1. Multi-criteria decision analysis A case study for livestock farming N. Hasnain, H.M. ApSimon, T. Oxley Centre of Integrated Assessment, Imperial College

2. Simplified architecture of integrated assessment models Emissions NAEI Emissions NAEI, CLRTAP, Gothenburg Atmospheric Transport Deposition footprints, Frame (CEH) Abatement Costs Cost curves, MARACCAS, RAINS, NARSES Environmental Criteria Ecosystem exceedance, health (CEH Monks Wood) weightings Source - receptor matrices Abatement Optimisation UKIAM, Imperial College Modified from Oxley et al. 2003

3. Output of integrated assessment models Courtesy Tom Misselbrook, North Wyke Research, 2008

4. Multi-criteria analysis- widening the analysis? Ammonia abatement from livestock Stakeholders Options Criteria Performance of option Weighting of criteria Analysis

5. Selection of options for 2020 Success in meeting target Certainty high low Option A Option D Option C Option B Option D: Cost-effective measures going beyond target Option A: Current legislation Option B:Extended current legislation Option C: Most cost-effective measures to meet target

6. Criteria for decision making Ammonia reduction policy Environmental Ecosystem protected Health index Greenhouse gases Nitrate leaching Feasibility Emission ceiling attained Affordability Externalities WTP Land usage Water usage

7. Performance of option on criteria: Environmental Environmental Ecosystem protected Health indexGHGs Nitrate leaching Option A: Current legislation Option B: Extended current legislation Option C: Most cost-effective measures to meet target Option D: Cost-effective measures going beyond target D A A C CB B C B B C D 0100 A (=0) D(=0) A (=0)

8. Performance of option on criteria: Feasibility Feasibility Attainment of ceiling Affordability Option A: Current legislation Option B: Extended current legislation Option C: Most cost-effective measures to meet target Option D: Cost-effective measures going beyond target

9. Performance of option on criteria: Externalities Externalities Willingness to pay Land usage Water usage Option A: Current legislation Option B: Extended current legislation Option C: Most cost-effective measures to meet target Option D: Cost-effective measures going beyond target B,A(=0)C D A,B,C,D(=0)

10. Weightings Weight each criteria with respect to overall goal Aggregate performance and weight to get overall value for each option

11. Results: Contribution by criteria

12. Results: Sensitivity analysis How sensitive is the final choice to the weightings given? 0.7 Priority value Decision score 0.0 1.0 Alternatives: Option D: Cost-effective measures going beyond target Option C: Most cost-effective measures to meet target Option A: Current legislation Option B: Extended current legislation Current value: 0.11 Cross-over value: 0.17

13. Externalities Consumer behaviour Other policy options »Low N feed, incentives, disincentive Aggregation: National to local level Future work Thank you