Interactive design of regional adaptation strategies. Tessa Eikelboom, Ron Janssen. June Appendix 1 Results Experimental workshops Friesland

Transcription

1 Interactive design of regional adaptation strategies Appendix 1 Results Experimental workshops Friesland Tessa Eikelboom, Ron Janssen June 2013 Appendix 1 Results Experimental workshops Friesland Appendix 2 Overview of results Appendix 3 Results in Tables Appendix 4. Results questionnaires (in Dutch) Appendix 5. Presentation Jos Verhoeven 1

2 Interactive design of regional adaptation strategies Appendix 1 Results Experimental workshops Friesland Objective of the workshop is to assess the usefulness of interactive tools to support design of regional adaptation strategies. Two experimental workshops were organized to evaluate multiple interactive spatial tools in a controlled setting. The first workshop was organized for researchers involved in projects dealing with adaptation in fen meadow areas in the Netherlands. The second workshop was organized for regional planners. A list of participants is included in Table 1.Tools were tested in an experimental setting to make it possible to compare multiple tools supporting the same task. As an interface between tools and participants we used an interactive mapping device (Surface). In both workshops we ran two parallel groups on two separate tables. The program for both workshops was the same. This provided us with four sets of results for comparison. A full set of these results can be found in Appendix 2. Expected output of the workshops: Assessment of performance and perceived usefullness of the tools Points for improvement of the tools; Usefullness of the tools for specific tasks in the adapation planning process. Ideas for new tools The workshops included five rounds. Each round is designed to test the support of a specific task (Table 1).. Table 1 Overview workshop rounds Round Tasks Tools 0 Welcome/Introduction study site Locate and evaluate adaption measures Allocation and assessment tool Explore relations between soil subsidence, land Interactieve design tool use and groundwater levels 3 Explore trade-offs between agriculture, soil and Interactieve design and evaluation tool nature Negotiation maximizing objective values 1a Traffic Light Tool (5 classes) 1b Traffic Light Tool (3 classes) 1c Traffic Light Tool (20% best/worst obj.value) 5a Negotiation maximizing stakeholder values. 2 Traffic Light Tool (20% best/worst sh.value) b Negotiation maximizing total values 3 Optimal change tool ) 2

3 Researchers table 1 Researchers Table 2 Planners Table 1 Planners Table 2 Figure 1 Participants of the two workshops Table 2 List of participants Jan Vermaat Vrije Universiteit Peter Pelzer Universiteit UtrechtU Jos Verhoeven Universiteit Utrecht Jan van de Akker Alterra Cees Kwakernaak Alterra Monique de Groot DHV/WUR Monique Slegers Knowledge for Climate Theo Stewart Universitair of Cape Town Marc Nederhof Menno Laan Ignas Dummer Ron Franken Erik Jansen Theo Vogelzang Johan Kolk Wetterskip Fryslan Provincie Zuid Holland Larenstein Leeuwarden Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving Innovatiecentrum Groene Hart Landbouw Economisch Instituut Hoogheemraadschap van Rijnland 3

4 Background maps available in all rounds. Map 1 Current land use 4

5 Map 2 Current soil subsidence Map 3 Current mean lowest groundwater level (GLG) 5

6 Map 4 Clay cover Ronde 1 Locate and evaluate adaption measures Assignment 1 Allocate adaptation measures in suitable parcels Minimize costs and maximize effectiveness of the measures. Maps: Groundwater levels, Land use, Soil Subsidence and Clay cover Graphs: Effectiveness and costs A qualitative assessment has been made of costs and effectiveness of measures. Totals are calculated as a area weighted sum of these assessments. (Table 3). Table 3 Costs and effectiveness of measures to reduce soil subsidence Measure Effectiveness Costs Hogere zomerpeilen Onderwaterdrainage Waterbuffers rond gebouwen en natuurgebieden Waterberging/ Waterretentiegebieden Maaiveld ophogen Slootpeil aanpassen Particpants found this tool easy to use. They were asked to validate and adjust the table and were happy to use this table as a basis for the evaluation 6

