Development of innovative agri-environmental contracts in contracts2.0 case study regions

Development of innovative agri-environmental contracts in contracts2.0 case study regions

by | Jul 4, 2023 | Results

In three countries that established Contract Innovation Labs in one or several case study regions explicit changes have been made in the policymaking on AECM notably inspired by contracts2.0. Elements of the innovative contract proposals are now being implemented. Many innovation labs found themselves in several stages of implementation (negotiation, testing, mainstreaming) at once. This may be due to the fact that they are working on several contracts at the same time or because only some elements of the proposed contract have moved on to the testing or implementation phase. The main challenges to implementation were, among others, the lack of support from policy, realistically aligning the innovative structures with existing regulations, and the lack of financing for important intermediaries. Some CILs also lacked the interest from farmers or struggled with the need to raise public awareness. This goes to show, that a participatory process needs to be properly set up, and considerable effort is needed for successful continuation. At the same time, the successes make a significant difference and set a motivating example. 

Belgium

In Flanders, Belgium, groups of farmers will be beneficiaries for non-productive investments under the new CAP. Contracts2.0 action partner BoerenNatuur Vlaanderen (BNVL) together with research partner INBO and the support of multiple regional stakeholders also succeeded in including results-based elements in the new AECM on botanical grassland management. Furthermore, one province is willing to scale up an agglomeration bonus for erosion control to more areas in Flanders. The Flemish case study is a good example of the real-life changes contracts2.0 was able to generate. In addition, organisers of local CILs and the PIL observed a high interest in implementing more innovative approaches in the future and while the process of incorporating new measures into the Strategic Plan somewhat exceeds the project running time, the participatory process succeeded in connecting the essential stakeholders to take the processes further. The video produced on the consortium field trip to the Flemish case study regions also depicts the positive practitioner perspectives on the project and the topic (see here).

 

Spain

In the Madrid Region, a new AECM has been added to the Madrid Rural Development Plan thanks to the work of project action partner Heliconia and project research partner UAM. A measure for non-productive investments for agri-environmental objectives now allows land stewardship entities to become beneficiaries of the aid to support farms through contracts. The Spanish project partners have also organised seminars to introduce this new measure to local stakeholders and have presented their work on multiple occasions (e.g. webinars and conferences) in the region to raise awareness. This is a positive impact of the bottom-up approach exercised within the CIL / PIL Madrid where shortcomings of current agri-environmental contracts and consequently possibilities for improvement were identified. Solutions for real-life implementation were discussed with the local stakeholders to ensure a legitimate addition to the AECM and thus, a direct impact on policy design can be reported.

Germany

Several federal states will include a collective approach for AECM, for example following the example of Dutch collectives. The bottom-up participatory approach in contracts2.0 helped foster the international knowledge exchange on the topic significantly.

Although not formally part of contracts2.0 and its CILs/PILs, the case of German federal state of Brandenburg is included here because it offers a further example of the introduction of innovative contracts, namely collective contracts. Brandenburg was the first German state legally implementing collective AECM. Inspired by the Dutch model, collective AECM were introduced with the CAP funding period starting in 2023, though as additional option next to individual AECM (instead of switching the whole system, like in the Dutch case). Jointly with the German Landcare Association (Deutscher Verband für Landschaftspflege, DVL), contracts2.0 project coordinator ZALF worked on developing mandatory and optional criteria for the institutional design and actor constellation within a collective and the design of collective contracts to derive policy implications and recommendations (in accordance with work carried out in WP2 on the analysis of existing contracts). This has been done by integrating results and experiences of contracts2.0 and a series of interviews with farmers in Brandenburg. ZALF also invited the Brandenburg ministry of agriculture, environment and climate protection (MLUK) – which was strongly engaged in promoting the collective approach – to the contracts2.0 CIL/PIL exchange in Germany. The idea of introducing collective AECM to Brandenburg was initiated by the ministry itself. By inviting a driving member of said ministry to CIL/PIL exchanges, practical aspects of the implementation of collectives and their inclusion in Strategic Plans were shared with other German federal states, serving as a successful inspiration for many. Especially interesting was the many detailed insights in the necessary regulatory framework for the legal implementation of collectives as an addition to individual AECM.
The most important aspects gathered from the farmer interviews in Brandenburg were the desire for more flexibility (concerning land tenure, occurrence of extreme weather events, contracting time), a reduction of the bureaucratic workload and financial attractiveness of the new scheme. Generally, farmers are convinced of the ecological effectiveness of the collective approach and expect increased knowledge exchange and the possibility of learning.

