• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
3-The SHARE main objective
 

3-The SHARE main objective

on

  • 714 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
714
Views on SlideShare
342
Embed Views
372

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 372

http://www.share-alpinerivers.eu 365
http://www.sharealpinerivers.eu 5
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.arpa.vda.it 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    3-The SHARE main objective 3-The SHARE main objective Presentation Transcript

    • 3. The main objective of SHARE
    • The main objective of SHARE
      • The project intends to develop, test and promote a decision support system to merge, on an unprejudiced basis, river ecosystems and hydropower requirements .
      • This approach will be led using existing scientific tools , adjustable to transnational, national and local regulations and carried out by a permanent panel of administrators and stakeholders .
          • The methodological “core” of the project will be the application of the MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS ( MCA ).
      • The MCA will be used as a “ balance ” for evaluating conflicting river management alternatives .
      The main objective of SHARE
    • Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) & SHARE
      • The MCA allows analysis of the problem through an evaluative process based on 3 fundamental questions :
          • WHAT to evaluate? – different ALTERNATIVES of management
          • HOW to evaluate? – using CRITERIA , INDICATORS and CAUSAL FACTORS
          • WHO is involved? – different STAKEHOLDERS
    • Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) & SHARE
      • It’s possible to break the problem into more manageable pieces, the CRITERIA and the INDICATORS , that fully describe it.
      • It’s possible to analyze how they respond to the different ALTERNATIVES (what are the possibilities, what could be made, etc.).
      • “ THE MCA IS A TOOL THAT HELPS THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS BUT IT DOESN’T TAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS BY ITSELF”
    • MCA: how does it work?
          • Identification of the MCA objective and the stakeholders involved
          • Identification of different alternatives to be considered
          • Identification of criteria and indicators (coming also from regulations)
          • Indicator implementation and assessment of Utility Functions (hard & soft information)
          • Criteria weighting (with different stakeholder contributions)
          • Performance evaluation of each alternative
          • Sensitivity analysis (influence of uncertainty on alternative performance)
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
      PROBLEM 1. Identification of objectives and stakeholders involved
      • What is the problem to be solved with MCA?
      • Who are the potential STAKEHOLDERS OF SHARE ?
          • Public administrators
          • HP producers
          • Farmers, fishermen & stockmen
          • Tourism operators
          • Local communities and associations
      1. Identification of objectives and stakeholders involved
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT NO WATER ABSTRACTION WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
      Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES PROBLEM 2. Identification of different alternatives
      • The ALTERNATIVES are the management possibilities, including experimental choices to select and adopt.
      • There are not “ A PRIORI ” ALTERNATIVES , but it’s fundamental to “ IDENTIFY ” them.
      • Potential SHARE ALTERNATIVES:
          • No new water withdrawal
          • New water withdrawal (or empowerment of existing plant)
          • New water withdrawal (or empowerment of existing plant) BUT :
          • with another location of the plant
          • with different % of requested water quantity “ Qreq ”
          • with fixed MIF / with modulated MIF
          • with underground pipes , …
          • with sediment release control plan and monitoring
          • including river restoration & mitigation activities (even located in other contexts), perequative measures targeted on mountain communities,
      2. Identification of different alternatives
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
      Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES PROBLEM 2. Identification of different alternatives
      • Every ALTERNATIVE is detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS , that are INDICATORS describing the alternatives’ effect on STATUS INDICATORS : in other words, each Causal Factor is directly linked to status indicators modifying their values.
      • Possible CAUSAL FACTORS for each SHARE ALTERNATIVE :
          • Downstream average water height (“river stage”)
          • Visual impact
          • Mesohabitat availability
          • Bankfull width
          • Underground watertable level
