a multiple criteria decision system to improve performance of federal conservation programs
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 ConferenceFebruary 19-20, 2008
C. Derya Özgöç-Çağlar Purdue University
Dept. of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPhone: (765) 586 8304
E-mail: [email protected]
Outline• Introduction• 2005-2007 Indiana EQIP Model• Case Study: EQIP MCDA System• Results• Conclusion
2
Introduction• Agricultural activities contribute to numerous
environmental and resources problems
• Voluntary Federal programs (CRP, EQIP,WRP, CSP) offer technical, financial, and educational support 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
3
Federal Conservation Programs2004 EQIP Applications 2005 EQIP Applications
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
I m pro v e En v iro n m e n t a l Q u a lity
NPSW a te r
Q u a lity
S o ilEro s io n
A irQ u a lit y
S pe cie s a t R is k
L ak esG r o u n dW ater
S u rfa c eW a te r
0 . 10 . 10 .1
AirQ u ality
0 .1 5
W in dE ro s io n
S o ilC o n d itio n
0 .1
S h ee t &R ill
Ero s io n
0 . 1
E p h em era lC las s icG u lly
0 .1
Crit ic a lA q u a t icH a b ita t
0 .0 6 2 5
C rit ic a lW o o d la n d
H a b ita t
0 .0 6 2 5
Crit ic a lGra s s la n d
H a b ita t
0 . 0 6 2 5
Crit ic a lW e t la n dH a b ita t
0 . 0 6 2 5
L ev e l 1
L ev e l 2
W E I GH T S
Ap p lic atio n 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 2 3 0 11Ap p lic atio n 2 11 0 2 0 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 2 2
. . . . . . . . . . .Ap p lic a t io n 8 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 3
2005 Indiana EQIP ModelThe components of 2005 Indiana EQIP program organized in a hierarchical
structure ALTERNATIVES
EQIP Applications
OUTCOMES
10
I m pro v e En v iro n m e n t a l Q u a lity
NPSW a te r
Q u a lity
S o ilEro s io n
A irQ u a lit y
S pe c ie s a t R is k
L ak esG r o u n dW ater
S u rfa c eW a te r
AirQ u ality
W in dEr o s io n
S o ilC o n d itio n
S h ee t &R ill
E r o s io n
E p h em era lC las s icG u lly
Crit ic a lA q u a t icH a b ita t
Crit ic a lW o o d la n d
H a b ita t
Crit ic a lGra s s la n d
H a b it a t
Crit ic a lW e t la n dH a b ita t
2005 Indiana EQIP Model
Weights of the four National Priorities Weights are equally distributedamong the sub-objectives
LEVEL 1 OBJECTIVE WEIGHTSNPS
POLLUTIONAIR
QUALITYSOIL
EROSIONSPECIES AT
RISK30% 15% 30% 25%
11
Level 1 objectives
NPS Pollution (30% Total Weight)
Level 2 objectives
Surface Water
Ground Water Lakes
Weights 10% 10% 10%
2005 Indiana EQIP Model
12
2005 Indiana EQIP Model• Decision rule to rank, select and enroll
applications– maximizing environmental benefits considering cost-
effectiveness
100
30100003040
TCLSASLSAS
TSTS – Total ScoreAS – Application scoreLS – Local score TC – Total Cost 14
2007 Indiana Application Selection
15
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
16
2007 Indiana EQIP ModelEQ I P G O A L S
A i rQ u a l i ty S pe c i e s a t R i s kL e v e l 1
L e v e l 2 A i rQ u a l i ty
Fi s h a n dW i l d l i fe
P l a n tC o n d i t i o n
L e v e l 3
D o m e s t i cA n i m a l s
I n a de qua t eQ ua n t it ie s a n d
Q ua lit y o f F e e da n d F o r a ge
I n a de qua t eSt o c k W a t e r
I n a de qua t eF o o d
T h r e a t e n e da n d
E n da n ge r e dSp e c ie s
P la n tC o m m un it y
F r a gm e n t a t io n
I n a de qua t eC o v e r /Sh e lt e r
P r o duc t iv i t y ,H e a lt h a n d
Vigo r
T h r e a t e n e da n d
E n da n ge r e dSp e c ie s
F o r a geQ ua lit y a n dP a la t a bilit y
N o x io us a n dI n v a siv e
P la n t s
S o i lC o n d i t i o n
S o i lEr o s i o n
O r ga n icM a t t e r
D e p le t io n
C o m m e r c ia lF e r t iliz e r
A n im a lW a st e a n d
O t h e rO r ga n ic s
