Evaluation and decision support for sustainable development in rural areas:
case study for agri-environmental measures
Dr. Jadwiga Ziolkowska
Humboldt University of BerlinChair for Agricultural Policy
Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo, Egypt
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem setting and research objectives1.2 Agri-environmental issues in Poland
2. Methodology
2.1 Methods and data 2.2 Case study in the region Subcarpathia2.3 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)2.4 Linear Programming (LP)
3. Results
3.1 Synthesized priorities for agri-environmental measures (AHP)3.2 Objective-oriented financing of agri-environmental measures (LP)
4. Conclusions
Content
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Problem setting and research objectives
Research objectives
1. How to support decision-making and evaluation of agri-environ-mental policies with quantitative and qualitative approaches?
2. How to allocate the available budget to best meet environmental and sustainable development objectives in rural areas?
3. How important is involving different stakeholders in evaluationand policy design?
Problem issues
1. Little experience with evaluation of the agri-environmental policy in Poland => new since the EU accession in May 2004
2. 80% co-financing from the EAGGF (2004-2006)
3. Descriptive evaluation => statistical data
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
1990 „National Environmental Policy“
1997 Project „Green Lungs of Poland“
1999 SAPARD and Phare‘99
2004-2006 National Agri-Environmental Programme (348,9 Mio. €)
2007-2013 Agri-environmental programmes supported from European Agricultural Fund for Development of Rural Areas (2,3 Mrd. €)
Agri-environmental issues in Poland
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Sustainable Agriculture
Organic Farming
Extensive meadow farming
Extensive pasture farming
Soil and water protection
Buffer zones
Domestic farm animal species
Plan for Development of Rural Areas (PROW)
2004 - 2006
... ... ... National Agri-Environmental
Programme
...
National Agri-Environmental Programme in Poland
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
1. Primary data: case study in the voivodship Subcarpathia
Methods and data
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
- Employment rate in agriculture: ca. 47%
- Farm size on average: 3,5 ha
- Differentiated natural conditions, protected areas => „Carpathian Euro-region“
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
1. Primary data: case study in the voivodship Subcarpathia
=> Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) according to Saaty
- 8 agricultural administration experts
- 26 agri-environmental advisors
- 100 farmers
2. Secondary data: MRiRW, ARiMR
3. Linear Programming approach according to Kirschke and Jechlitschka (2002) => objective-oriented budget allocation
Methods and data
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
AHP-approach according to Saaty
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7M1 1 aM1M2 aM1M3 aM1M4 aM1M5 aM1M6 aM1M7
M2 1/aM1M2 1 aM2M3 aM2M4 aM2M5 aM2M6 aM2M7
M3 1/aM1M3 1/aM2M3 1 aM3M4 aM3M5 aM3M6 aM3M7
M4 1/aM1M4 1/aM2M4 1/aM3M4 1 aM4M5 aM4M6 aM4M7
M5 1/aM1M5 1/aM2M5 1/aM3M5 1/aM4M5 1 aM5M6 aM5M7
M6 1/aM1M6 1/aM2M6 1/aM3M6 1/aM4M6 1/aM5M6 1 aM6M7
M7 1/aM1M7 1/aM2M7 1/aM3M7 1/aM4M7 1/aM5M7 1/aM6M7 1
Point scale Definition1/9 Extremely less important1/7 Demonstratively less important1/5 Strongly less important1/3 Moderately less important1 Equally important3 Moderately more important5 Strongly more important7 Demonstratively more important9 Extremely more important
Agri-environment
Objective 2:
Biodiversity
Level 1: Main objective
Level 2:Criteria
Sustainable agriculture
Soil and water protection
Organic farming
Buffer zonesExtensive meadow farming
Extensive pasture farming
Domestic farm animal species
Level 3: Alternatives
Objective 3:
Cultural landscape
Objective 1:
Natural resources
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Objective function:
i
n
1ii33i
n
1ii22i
n
1ii11
BA...,,BABAzBAzBAzZmax
n1
Constraints:
0005002BAn
1ii
n
1iii 0005002BA*a
n
1iii 00020BA*b
n...,,1ifür0BA i
Negativity constraint:+
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Synthesized priorities for agri-environmental measures (AHP)
0
5
10
15
20
25
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Natural resources Biodiversity Cultural landscape
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Natural resources Biodiversity Cultural landscape
Agricultural experts
Farmers
Agri-environmental advisors
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
Natural resources Biodiversity Cultural landscape
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Linear Programminig for the voivodship SubcarpathiaModel-Inputmatrix
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
