Avoiding academic and decorative planning in GHG emissions abatement studies with MCDA: : The Peruvian case

Abstract Climate change issues have been considered some of the most complex and messy situations which the decision sciences face. In the last decade many countries have carried out studies related to climate change mitigation. The relevance of the outcomes of such studies depends on how well technical analysis, the priorities of the decision makers and technical/political feasibility are integrated. This paper focuses on a framework suggested by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to study the costs and impacts of national policies for abating greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. It illustrates how the quest for the inclusion of MCDA assessment in national greenhouse abatement costing studies can, without departing from the established analysis framework, be a pretext to provide a process which enhances stakeholder participation, validation, and ownership of the planning process. Such a process was used in a national study in Peru.

[1]  Michel Godet,et al.  Integration of scenarios and strategic management: Using relevant, consistent and likely scenarios , 1990 .

[2]  F. Cheung,et al.  Distribution in China: A guide through the maze , 1995 .

[3]  Bertrand Mareschal,et al.  The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[4]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  Building public confidence in energy planning : a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas , 1997 .

[5]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning , 1992 .

[6]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making for leaders , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[7]  M. Godet.  From Anticipation to Action: A Handbook of Strategic Prospective , 1994 .

[8]  B. Roy.  Decision-aid and decision-making , 1990 .

[9]  Jonathan Rosenhead,et al.  What's the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods , 1996 .

[10]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[11]  O. Davidson,et al.  Climate change 2001 : mitigation , 2001 .

[12]  David Mercer,et al.  Scenarios made easy , 1995 .

[13]  Kirsten Halsnæs,et al.  Comparable assessment of national GHG abatement costs , 1994 .

[14]  B. Hobbs,et al.  Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison , 1994 .

[15]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[16]  Alan Pearman,et al.  Model choice in multicriteria decision aid , 1997 .

[17]  Kirsten Halsnæs.  The economics of climate change mitigation in developing countries , 1996 .

[18]  H. S. Becker,et al.  Scenarios: A tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry , 1983 .

[19]  Risø Withauthor,et al.  UNEP greenhouse gas abatement costing studies. Analysis of abatement costing issues and preparation of a methodology to undertake national greenhouse gas abatement costing studies. Phase two. Appendix: Guidelines , 1994 .

[20]  Lene Tolstrup Sørensen,et al.  Strategic approaches to climate change at country level - focusing on greehouse abatement , 1998 .

[21]  Henry Mintzberg.  The rise and fall of strategic planning , 1993 .

[22]  V. Belton.  A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function , 1986 .

[23]  W. D. Keyser,et al.  A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods , 1996 .

[24]  J. Bruce,et al.  Climate change, 1995 : economic and social dimensions of climate change , 1997 .