1 / 13

Dr. Nicola Favretto n.favretto@leeds.ac.uk

Workshop on the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Sustainable Land Management in Kgalagadi Rangelands 08 th July , 2014. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Dr. Nicola Favretto n.favretto@leeds.ac.uk. Introduction.

yehudi
Download Presentation

Dr. Nicola Favretto n.favretto@leeds.ac.uk

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. Workshop on the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) • Sustainable Land Management in Kgalagadi Rangelands • 08thJuly, 2014 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Dr. Nicola Favretto n.favretto@leeds.ac.uk

  2. Introduction • Outline the socio-economic dimensions of land use and link them to the environmental findings through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) • Research objective • “To identify the ES benefits provided by each land use, and discuss the costs and trade-offs associated with their delivery under different land uses and management” • Aim of MCDA • To rankalternative land use options by quantifying, scoring and weighting a range of quantitative and qualitative criteria

  3. Four step process of MCDA I • Problem definition & identification of options “Which land uses and land management strategiesare best placed to deliver specific ES in Kalahari rangelands in Botswana's southern Kgalagadi district?”

  4. Four step process of MCDA II • Criteria definition & assessment

  5. Four step process of MCDA III • Criteria weighting (using policy analysis) Reflect the criteria relative importance for policy-making • Derivation of each option's overall preference scoreEach criterion scored on a 100-point scale (0=less important, 100=most important). Overall score = criteria score * weights

  6. Results I - Criteria performance

  7. Results II – Final scoring

  8. Results III Weighted performance of the four alternative land uses

  9. Conclusions I • Cattle productionprovides the largest financial benefits to private land users, but generates broad negative environmental externalities: • Fencing & support provided to borehole drilling for ground water extraction: concentration of cattlearound water points • Retreat of grass cover andbush encroachment • Reduced access to ESother than commercial food • Decrease in livestock income

  10. Conclusions II • Livestock encroachment, rangeland degradation & obstructed wildlife mobility  declining wildlife numbersin & next to Wildlife Management Areas • Decreased economic viability of Community-Based Natural Resource Managementand ecotourism activities

  11. Conclusions III • Livelihood diversification opportunities to the poorest (partly dependent on subsistence hunting and gathering) are limited • There is a need to: • Assess/establish potential markets for provisioning ES • Limit borehole development within communal areas in proximity to Wildlife Management Areas • Trading of carbon credits? Further methodological development needed (monitoring, reporting & verification)

  12. Conclusions IV In establishing Sustainable Land Management practices, trade-offs between profitability, social distribution of wealth, cultural values and land degradationmust be considered across (as well as within) land uses

  13. Thanks for your attention

More Related