Contracts2.0 contributed to the realisation of the collectives in Germany through extensive research on the Dutch model, providing contacts to Dutch colleagues and the series of interviews with Brandenburg farmers that were delivered to the ministry, which took them into account when designing the new collective approach. Including the farmers’ perspectives in the contract design will arguably have a positive impact on their legitimacy and acceptance. Due to the close involvement of project partner ZALF, the German experiences and insights could also be translated into English for the other project partners’ benefit.

Currently, 5 collectives are being established in Brandenburg. The current CAP funding period is considered to be a pilot phase and trial period, in which regulations concerning the collectives are not yet “set in stone” and allow for some flexibility. Due to time constraints, no specific new measures have been introduced yet. In fact, during the current funding period, the previous (individual) measures (AECM) are now possible to be carried out collectively. However, for the following funding periods, the introduction of new collective AECM is planned.

 

© Picture: Eszter Cibik, ONPD, Hungary

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland birds?

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland birds?

by | Jun 13, 2023 | Results

We assessed the effects of two agri-environmental measures targeting cropland birds implemented by three farmers collectives in the Netherlands. Results show positive effects on the abundance of birds and total number of bird species. However, our results show that some species do not benefit from the implemented measures. Building on these results, the study provides recommendations for the future implementation of AEMs targeting cropland birds in the Netherlands and beyond.

Are agri-environmental measures effective in protecting farmland biodiversity?

A significant share of the CAP budget (in 2020: 17.6%, i.e. 2.5 billion euros) is funding agri-environmental measures (AEM) to protect among others farmland biodiversity. However, past studies on the effectiveness of these measures have shown mixed results. Measures may fail because of inadequate management prescriptions or because insufficient habitat is created at suitable locations. Since farmland species differ in their habitat needs, simple all-around solutions are unlikely to work. In the Netherlands, the collective approach for AEMs was adopted in 2016 partly to address these challenges and to achieve an effective management at suitable locations. In particular, farmers collectives aim to increase the concentration of measures in favorable areas for targeted species. After only six years of implementation, evaluation of the ecological effectiveness of the collective approach is just starting. Our study contributes to this evaluation.

Figure 1: Location of plots with bird observations (in red) (Grondard et al., 2023).

Study objectives and methods

In this study, we assessed the effects of two types of measures targeting cropland birds: bird plots (vogelakkers) and field margins (kruidenrijk akkerranden). Measures were implemented by collectives in the provinces of Groningen, Drenthe and Flevoland between 2017 and 2020. We compared bird abundance on AEM plots with measures, and control plots with conventional practices (see Fig. 1). However, differences in bird abundance between AEM and control plots may be due to other factors than plot management. For instance, a plot located in an open landscape is likely to host a higher number of skylarks than a plot surrounded by forest areas, irrespective of plot management practices, because skylarks breed in open landscapes. Therefore, to uncover the effect of measures, we took into account the effect of landscape characteristics around plots. Furthermore, we assessed if AEM plots located next to each other had a higher bird abundance than isolated AEM plots, to assess the effect of spatially concentrating measures.