7 Map 5. Adaptation measures 7

8 Map 6 Allocation adaptation measures researchers Table 1 8

9 Map 7 Allocation adaptation measures Researchers Table 2 Round 2 Explore relations between soil subsidence, land use and groundwater levels Assignment 2: Reduce soil subsidence by changing land use. Keep totals for each land use the same. In practice this means that maize should be moved. Assignment 3: Reduce soil subsidence by changing water levels. Minimize the number of parcels with a soil l subsidence of more than 30mm. Maps: Groundwater levels, Land use, Soil Subsidence and Clay cover Graphs: Land use, Soil subsidence, CO2 emissions The tool is based on the following equations provided by Karlijn Brouns and Jos Verhoeven Intensive and extensive grassland witghout clay cover: 19,26*GLG+0,62 Cropland without clay cover: 28,875*GLG +0,62 Intensive and extensive grassland with clay cover: 9,17*GLG+0,59 Cropland without clay cover:: 13,755*GLG +0,59 GLG is the average lowest ground water level. The GLG is assumed to be a better indicator than the surface water level. There are now parcels in this region where the GLG is below the peat level. Jos Verhoeven s presentation is included as appendix 4. Participants moved the maize toward locations with clay soils. Changes made to land use and groundwater level in combination with the resulting soil subsidence of the researchers on table 1 are shown in the next three maps. Results of all tables are shown in appendix 2. The planners on table1 accomplished the highest increase in value for soil due to the application of a water buffer zone in the western region of the area (see appendix 2). 9

10 Map 8 Land use Researchers Table 1 10

11 Map 9 Ground water level Researchers Table 1 Map 10 Soil subsidence Researchers Table 1 Round 3. Explore trade-offs between agriculture, soil and nature 11

12 Assignment 4: Change land use or water level of 20 parcels. Increase the objective value of soil without the objective value of agriculture below a value of Keep the area per land use equal. Participants were told that that a land use change did not automatically generated a groundwater level change. Maps: GLG, Land use, Soil Subsidence, Value map Agriculture, Value Map Nature and Value map Soil Graphs: Total values Agricuture, Nature and Soil, Total Land use Agriculture, Nature and Soil, Workshop 1 table 1 accomplished a very high soil value of 0.65 due to water level changes in combination with the increase of the amount of extensive agriculture. During workshop 1 the amount of extensive agriculture was increased to about 1300ha in round 3. During workshop 2 this was performed in round 4. Changes made to land use and groundwater level in combination with the resulting soil subsidence of the researchers on table 1 are shown in the next three maps. Results of all tables are shown in appendix 2. General comments: Due to the low water levels there was also damage for agriculture caused by drought. Raising the water level therefore did not result in major losses for agriculture. From the results it can be observed that was fairly easy to keep the value for agriculture above Herschalen door de best mogelijke waarde in dit gebied op 10 te stellen. Dat is voor bodem en natuur -60cm. Dit kunnen we bereiken door de GLG waarden naar boven te schuiven zodat de tabel met >-60 begint. De waarden voor landbouw moeten dan wel worden opgehoogd zodat bij de huidige maximum waarde van 8 een 10 komt te staan. Map 11 Value map Soil Researchers Table 1 12

13 Map 12 Land use map Researchers Table 1 13

14 Map 13 Groundwater map Researchers Table 1 Round 4ab Negotiation: maximizing objective values 14

15 Assignment 5: Select a five or three colour scale for the objective values Change land use to maximize objective values Keep totals of land use constant Use tool 1a Traffic Light Tool (5 classes) Or Tool 1b Traffic Light Tool (3 classes) Maps: GLG, Land use, Soil Subsidence, Value map Agriculture, Value Map Nature and Value map Soil Graphs: Total values Agricuture, Nature and Soil, Total Land use Agriculture, Nature and Soil, For each parcel the traffic light tool (Map 14) shows for three objectives, agriculture, soil and nature, if their performance is good (green), intermediate (yellow) or bad (red). Thresholds were set in advance. The actual value score of the objectives is not presented. The bar chart (bottom left) shows for the values of the three objectives for the whole area. A nice feature of this tool is that If the land use of a parcel changes the colours for that parcels immediately change as well. So you can improve land use change by trial and error. Both, the traffic light tool with 3 and 5 classes were received well. No clear preference for the number of classes was found. Suggestion is to allow for selection criteria to reduce the number of parcels with traffic lights. Selection could be based on bottlenecks and problem areas such as parcels with the highest soil subsidence or parcels that score low values for the objectives. Also a selection could be based on restrictions like landscape preferences such as no maize along watercourses or spatial restrictions such as only nature allowed in western part of the study area. Another comment on the tool is that the valuation does not incorporate spatial adjacencies of similar land uses in adjacent parcels. It needs explanation that the traffic light symbols change dynamically based on applied land use and water level changes. The spatial allocation of extensive agriculture in the area is totally different for the different groups (see maps). Workshop 2 table 1 accomplished the highest score for soil of 0.61 and a score of 0.25 for nature as they combined extensive agriculture with high water levels. The traffic light symbols were used as confirmation of applied changes. Changes made to land use and groundwater level of the researchers on table 1 are shown in the next two maps. Results of all tables are shown in appendix 2. 15

