Leaving oil underground in Ecuador: The Yasuní-ITT initiative from a multi-criteria perspective

Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation

“…The thresholds of preference and indifference in qualitatively assessed criteria are automatically established by NAIADE. The thresholds of the quantitatively valued criteria were, however, established (a) following that established in previous works [101,102]; (b) according to the maximum and minimum values of the different criteria and (c) according to the information obtained in the participatory process. Preference thresholds in quantitative criteria were established as follows: (a) Biodiversity, indifference (µ = 1000), weak indifference (µ ≈ 4000), preference/rejection (µ>; µ < 5000) and strong preference/strong rejection (µ>>; µ << 8000); (b) Landscape, indifference (µ = 400), weak indifference (µ ≈ 4000), preference/rejection (µ>; µ < 6000) and strong preference/strong rejection (µ>>; µ << 10,000); (c) Agrarian income, indifference (µ = 1000 €), weak indifference (µ ≈ 15,000 €), preference/rejection (µ>; µ < 25,000 €) and strong preference/strong rejection (µ>>; µ << 40,000 €); (d) Public cost, indifference (µ = 5000 €), weak indifference (µ ≈ 25,000 €), preference/rejection (µ>; µ < 50,000 €) and strong preference/strong rejection (µ>>; µ << 70,000 €).…”

Detecting the effects of hydrocarbon pollution in the Amazon forest using hyperspectral satellite images

“…Currently in Ecuador, the petroleum industry and its environmental/social interactions are at the centre of controversy since very sensitive regions and protected areas of this Amazon forest are under exploration and production (Marx, 2010;Martin, 2011;Vallejo et al, 2015).…”

Stranded Assets: A Climate Risk Challenge

“…However, the project collected only $13 million by 2013, so drilling for oil recommenced (Martinez-Alier, Bassey, and Bond 2013). This failure was seen to be a result of a series of challenges including limited financing, intense political pressure, a national commitment to oil, and the potential for carbon leakage (Sovacool and Scarpaci 2016;Vallejo et al 2015). In particular, it raised fears in the international community that the project could set a dangerous precedent of climate compensation claims while providing only temporary stranding.…”

“…The project attempted to "strand" these oil assets in order to protect biodiversity, respect the territory of indigenous peoples, combat climate change, and encourage more sustainable economic development (Sovacool and Scarpaci 2016). It was estimated that this could avoid carbon emissions of about 410 million tons of CO 2 (Vallejo et al 2015). Under the initiative, in exchange for not developing the oilfields Ecuador would forgo half of this reserve's potential oil revenues -at the time worth $3.6 billion -if it received the other half through international compensation based on donations placed in a trust administered by the United Nations (Caney 2016).…”