Positive effects on four out of seven target species, total number of species and total number of birds

We analysed seven target species individually, the total number of species and the total number of birds (See Fig. 2). Compared to control plots, field margins hosted a higher number skylarks, yellowhammers, common linnets and common kestrels as well as a higher total number of species and birds. Benefits of bird plots were limited to skylarks and total number of birds. The three other species (western yellow wagtails, northern lapwings, Eurasian oystercatchers) did not benefit from any of the studied measures. Landscape characteristics were an important factor explaining the abundance of birds. Species nesting on the ground avoided landscapes with vertical structures (trees, buildings), which was not the case of species nesting in boundary features. AEM plots located next to each other did not have higher bird abundance than isolated AEM plots: yellowhammers abundance was even lower.

Figure 2: Predicted number of individuals per plot for each of the seven studied species and total bird abundance, and predicted species richness per plot, for control plots, field margins and bird plots. B = species nesting in boundary features (hedges, ditches and trees), G = species nesting on the ground. Vertical bars correspond to 95% confidence intervals (Grondard et al., 2023).

Next steps for Dutch AEMs targeting cropland birds

  • Monitor the quality of habitat created by AEMs: to understand better why field margins and bird plots have different effects on certain species and thus to be able to improve the effects of the measures, it is useful to complete the monitoring of AEMs with observation on the habitat quality created by the measures, such as vegetation structure, composition and changes across the breeding season.
  • Other types of measures for species nesting on bare ground: for western yellow wagtails, northern lapwings and Eurasian oystercatchers, alternative management options are needed. Current field margins and bird plots do not benefit these species, probably because their vegetation grows too quickly early in the season, while these bird species prefer bare or sparsely vegetated soils for breeding.
  • Assess potential synergies with AEMs in other habitats: for the studied measures, regions and species, the spatial clustering of AEM plots does not seem beneficial. However, we analysed only the AEMs implemented on cropland. Clustering of cropland AEMs with AEMs implemented in grasslands or hedgerows may be beneficial, as several cropland species depend also on these other habitats for breeding, foraging or as shelters. Further studies are needed to assess how these measures complement each other.
  • Fine scale spatial targeting of measures: because target species respond differently to landscape characteristics, there is no optimal location for all 16 species targeted by the national policy. Therefore, we suggest that, in their local conservation efforts, collectives target a subset of species for which local landscape characteristics are most favorable and select the most beneficial AEM options for this subset of species.

 

© Text: Nicolas Grondard (Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University), Lenny van Bussel (PBL-Netherlands Environmental Agency).

© Title Picture: K. Karkow 

Detailed results of the study are available in the scientific publication : Grondard, N., Kleyheeg, E., Hein, L., Van Bussel, L.G.J., 2023. Effects of Dutch agri-environmental field margins and bird plots on cropland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 349.

Now You See Me – Can Consumer-Labels help promote the Provision of Ecosystem Services?

Now You See Me – Can Consumer-Labels help promote the Provision of Ecosystem Services?

by | Dec 6, 2022 | Results

Many studies show that consumers may be willing to pay a premium for food products with additional value such as regional production, certain social standards, or biodiversity related aspects. But what is needed to convince food processors, retailers, and other value chain actors to engage in the process of developing products reflecting this societal demand? After all, establishing the necessary structures, relationships and institutions is, at least initially, a rather costly process. In Contracts2.0 we conducted a study asking food industry experts, how a value chain approach could help to ensure the long-term provision of ecosystem services.

Labels can help consumers make informed choices

There is theoretical evidence that consumers would pay a higher price for higher production standards. Especially, when farmers, being on the forefront, are sufficiently compensated for making the additional effort to bring about the desired ecological impact.

But – this must be clearly communicated to consumers! Labels can help the consumer to make informed choices by marking the added value of a product. While this can be very helpful when making a purchase, it is easier said than done. Every time we enter a store, we are confronted with endless options and ample choice. Yet every consumer reacts differently to the various marketing instruments used to prompt purchases. Therefore, some experts say, that relying on just one instrument for promoting the added value, such as a label, does not suffice and it should rather be a mix of different instruments (Label, QR-code, Point-of-sale instruments), so consumers can pick the one most suitable for themselves.

