Changes in NO3 loading between no-till scenario and base scenario Nitrate Loading to Surface Water After No-Till Nitrate Loading to Surface Water Base Scenario

  25. EQIP 2005 Applications and GLEAMS-NAPRA

  26. EQIP 2005 Application Loading Changes Replace “categorical converted-to- quantitative” scores with changes in loadings Indiana EQIP 2005 Applications Nitrate Loadings to Surface Water Change After No-till Practice

  27. EQIP 2005 Applications

  28. Conclusion • Design and assessment of Federal conservation programs following MCDA approach • Improve program performance by enrolling more cost efficient applications • Minimize common flaws • Mismatched objectives and criteria, • Weighting criteria without deliberate intent, • Inappropriate criteria and scoring methods for ranking applications • Reintroduce spatial heterogeneity • Identify problematic nonpoint-source areas

  29. Next • Replace the “categorical-converted-to-quantitative” scores • Calculate application’s overall value • Score and rank applications • Distribute available program funds • Compare MCDA system with actual EQIP 2005 program • Number and type of applications • Location of applications • Estimated environmental benefits

  30. QUESTIONS?

More Related