No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in SummaryThis paper presents the NetSyMoD approach -where NetSyMod stands for Network Analysis -Creative System Modelling -Decision Support. It represents the outcome of several years of research at FEEM in the field of natural resources management, environmental evaluation and decision-making, within the Natural Resources Management Research Programme. NetSyMoD is a flexible and comprehensive methodological framework, which uses a suite of support tools, aimed at facilitating the involvement of stakeholders or experts in decision-making processes. The main phases envisaged for the process are: (i) the identification of relevant actors, (ii) the analysis of social networks, (iii) the creative system modelling and modelling of the reality being considered (i.e. the local socio-economic and environmental system), and (iv) the analysis of alternative options available for the management of the specific case (e.g. alternative projects, plans, strategies). The strategies for participation are necessarily context-dependent, and thus not all the NetSyMod phases may be needed in every application. Furthermore, the practical solutions for their implementation may significantly differ from one case to another, depending not only on the context, but also on the available resources (human and financial). The various applications of NetSyMoD have nonetheless in common the same approach for problem analysis and communication within a group of actors, based upon the use of creative thinking techniques, the formalisation of human-environment relationships through the DPSIR framework, and the use of multi-criteria analysis through the mDSS software.

Various tools and approaches have been experimented worldwide to address the externalities arising from agricultural activities, among which the design of agri-environmental policies and the introduction of specific measures to cope with the environmental impacts of agricultural origin. The mechanisms adopted within the Common Agricultural Policy with such aim fall within the category of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AESs), which are market-based policy schemes aimed at providing farmers with the right incentives to adopt farming practices yielding positive environmental externalities and are based on voluntary participation. Given the intrinsic complexity of agro-ecosystems and the effects of farmers' behaviour, the assessment of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of AESs is always challenging, and often both the environmental and economic role of AESs are questionable. The main objective of this paper is to present a framework for assessing the effectiveness of AESs in promoting social and environmental sustainability in Europe, based on experts' knowledge. Experts' knowledge, acquired through adequate elicitation strategies and managed with robust and transparent methodologies, can help building a system of information that can then be used to infer the effectiveness of agri-environmental measures, at least in comparative terms, if not in terms of quantitative absolute estimations. In the present study, the NetSyMoD framework approach has been adopted. First, a short introduction of the policy evaluation framework, the role of monitoring and performance indicators and of experts' opinion is provided. Subsequently the methodology used to identify experts and to elicit their assessment on the effectiveness of AES schemes is presented. Finally, the paper provides a concrete example in which experts' opinions have been used for the assessment exercise, and presents a framework for collecting, managing and integrating different opinions with quantitative indicators.