In line with that, the current EU Farm to Fork strategy intends to integrate a sustainable labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices. However, the European Commission has not yet been explicit about how to implement this. Since the idea of “sustainable” can be interpreted in many ways, in Contracts2.0 we wanted to test how we can use product labelling to increase the provision of Ecosystem Services in particular.

What do experts think about a new labelling framework for Ecosystem Services?

To successfully implement a new label, all stakeholders along the food value chain should be involved in its design process. We interviewed producers, label organisations and retailers in Germany, Poland, Spain, and Sweden to find out where the 45 participants see potential for the introduction of a new product label for Ecosystem Services. The experts were chosen due to their particular expertise in consumer behaviour and valuable insights in gaps in the current labelling landscape.

Figure 1: Food value chain actors considered in the study (Icons from freepik, flaticon.com).

To learn about the individual attitudes towards a new label, we asked participants to sort prepared opinion statements according to their personal agreement with it and justify their placement. This way we were able to compare and analyse the experts’ opinions and categorise them into common viewpoints. More than half of the experts were in favour of such a potential Ecosystem Services labelling framework and even proposed concrete recommendations for its design. A smaller part of the expert group was rather critical of introducing new Ecosystem Service product labels, either because of the multitude of already existing labels or the technological requirements to successfully track provided Ecosystem Services along the value chain.

                                   Figure 2: Example of a grid in which statements were sorted into.

Where do we go from here?

We used the identified similarities to develop and propose three label prototypes that differ in terms of presentation and verification of services, rewarding farmers, and relating products to verified producer services.

1) A producer-driven Ecosystem Services label: this label is independent of any existing labels and only focuses on the provision of Ecosystem Services in the value chain rather than any other product characteristic. Farmers are directly remunerated according to their contribution and independent third-party organisations verify the compliance. The mechanism behind this label is similar to EU organic: farmers receive subsidies for their environmental effort and are able to realise market advantages because of their distinguished products.

2) A consumer-oriented information label: Here, we argue that increased visibility through the label increases the product’s demand enough to lead to higher product prices. The farmer in this model is not directly remunerated by the government for additional effort (such as with pillar 2 payments with respect to organic farming) but rather compensated by higher market prices, since consumers are likely willing to pay higher prices for these high-quality products. In contrast to the first label type, which is backed by third party institutions, this label is being verified by national governments and existing policy mechanisms. In that line, the monitoring can be done by already existing organisations, such as it is currently done in the case of agri-environmental climate measures.

3) A reformed EU organic label: similar to the mechanism of the second prototype this one aims at using market advantages ideally resulting from increased demand though existing but extended environmental labels. Specific Ecosystem Services are clearly linked to the product rather than a general classification as “eco-friendly product”. Here also, existing institutions could be used for certification and thus help to streamline the process. So, this can be seen as an extension or redefinition of the already existing EU organic label.

Informed by various experts, our findings can contribute to the current discussion on the design of the sustainable labelling framework under the Farm to Fork strategy.

In the next steps we want to test whether consumers are actually, and not just in theory, willing to pay for products that are certified to be particularly biodiversity-friendly.

The detailed results have been summarised in a study that is currently under peer review. When publicly available we will link the study here.

 

Ⓒ Christoph Schulze, ZALF
Ⓒ Title picture: Lyza Danger Gardner
Combining collective agri-environmental contracts with a payments-by-results approach

Combining collective agri-environmental contracts with a payments-by-results approach

by | Nov 30, 2022 | Results

In his Master thesis, Max Sonntag analysed the potential for combining collective and payment-by-results elements for agri-environmental contracts, based on interviews with ten intermediaries from England. These intermediaries are facilitators of farmer groups who receive funding from the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (CSFF) for their work to align the management options of farmers on largely adjoining holdings.