          • Requested Q max
          • Requested Q med
          • Local financial outcomes
      2. Identification of different alternatives
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT HP PRODUCTION OTHER CRITERION RIVER CONSERVATION NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
            • Fully describe the specific case through CRITERIA
      Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM 3. Identification of criteria and indicators
      • The CRITERIA represent the “ MAJOR FIELDS OF INTEREST ” to be considered.
    • 3. Identification of criteria and indicators
      • Which could be the SHARE CRITERIA ?
          • River conservation
          • Energy production
          • Sustainable water use
          • Financial outcomes
          • Hydrogeological risk
          • Landscape
          • Tourist Fruition
          • Farming and breeding
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT HP PRODUCTION OTHER CRITERION RIVER CONSERVATION ANNUAL POWER PRODUCED LIM FISH FAUNA INDICATOR x INDICATOR y IBE MACROPHYTES NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH POWER INSTALLED
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
            • Fully describe the specific case through CRITERIA
            • Fully describe each CRITERION through INDICATORS
      Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM 3. Identification of criteria and indicators
      • Every criterion is defined by its own indicators .
      • A CORRECT COMPROMISE must be reached BETWEEN the NUMBER and UTILITY of indicators.
      • Criteria and indicators form a hierarchical structure called a decision tree .
    • 4. Assessment of Utility Functions
      • Indicators can be very different from the point of view of typology, measure units etc …
      • HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO “ COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES ”?
      • The NORMALIZATION process makes the data homogeneous and operable. Through this process, the INDICATORS lose their dimension and BECOME COMPARABLE to one another because they are TRANSFORMED into RELATIVE VALUES .
      • This transformation is done by building a UTILITY FUNCTION .
      • The UTILITY FUNCTION is a curve that assigns to each value of the INDICATOR a corresponding RELATIVE VALUE SCORE of preference/utility, between 0 and 1 .
    • 4. Assessment of Utility Functions
          • Let’s consider the “ Benthic Macroinvertebrates ” indicator, measured by means of the IBE - Indice Biotico Esteso – (Ghetti, 1997)
          • The components considered by IBE are:
      PRESENCE OF VULNERABLE SYSTEMATIC UNITS ( VSU )= it considers the presence of one or more sensitive systematic units according to the indications and the order indicated in the Chart. NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC UNITS ( NSU )= total number of systematic units that compose the benthic macroinvertebrate community; Faunistic Groups Total number of Systematic Units (U.S.) constituting the community 0 - 1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 Plecoptera ( Leuctra° ) More than one U.S. / / 8 9 10 11 12 13 Only one U.S. / / 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ephemeroptera (Baetidae and Caenidae°°) More than one U.S. / / 7 8 9 10 11 12 Only one U.S. / / 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tricoptera More than one U.S. / 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Only one U.S. / 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gammaridae, Attidae, Palemonidae All the below U.S. absent / 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Asellidae All the below U.S. absent / 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oligochaeta o Chironomidae All the below U.S. absent 1 2 3 4 5 / / / All the previous Taxa absent There could be some organisms with aerial respiration 0 1 / / / / / /
    • 4. Assessment of Utility Functions
          • The result of the IBE application is a numerical value of the index that can be translated into 5 levels of biological quality as shown below:
      IBE Quality Ranks
          • The “ reference conditions ” for the IBE is the status corresponding to the “ Level 1 ”
      LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 I.B.E. (score) > 10 8 – 9 6 – 7 4 – 5 1, 2, 3 INDICATOR INDICATOR VALUE VALUATION IBE < 3,5 BAD IBE 3,5 - 5,5 SUBSTANDARD IBE 5,5 - 7,5 SUFFICIENT IBE 7,5 - 9,5 GOOD IBE > 9,5 HIGH
    • 4. Assessment of Utility Functions
          • The Utility Function ( UF ) expresses the same step classification of the methodology
            • f = v(a)
            • a = average (IBE i y ) of the reference period
            • i = the season
            • y = the year of sampling
      Max value of the indicator (typically corresponding to the Reference Status) UF max value INDICATOR INDICATOR VALUE NORMALISED SCORE VALUATION IBE < 3,5 0 BAD IBE 3,5-5,5 0,25 SUBSTANDARD IBE 5,5-7,5 0,50 SUFFICIENT IBE 7,5-9,5 0,75 GOOD IBE >9,5 1 HIGH