1.Sustainable
agriculture (M1)
Organic farming
(M2)
Extensive meadow farming
(M3)
Extensive pasture farming
(M4)
Soil and water protection (M5)
Puffer zones (M6)
Domestic farm animal species
(M7)Sum
2. Current allocation 143,7 733,7 1435,9 142,8 571,3 1,1 56,3 3084,8 Current allocation (Thousand €)
3.Optimal allocation -
experts48,3 79,8 1114,4 0,0 1142,6 2,2 112,7 2500,0
4.Optimal allocation - agri-environmental advisors
207,1 110,0 2182,9 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2500,0
5. Optimal allocation - farmers
287,3 105,4 2107,3 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 2500,0
6.Objective coefficients -
experts12,4 16,7 12,7 12,5 16,9 14,8 13,9 Objective coefficients aggregated
7.Objective coefficients -
agri-environmental advisors
15,2 22,8 21,1 18,6 7,8 6,3 8,2 Objective coefficients aggregated
8.Objective coefficients -
farmers18,4 22,9 18,1 16,2 10,2 6,8 7,5 Objective coefficients aggregated
9. Upper bounds 287,3 1467,4 2871,7 285,6 1142,6 2,2 112,7 6169,6
10. Lower bounds 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
11. Income loses 1,0 4,1 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,9 2500,0
12. Farming area 29,4 5,3 6,1 12,6 9,9 0,0 0,0 20000Lower bound for the farming area (ha)
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Optimal budget allocation
Source: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Sustainableagriculture
Organicfarming
Extensivemeadowfarming
Extensivepasturefarming
Soil and w aterprotection
Buffer zones Domestic farmanimal species
in T
ho
usa
nd
€
Experts Agri-environmental advisors Farmers
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Difference to the current allocation
Source: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
-900
-600
-300
0
300
600
900
Sustainableagriculture
Organicfarming
Extensivemeadowfarming
Extensivepasturefarming
Soil and w aterprotection
Buffer zones Domestic farmanimal species
in T
ho
usa
nd
€
Experts Agri-environmental advisors Farmers
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Agricultural experts
Source: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
0
300
600
900
1200
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
in T
ho
us
an
d €
Sustainable agriculture Organic farmingExtensive meadow farming Extensive pasture farmingSoil and water protection Buffer zonesDomestic farm animal species
(100 %) Natural resources <------ weight ------> Biodiversity (100 %)
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, CairoSource: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
Agri-environmental advisors
0
600
1200
1800
2400
3000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
in T
ho
us
an
d €
Sustainable agriculture Organic farmingExtensive meadow farming Extensive pasture farmingSoil and water protection Buffer zonesDomestic farm animal species
(100 %) Natural resources <------ weight ------> Biodiversity (100 %)
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, CairoSource: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
2100
2400
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
in T
hous
and
€
Sustainable agriculture Organic farmingExtensive meadow farming Extensive pasture farmingSoil and water protection Buffer zonesDomestic farm animal species
(100 %) Natural resources <------ weight ------> Biodiversity (100 %)
Farmers
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, CairoSource: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
0
15000
30000
45000
60000
1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750
Constraint of farmers' income losses in Thousand €
En
vir
on
me
nta
l be
ne
fit
Experts Agri-environmental advisors Farmers
Environmental benefit subject to income losses
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, CairoSource: Author’s calculation
Linear Programming for the voivodship Subcarpathia
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Constraint of farmers' income losses in % of the basis scenario
in %
Experts Agri-environmental advisors Farmers
Changes of environmental benefit subject to income losses
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Conclusions and outlook
1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. Conclusions
- The optimal budget allocation differs between the actor groups => reallocation of the available budget necessary
- The budget allocation is highly dependent on the estimated priorities
- Weighting objectives only slightly influences budget expenditures on the agri-environmental measures
- Consideration of different stakeholders and different priorities necessary for more objective-oriented financing and planning
- The AHP and LP are proved as useful tolls in an interactive decision-making process
Ziolkowska, Perspectives on Impact Evaluation, March 29 – April 02 2009, Cairo
Thank you !Thank you!