The key research question of this study was “What are potential benefits and challenges of combining a collaborative payment for ecosystem services approach with results-based measures?” The particular focus was the role of the intermediary, here the facilitator of a Facilitation Fund group in England (see Practice Abstract 2 here).

Facilitators are responsible for bringing together a group of (at least four) farmers, covering at least 2,000 ha of (largely) adjoining land. They organise group meetings and farm walks, invite expert speakers and align the Countryside Stewardship management options that farmers enrol in. CSFF is technically not a collective contract, as the payment is transferred only to the facilitator. The degree to which the farmers collaborate depends on their individual engagement in the group. There tends to be less cooperation when there is a high proportion of pre-existing individual agri-environmental contracts within the group (Jones et al., 2020, p. 65) as farmers cannot change their contracts before the agreed end date.

Facilitators in this study worked with groups in the regions where the Results Based Agri-environment Payment Scheme (RBAPS) pilot in Northern England (Wensleydale) and East Anglia (Norfolk and Suffolk) was implemented. Therefore, they had an awareness of what a results-based approach could entail, and some farmers in these areas had made positive experiences with the pilots (more information). 

Combination is promising…

In general, facilitators thought that a combination of collective and results-based elements was a good idea and would work well. Five interviewees commented that the Facilitation Fund groups could be used as a platform by farmers to exchange and share knowledge on how to achieve results, and farmers in the group could more easily be trained to undertake self-assessments of results achieved. Alternatively, the facilitator would be on hand to help with the assessment of their plots. Three interviewees stated the result-based approach could enhance friendly competition among members, and access to results-based payment options could encourage more farmers to join the group. There was also the view that farmers who are members of Facilitation Fund groups already demonstrated an interest in learning and innovation regarding environmental activities and therefore would likely be keen to explore result-based options.

…but are there enough trained facilitators? 

Facilitators stressed that results-based payment are not suitable for every case. Indicators needed to be carefully chosen to ensure they are reliable and do not result in a high administrative workload for the farmers, and results-based payments needed to be coupled with a base payment (e.g. via an action-based measure) to reduce the risk to farmers. Current facilitation fund facilitators were seen to be well placed to work with groups to expand into result-based schemes. However, some interviewees had doubts whether there are enough facilitators with the right skills available to be able to advise farmer groups on results monitoring and effective group work at the same time. This suggested additional training for facilitators would need to be made available if such a combination of approaches was to be rolled out.

Onerous paperwork is a barrier 

Interviewees had concerns about the amount of paperwork. Five facilitators already perceived the administrative work related to the Facilitation Fund as onerous, and were weary of an increase if a results-based approach added to this load. In addition, many Facilitation Fund groups currently have no monitoring activities in place, neither with regard to the outcomes of their agri-environmental management, nor the success and social capital of the group as a whole (Prager, 2022). This lack of experience may be a particular hurdle for setting up a result-based approach and the related assessment and reporting activities.

In a scenario of combined collective and result-based elements, a majority of the interviewed facilitators believe that assessing results of management activities, helping with monitoring and providing 1-to-1 advice would be a key aspect of their new role. Others felt their role would not change much: they would continue to facilitate the group’s work as a neutral third party, organise training and help with spatial targeting.

Facilitator role is similarly important in other countries

In conclusion, facilitators have an important role in supporting farmer groups in environmental management. This is in line with observations from other agri-environment climate schemes, such as the Dutch national collective scheme (Berner, 2021), or the result-based Burren Programme in Ireland (Nietzschmann, 2021, Master thesis, more information), where facilitators are involved in multiple roles. These include, for instance enabling communication and coordination among participating famers, offer advice and extension services, assist with the spatial targeting of measures to the most suitable areas in the landscape, join in the monitoring activities, or re-distribute and administer payments to farmers received from the government.

Facilitators view a combination of collective and results-based approaches favourably and most are ready to embrace the challenge of this innovation. Nevertheless, a number of design and administrative challenges remain to be tackled.