C o m p a c t io n
Sh e e t a n dR ill
C la ssicGully
E p h e m e r a lGully
W in d
R e sidua lP e st ic ide s
S o i l Ero s i o n
O bje c t io n a bleO do r s
P a r t ic ula t em a t t e r le ss
t h a n 1 0m ic r o m e t e r sin dia m e t e r -
P M 1 0
E x c e ssiv eGr e e n h o useGa s - C O 2 -
c a r bo ndio x ide
C h e m ic a lD r if t
G ro u n dW a te r
S u r f a c eW a te r
E x c e ssiv eN ut r ie n t s a n d
O r ga n ic s
H a r m f ulL e v e ls o fP e st ic ide s
E x c e ssiv eN ut r ie n t s
a n d O r ga n ic s
E x c e ssiv eSusp e n de dSe dim e n t
a n dT ur b idit y
H a r m f ulL e v e ls o fP e st ic ide s
W a t e r Q u a l i ty
17
2007 Indiana EQIP Model
18
LI
s
v
vSI
r
u
uNP
p
t
tCEm
l
l
n
i
l
m
l
il
MLIPMSIPMNPPM
PC
PLS
TS111
1
1 1
Application Evaluation and Ranking Tool (AERT)
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
23
Pro m o te A g ricu ltu ra l Pro du ct io n a n dEn v iron m e n ta l Q u a lit y
W ate r Q u ality So il E ro s io nA ir Q u ality S pe c ie s at R is k
L ak esG r o u n dW ater
S u r f ac eW ater
AirQ u ality
W in dEr o s io n
S o ilC o n d itio n
S h eet & R illE ro s io n
Ep h em era lC las s icG u lly
C r itic a lAq u a ticHab ita t
C r itic a lW o o d lan d
Hab ita t
C r itic a lG ras s lan d
Hab ita t
C r itic a lW etlan dHab ita t
Indiana EQIP MCDA Hierarchy
P R O M O TE AG R IC U L TU R AL P R O D U C TIO NAN D E N VIR O N M E N TAL Q U AL ITY
W a te r Q ua lityi = 1w 1
S o il E ro sio ni = 3w 3
S pe c ie s a t R iski = 4w 4
S e dim e nt inSur fac e W ate r
j = 4w 1 4
Atrazine inSur fac e W ate r
j = 5w 1 5
Atrazine inG ro und W ate r
j = 6w 1 6
N itrate inSur fac e W ate r
j = 1w 11
P ho s pho rus inSur fac e W ate r
j = 2w 1 2
N itrate inG ro und W ate r
j = 3w 1 3
w i
w ij
A ir Q ua lityi = 2w 2
24
• 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
Indiana EQIP MCDA System
im
j
n
ljljij
m
iii
A SfwvwValue Overall pplication
25
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
BMPsNutrients in
Surface Water
Nutrients in Groundwater
Sediment in Surface
Water
Pesticides in Surface
Water
Pesticides in Groundwater
Residue Management/No till 1 0 4 5 1
Filter Strip 5 3 5 3 1Nutrient Management 5 5 0 0 0
Pest Management 0 0 2 5 5
26
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)
27
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 scenarios28
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.
ScenarioBase BMPBefore Loading Pollutant
BMP AfterLoading Pollutant
ChangeLoading Pollutant
29
GLEAMS - NAPRANitrate Loading to Surface Water -
Base ScenarioNitrate Loading to Surface Water
After No-Till
Nitrate Loading to Surface Water Base Scenario
Nitrate Loading toSurface Water
After No-Till
Changes in NO3 loading between no-till scenario
and base scenario
30
31
EQIP 2005 Applications and GLEAMS-NAPRA
EQIP 2005 Application Loading Changes
Replace “categorical converted-to-quantitative” scores with changes in loadings
Indiana EQIP2005 ApplicationsNitrate Loadingsto Surface WaterChange After No-till Practice
32
EQIP 2005 Applications
After Residue Management/No-Till Practice (Scenario 2)
Final Score
CPPE Score
NO3 Loading to Surface Water Change (kg/ha)
NO3 Loading to Surface Water
Percent Change STATUS
Application550 2029.3 1 -0.332 -3% funded
Application437 1760.5 1 -1.202 -10% funded
Application31 1183.4 1 -0.058 -1% unfunded
Application223 1061.7 1 -0.437 -4% unfunded
Application193 1056.4 1 -0.328 -3% funded
Application260 1046.8 1 -1.729 -13% funded
Application699 1046.4 1 -0.529 -5% funded
Application269 1042.9 1 -2.003 -13% funded
Application630 1037.0 1 -0.707 -7% funded
33
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
34
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
35
QUESTIONS?
36