You are here: Home / Case studies / SE3 - Guadiana basin
case: SE3 location: Guadiana basin (Spain) sectors: Agriculture and livestock; Water resources


Which question has been addressed in this step?

Appraising options: Which options are preferred by stakeholders?

Case step navigator: click any node to select the respective step

Why has this question been chosen?

  • To have a quantified impact of adaptations options that will facilitate the selection of the preferred ones by the stakeholders.
  • Policy makers and regional planners are interested in knowing which CC adaptation options are preferred by stakeholders. [Adaptation situation: public]
  • The farmers want to know which would be the best on-farm strategies and farming operations to adapt to climate change.

Which methods have been applied?

  • Stakeholder consultation and application of a participatory multicriteria method: the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Stakeholder preferences will be evaluated through assigning weights to the different criteria. Based on the previous step, data collection and modeling, SH will dispose of additional information (indicators) to support these criteria.
  • Four OPTIONS were identified based on the authors' expertise and stakeholder advice:
    • Option 1. Improving technical efficiency in the use of water
    • Option 2. Increasing reservoir storage capacity
    • Option 3. Choosing species and crop varieties best suited to the new climate conditions:
    • Option 4. Creation of agricultural insurance systems.
  • The following criteria were identified:
    • Criterion 1: Legal and political implementation feasibility
    • Criterion 2: Capacity to generate employment
    • Criterion 3: Financial feasibility
    • Criterion 4: Increase in farm income
    • Criterion 5: Speed of implementation
    • Criterion 6: Protection of environmental resources
  • A questionnaire filled out by relevant stakeholders in the Guadiana Basin. 20 interviews, 4 kinds of respondent: policymakers, farmers, environmental NGOs and academics, and were chosen by the research team following previous stakeholder mappings.

Why have these methods been selected?

  • AHP allows selection of adaptation options, including stakeholder views in the identification of those options and in the selection of decision criteria.
  • Through this participatory decision-making process, we will ensure that selected strategies are relevant and socially acceptable for stakeholders.
  • Adequate to find out stakeholders' preferences. Past experience of other research projects on the same basin. The AHP method has already been used for similar problems

What results have been obtained?

  • "Choice of new crop varieties best suited to the new climate conditions" and "Improving technical efficiency in the use of water" virtually tie for first weighing 34,6% and 34,5% respectively. "Creation of agricultural insurance systems" ranks third with 18,3% and "Increase reservoir storage capacity" ranks fourth with 12,5%.
  • Poor performance of "Increase reservoir storage capacity" is due to is being highly controversial and criticized by most respondents, due to high cost and large environmental impact, even though it was envisaged to generate employment. All groups except farmers ranked this option at the bottom.

Reflections on this step




Toolbox detail page(s) available for methods and tools applied in this case step:

Socio-Institutional Network Mapping
Multicriteria Analysis (MCA)

Details on this case study step

[no further details on this step available]