 

To cite: Sonntag, M. (2021): Combining a collaborative PES approach with a payments-by-results approach in England: Process Net-Map interviews with Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund’s intermediaries. Master thesis in Integrated Natural Resource Management at Humboldt University Berlin, December 2021.

Supervision: Claudia Sattler (ZALF) & Martin Scheele (HU)

Blogpost written by: Katrin Prager & Claudia Sattler 

Pictures: Jennifer Dodsworth & Katrin Prager (taken at a contracts2.0 stakeholer workshop in Ireland)

To Innovate or not to Innovate? – A Danish Study on Conservation Grazing Schemes

To Innovate or not to Innovate? – A Danish Study on Conservation Grazing Schemes

by | Sep 27, 2022 | Results, Work progress

A study on different options to improve a scheme on conservation grazing revealed that Danish farmers are not hugely keen on adopting innovative contractual approaches. Even though many of the Danish farmers feel the need to increase the ecological impact of the measures, they argue that this could be achieved by improving the existing schemes.

How relevant are findings from the Innovation Lab to the Danish farming community?

Contracts2.0 aims to develop innovative contracts between farmers or land managers and other public or private bodies, which help to strengthen the implementation of agri-environmental measures in agriculture. This is done mainly in the Contract Innovation Labs (CIL), which have a regional or local base. In our Danish case, innovative solutions for contracts on conservation grazing have been developed on the island of Bornholm, which covers 1.3 % of the Danish agricultural area and is the home of 1.2 % of the Danish farmers.

In our CIL, the farmers of Bornholm expressed interest in the integration of innovative components to boost the impact of the existing measures. However, are the novel solutions developed in a specific region also applicable in national contexts? To check the national applicability of the innovative approaches, we initiated a survey addressing affected farmers all over Denmark. 370 farmers, a little less than 10 % of all farmers currently participating in a scheme on conservation grazing, provided answers.

 

The Top 4 preferred options are old acquaintances

The question we considered as the most important, dealt with potential options to provide farmers with additional payments for additional efforts. Six different options were listed, and each farmer could choose up to three favoured options.

The option that farmers point to as most interesting actually already existed earlier (albeit to a limited extent) in older versions of the Danish scheme for the management of grassland and natural areas. More than four out of ten farmers indicate that they would be interested in obtaining additional payment for small areas and areas with difficult access, i.e. areas with relatively high management costs.

The second most popular option is to get extra payments for more specific requirements. Again, this is an option previously available in the Danish scheme with differentiation according to, for example, the use of fertilisation and grazing pressure at different levels.

Thirdly, a little more than one in three farmers is interested in obtaining additional pay out for following a management plan for the contracted area. Today, management plans are already a reality for a number of farmers managing publicly owned land, but the support scheme is currently not directly linked to the plan. The most frequent model in these situations is that the authorities lease the land to the farmer and that the farmer holds the contracts on conservation grazing and gets the payment for this.

In fourth place is a bonus payment for maintaining areas of high nature value (HNV) according to the map of the Agricultural Agency. At present, aid is not differentiated according to the HNV-levels of the land, as the HNV feature is only used to determine whether land outside Natura 2000 areas is eligible for enrolment in conservation grazing schemes or not.

What about the rest?

Only slightly more than one farmer in five would opt for a scheme offering an additional payment when meeting certain nature quality indicators. Slightly fewer than one in five farmers would like to see a bonus payment for high local contract coverage (agglomeration bonus). The latter has been tried for a period of time with a small additional payment of 10% for local coverage of more than half of the eligible area.

Additionally, two thirds of the farmers are interested in improving the management of grasslands in the conservation grazing scheme to improve or secure the nature content. Apparently half of these farmers are even interested in improving management without additional payments.

