Implications of indicator aggregation methods for global change vulnerability reduction efforts

Oliveira, Elia Machado de; Ratick, Samuel J.

doi:10.1007/s11027-017-9775-7

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is because when using aggregation approaches, one risks having a subset of performance metrics dictating the overall performance of a policy, without knowing a priori which one will be the dictatorial metric (Franssen, 2005). Hence, some authors appeal to keeping the metrics disaggregated (Kasprzyk et al, 2016; Machado & Ratick, 2018; Watkiss, 2011). This approach is often found in simulation‐based IAMs.…”

Section: Recent Practices In Incorporating Justice In Model‐based Climate Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Jafino

Kwakkel

Taebi

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models for supporting climate adaptation and mitigation planning, mostly in the form of Integrated Assessment Models, are poorly equipped for aiding questions related to fairness of adaptation and mitigation strategies, because they often disregard distributional outcomes. When evaluating policies using such models, the costs and benefits are typically aggregated across all actors in the system, and over the entire planning horizon. While a policy may be beneficial when considering the aggregate outcome, it can be harmful to some people, somewhere, at some point in time. The practice of aggregating over all actors and over time thus gives rise to problems of justice; it could also exacerbate existing injustices. While the literature discusses some of these injustices in ad‐hoc and case specific manner, a systematic approach for considering distributive justice in model‐based climate change planning is lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by proposing 11 requirements that an Integrated Assessment Model should meet in order to enable the assessment of distributive justice in climate mitigation and adaptation policies. We derive the requirements from various ethical imperatives stemming from the theory of distributive justice. More specifically, we consider both intra‐generational (among people within one generation) and intergenerational (between generations) distributive justice. We investigate to what extent the 11 requirements are being met in recent model‐based climate planning studies, and highlight several directions for future research to advance the accounting for distributive justice in model‐based support for climate change planning. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice

show abstract

Section: Recent Practices In Incorporating Justice In Model‐based Climate Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Jafino

Kwakkel

Taebi

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The best aggregation function implies a principal component analysis (PCA)-based selection of indicators and a weighted geometric mean of subindices. Machado and Ratick [23] consider the sensitivity of a composite index of vulnerability to flooding with respect to four aggregation rules-weighted linear combination (WLC), ordered weighted average (OWA), DEA, and compromise programming (CP). Salvati and Zitti [24] focus on land degradation by applying the land vulnerability index (LVI).…”

Section: State-of-the-art Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

To Weight or Not to Weight, That Is the Question: The Design of a Composite Indicator of Landscape Fragmentation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composite indicators (CIs), i.e., combinations of many indicators in a unique synthetizing measure, are useful for disentangling multisector phenomena. Prominent questions concern indicators’ weighting, which implies time-consuming activities and should be properly justified. Landscape fragmentation (LF), the subdivision of habitats in smaller and more isolated patches, has been studied through the composite index of landscape fragmentation (CILF). It was originally proposed by us as an unweighted combination of three LF indicators for the study of the phenomenon in Sardinia, Italy. In this paper, we aim at presenting a weighted release of the CILF and at developing the Hamletian question of whether weighting is worthwhile or not. We focus on the sensitivity of the composite to different algorithms combining three weighting patterns (equalization, extraction by principal component analysis, and expert judgment) and three indicators aggregation rules (weighted average mean, weighted geometric mean, and weighted generalized geometric mean). The exercise provides the reader with meaningful results. Higher sensitivity values signal that the effort of weighting leads to more informative composites. Otherwise, high robustness does not mean that weighting was not worthwhile. Weighting per se can be beneficial for more acceptable and viable decisional processes.

show abstract

“…In particular, using the general vulnerability metrics, V = f (E, S , AC ), quantitative studies within the area of climate change adaptation policy (c.f. Machado & Ratick, 2018; Monterroso & Conde, 2018) assess the extent of vulnerability to socioeconomic and institutional capacity to climate risks with either a composite index or a construction from measurable indicators.…”

Section: Multilevel Governance Vulnerability‐readiness Nexus and Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel Climate Governance, Anticipatory Adaptation, and the Vulnerability‐Readiness Nexus

Kim

Marcouiller

Woosnam

2021

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adapting to the social, economic, environmental, and health threats resulting from climate change requires successful multilevel governance and improved decision‐making processes. In this study, we evaluate explanatory relationships that support climate change adaptation. Based on the existing literature, we develop and apply a mixed‐methods approach to examine refined drivers of the vulnerability‐readiness nexus. This study examines the context of multilevel governance and the role of anticipatory adaptation in coping with climate risks at the county level in the U.S. Mississippi River Basin between 1990 and 2010. Our focus is on adaptation to climate change within the context of multilevel governance. Our results suggest that anticipatory adaptation and higher levels of regional capacities are particularly effective in adapting to climate change.

show abstract

Implications of indicator aggregation methods for global change vulnerability reduction efforts

Cited by 17 publications

References 78 publications

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda

To Weight or Not to Weight, That Is the Question: The Design of a Composite Indicator of Landscape Fragmentation

Multilevel Climate Governance, Anticipatory Adaptation, and the Vulnerability‐Readiness Nexus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About