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT HP PRODUCTION OTHER CRITERION RIVER CONSERVATION ANNUAL POWER PRODUCED LIM FISH FAUNA INDICATOR x INDICATOR y IBE MACROPHYTES NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,3 0,2 POWER INSTALLED 0,4 0,4 0,2
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
            • Fully describe the specific case through CRITERIA
            • Fully describe each CRITERION through INDICATORS
      Assign a WEIGHT to each indicator / criterion indicating its importance in relation to the others Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM 5. Criteria weighting
      • CRITERIA are generally characterized by different levels of importance that must be necessarily included in the evaluation.
      • This is obtained by assigning a “ WEIGHT ” to each indicator and to each criterion.
          • The weight is a relative value assigned to a criterion / indicator that indicates its relative importance among the other criteria / indicators considered.
    • (0.66*0.50) + (0.33*0.75)=0.577 CRITERION STATUS INDICATORS SUB-NDICATORS weight indicator value weight indicator value
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT HP PRODUCTION OTHER CRITERION RIVER CONSERVATION ANNUAL POWER PRODUCED LIM FISH FAUNA INDICATOR x INDICATOR y IBE MACROPHYTES NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,3 0,2 POWER INSTALLED 0,4 0,4 0,2
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
            • Fully describe the specific case through CRITERIA
            • Fully describe each CRITERION through INDICATORS
      Assign a WEIGHT to each indicator / criterion indicating its importance in relation to the others
            • ASSESS/ CALCULATE the EFFECTS of each alternative on the specific case
      Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM 6. “Performance” evaluation of each alternative
      • In this phase/step the effects of each alternative on the specific case is assessed/calculated
    • page Graz - Austria, 9th April 2010 i.e. NEW HP PLANT HP PRODUCTION OTHER CRITERION RIVER CONSERVATION ANNUAL POWER PRODUCED LIM FISH FAUNA INDICATOR x INDICATOR y IBE MACROPHYTES NO WATER ABSTRACTION AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION as required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH WATER ABSTRACTION limited to 80% of amount required from HP project AVERAGE RESIDUAL INSTREAM FLOW RIVER LENGTH 0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,8 0,7 0,3 0,2 POWER INSTALLED 0,4 0,4 0,2
            • Identify the SPECIFIC CASE
            • Fully describe the specific case through CRITERIA
            • Fully describe each CRITERION through INDICATORS
      Assign a WEIGHT to each indicator / criterion indicating its importance in relation to the others
            • ASSESS/ CALCULATE the EFFECTS of each alternative on the specific case
      Alternatives are detailed by one or more CAUSAL FACTORS Identify different possible management ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ASSESSMENT EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ALTERNATIVES SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PROBLEM Summarizing..
    • 7. Sensitivity Analysis
      • Available information could be UNCERTAIN or INACCURATE because of possible conceptual or measurement errors.
      • The sensitivity analysis is a sort of “ BACK ANALYSIS ” to define HOW and HOW MUCH these possible errors influence the final result of the evaluation.
      • The SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS evaluates the ROBUSTNESS of the alternatives ranking with respect to the approximation of UTILITY FUNCTIONS , SCORES and above all WEIGHTS .
    • 7. Sensitivity Analysis
      • In the SHARE MCA there are 2 typologies of SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS :
          • FOR THE CRITERIA : some decision criteria are added or deleted  it’s used for checking if fundamental criteria are missing;
          • FOR THE WEIGHT (the most applied): the weights of some indicators could be changed  this allows for the determination of the influence of any indicator on the final decision.
    • Why to use multi-criteria analysis?
          • SYNTHESIS : it allows summarization of complex information
          • RATIONALITY : it organizes data in a structured way
          • PARTICIPATION : it helps the dialogue on concrete parameters
          • MULTIOBJECTIVE : it allows consideration of several alternatives
          • TRANSPARENCY : the weights are explicit
          • FLEXIBILITY : it allows consideration of different alternatives, criteria, indicators and weights tailored on each specific local, regional and national situation
          • REPEATABILITY : the MCA process can be carried out backward and forward enhancing decision quality
          • FREE : the software for the MCA application is free
          • REGULATION COMPLIANT
          • EX-ANTE & EX-POST : it’s a tool for use in planning and managing