Conclusions from the Danish Survey

Three observations can be made from the results presented here. Firstly, none of the presented options alone would be attractive for the majority of farmers. Secondly, the contract option featuring an individual management plan, developed in the Innovation Lab Bornholm, scores relatively high in the survey among the farmers from other parts of the country. Thirdly, the options with innovative elements, like results-based payments or collective implementation score relatively poor.

For further reference, see our survey results in the Graph below.

Bottom line…

…tweaking the existing schemes can bring about desired results in terms of conservation grassland management. Many farmers are generally interested in improving management to improve or secure the nature content of the grasslands under agreement. The Contract Innovation Lab on Bornholm suggests integrating the innovative approaches in the implementation of nature protection management plans in the agri-environmental schemes on conservation grazing under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The survey which also covers farmers’ views on other issues of agri-environmental programs (e.g. checks/controls, advisory services) is reported in Andersen, E.: Landmændenes syn på tilsagn om pleje af græs- og naturarealer (original, in Danish). A reviewed English translation is available here. 

How to utilize SWOT results in a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model

How to utilize SWOT results in a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model

by | Apr 8, 2022 | Results, Work progress

It is challenging to identify the deciding success factors for an effective and efficient implementation of collective agri-environmental schemes (AES). The relatively short implemantation phase of the  collective model as a nationwide scheme and the diversified environment around the different implementation levels make identifying success factors a rather complex task. We found no common indicators or quantitative data to compare agricultural collectives regarding their performance to realize their environmental targets. So the question for us was: How to make the performance in different cases easily comparable and thus identify the relating success factors via a Multi criteria Decision Making model?

The only available data to tackle this question was qualitative data collected in SWOT analyses at the beginning of the project. Each Contract Innovation Lab (CIL) was asked to complete a SWOT analysis assessing internal and external factors that affect the effective provision of environmental public goods. However, the challenge remained to simultaneously compare the results of several SWOT analyses and use them in a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model. To this end, we introduced a new technique: The SWOT scorecard (Rudolf and Udovč, 2022). Here we explain how we developed this new technique.

1. Preparing a decision tree for MCDM

In the first step of our modeling process, we created a decision tree, a decision support tool typically using a tree-like structure to visualize decisions and their potential consequences. We used an individual decision-making approach based on a qualitative analysis of the relevant literature. Using a hierarchical top-down approach, we identified the main goals and the corresponding attributes, criteria, and sub-criteria that should influence the synergy between aspects in the collective case studies.

The criteria are still being investigated and are not yet final. However, for testing the SWOT scorecard technique, they were appropriate.

2. From SWOT Scorecard to MCDM model

The following steps describe how the SWOT scorecard technique can be used to arrange qualitative data to feed into an MCDM DEX model.

Step 1: First, we organized descriptive SWOT results by criteria for every analyzed collective scheme, making sure to keep track of the origin of data (S, W, O, and T factors). This step gives us a set of so-called ‘prime input data.’

Step 2: We applied the SWOT scorecard technique, transforming the ‘prime input data’ with a formula to numeric results. The SWOT scorecard sums the importance of S, W, O, and T factors for the criteria.

Step 3: Transforming the SWOT scorecard results to a descriptive scale that can be used in the DEX model. This gives us options of values of basic attributes and is the input data for the DEX model.

Step 4: In the last step, the descriptive values are fed into the DEX model. The SWOT scorecard keeps track of the results from SWOT analysis. It considers the diversity of collective schemes, which results in the appearance of common variables that can be described with the same name. This is key for comparing the collective schemes regarding environmental public goods delivery. Furthermore, we get results of success factors for any number of collective AES.

3. Towards a decision support tool

The DEX model is a first step towards building a decision support tool for decision-makers dealing with the design and implementation of collective AES, who would like to understand better the success factors contributing to an improved provision of environmental public goods. We are now building a user-friendly interface that links our database and the DEX model to make it accessible for decision-makers.

For more detailed information, check our paper, which was published in Sustainability, vol. 14 (2), 2022.

Written by: Janja Rudolf, Biotechnical faculty, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)