16 Map 14 Change of land use Researchers Table 1 Map 15 Change of ground water levels Researchers Table 1 16

17 Round 4c Negotiation: maximizing objective values 17

18 Assignment 6: Change land use to maximize objective values Keep totals of land use constant Use tool 1c Traffic Light Tool (20% best/worst objective values) Maps: GLG, Land use, Soil Subsidence, Value map Agriculture, Value Map Nature and Value map Soil Graphs: Total values Agriculture, Nature and Soil, Total Land use Agriculture, Nature and Soil, Tool 1c presents the best and worst 20% of the parcels for each objective. These values are dependent on the land use of a parcel. As the value of land use nature for land use agriculture is very low for all parcels with land use nature the left box linked to agriculture is always red. This may change if the land use is changed to agriculture depending on the current water level. If participants change a land use or water level the best and worst 20% shift on the map. The map therefore shows a change but no improvement. Improvement can be seen from the increase in the overall objective values in the bar graph. Participants did not like the fact that they could not reduce the number of red and not increase the number of green traffic lights. 18

19 Map 16 Original land use Researchers Table 1 (Tool 1c) Map 17 Changed land use Researchers Table 1 (tool 1c) 19

20 Map 18 Original groundwater tables Researchers Table 1 (Tool 1c) 20

21 Map 19 Changed groundwater tables Researchers Table 1 (Tool 1c) 21

22 Assignment 7: Change land use to maximize stakeholder values Keep land use per stakeholder constant. Use tool 2 Traffic Light Tool (20% best/worst stakeholder.values) Maps: GLG, Land use, Soil Subsidence, Value map Agriculture, Value Map Nature and Value map Soil Graphs: Total values for each stakeholder: Agriculture, Extensive Agriculture and Nature, It is assumed different stakeholders have different weights (Table 3) Table 3 Stakeholders weights Agriculture Soil Nature Intensive agriculture Extensive agriculture Nature Tool 2 shows potential values for each stakeholder: the potential value if the land use is changed to the preferred land use of the stakeholder. The map shows the best and worst 20% of the parcels for each stakeholder. These values are static and independent of the land use of a parcel. The three boxes now represent the three land uses. Left intensive, middle extensive and right nature. A threshold is specified say 20% indicating the best and worst 20%. A box is red or green if it is with the worst or best 20% otherwise it is empty. As the map represents the potential of each parcel for the three land uses the traffic light colours arew independent of the actual land use. Improvement can be seen from the increase in the stakeholder values in the bar graph. Participants look for favourable swaps: red to green. Example current land use is intensive. Box shows red, green, green. Swap form intensive to extensive will be favourable All groups produced more or less the same stakeholder values. This can be partly explained by the fact that no changes in water level were allowed in this round. 22

23 Map 20 Best and worst parcels for each land use shown on top of current land use. 23

24 Map 21 Best and worst parcels for each land use shown on top of current groundwater level. Round 5b Negotiation maximizing total value 24

25 Assignment 8 Change land use to maximize total values Keep totals of land use constant Use tool 3 Optimal change tool Maps: GLG, Land use, Soil Subsidence, Value map Agriculture, Value Map Nature and Value map Soil Graphs: Total values Agriculture, Nature and Soil, Total Land use Agriculture, Nature and Soil, Tool 3 has a different map lay out (see Map 21 below). The background colour of each parcel represents the current land use. The colour in the box in the middle of a parcel shows the land use that results in the largest increase total value. If the current land use is the same as the best land use no box is shown. To calculate total value weights ned to be set for the objectives. Table 4 shows the weights used. These weight can be changed during the assignment. Table 3 Objective weights Total Agriculture Soil Nature All groups produced more or less the same total values. This can be partly explained by the fact that no changes in water level were allowed in this round. All groups to a large extent followed the suggestions provided by the tool and moved extensive agriculture. The researchers on Table 2 chose to introduce nature on the parcels with high water level. The starting situation of round 5b between workshop 1 and 2 differs as during workshop 1 a wet area was introduced and this was left out during the second workshop. 25

26 Map 22 Current and optimal land use (Tool 3) Map 23 Optimal land use according to Researchers Table 1 26

27 27

28 Assessment table 28

29 landbouw Bodem Weide daling vogels GLG C11 C21 C41 natuur extensieve landbouw intensieve landbouw De tabel is gebaseerd op de waarderingstabel ban Bodegraven/Zegveld. Gezien de GLGs in het gebeid is de tabel naar boven opgeschoven en begint nu bij -60. Dit is voor Bodem en Weidevogels de beste waterstand in het gebied en is daarom op 10 gesteld (ipv 5 en 5 in B/Z). De overige waarden voor bodem en natuur zijn evenredig opgeschaald. Een GLG van meer dan 100 cm komt in B/Z niet voor. Waarden zijn afgeleid van de HELP tabellen. 29