• Cost-benefit analysis: all costs (from emission reduction technologies to
efficiency measures) and benefits (improvements of health or environmental
quality conditions) associated to an emission scenario are evaluated in
monetary terms and an algorithm searches for solutions that maximize the
difference between benefits and costs among different scenarios.
• Cost-effectiveness analysis: due to the fact that quantifying benefits of
non-material issues is strongly affected by subjective evaluations, the
cost-effectiveness approach can be used instead. It searches for the best
solutions considering non-monetizable issues (typically, health related matters) as constraints of a mathematical problem, the objective of which is
simply the minimization of the sum of (relevant) costs (Amann et al. 2011).
• Multi-objective analysis: it selects the efficient solutions, considering all the
objectives of the problem explicitly in a vector objective function (e.g., one
AQI and costs), thus determining the trade-offs and the possible conflicts
among them (Guariso et al. 2004; Pisoni et al. 2009).
Output
The outputs of the decision framework are the measures to be implemented to
change the connected blocks. There are different options to describe these
responses, as:
– Macrosector level emission reductions: reductions are applied to all emissions
(PRESSURES) belonging to a CORINAIR macrosector. This is a very aggregated approach, but can provide policy makers with some insight on how to
prioritize the interventions and it is easy to implement (Carnevale et al. 2012a, b).
– “End-of-pipe technologies” also called “Technical measures”, (e.g. filters
applied to power plant emissions, to cars, etc.). These measures are applied to
reduce emissions (PRESSURES) before being released in the atmosphere. They
neither modify the driving forces of emissions nor change the composition of
energy systems or agricultural activities.
– “Efficiency measures” (or “Non-technical measures”) are those, that reduce
anthropogenic DRIVERS. Such measures can be related to people behavioural
changes (for instance, bicycle use instead of cars for personal mobility, temperature reduction in buildings) or to technologies that abate fuel consumption
(use of high efficiency boilers, or of building thermal insulating coats, which
reduce the overall energy demand). Localization decisions (e.g. building new
industrial areas, or new highways) can also be considered as “efficiency
measures”.
– Direct pollution reduction measures. These act directly on STATE to reduce the
pollution already in the environment. Planting some species of PM absorbing
trees in urban environments or using coatings photocatalytically decomposing
nitrogen oxides belong to these types of measures.
2 A Framework for Integrated Assessment Modelling
33
efficiency measures) and benefits (improvements of health or environmental
quality conditions) associated to an emission scenario are evaluated in
monetary terms and an algorithm searches for solutions that maximize the
difference between benefits and costs among different scenarios.
• Cost-effectiveness analysis: due to the fact that quantifying benefits of
non-material issues is strongly affected by subjective evaluations, the
cost-effectiveness approach can be used instead. It searches for the best
solutions considering non-monetizable issues (typically, health related matters) as constraints of a mathematical problem, the objective of which is
simply the minimization of the sum of (relevant) costs (Amann et al. 2011).
• Multi-objective analysis: it selects the efficient solutions, considering all the
objectives of the problem explicitly in a vector objective function (e.g., one
AQI and costs), thus determining the trade-offs and the possible conflicts
among them (Guariso et al. 2004; Pisoni et al. 2009).
Output
The outputs of the decision framework are the measures to be implemented to
change the connected blocks. There are different options to describe these
responses, as:
– Macrosector level emission reductions: reductions are applied to all emissions
(PRESSURES) belonging to a CORINAIR macrosector. This is a very aggregated approach, but can provide policy makers with some insight on how to
prioritize the interventions and it is easy to implement (Carnevale et al. 2012a, b).
– “End-of-pipe technologies” also called “Technical measures”, (e.g. filters
applied to power plant emissions, to cars, etc.). These measures are applied to
reduce emissions (PRESSURES) before being released in the atmosphere. They
neither modify the driving forces of emissions nor change the composition of
energy systems or agricultural activities.
– “Efficiency measures” (or “Non-technical measures”) are those, that reduce
anthropogenic DRIVERS. Such measures can be related to people behavioural
changes (for instance, bicycle use instead of cars for personal mobility, temperature reduction in buildings) or to technologies that abate fuel consumption
(use of high efficiency boilers, or of building thermal insulating coats, which
reduce the overall energy demand). Localization decisions (e.g. building new
industrial areas, or new highways) can also be considered as “efficiency
measures”.
– Direct pollution reduction measures. These act directly on STATE to reduce the
pollution already in the environment. Planting some species of PM absorbing
trees in urban environments or using coatings photocatalytically decomposing
nitrogen oxides belong to these types of measures.
2 A Framework for Integrated Assessment Modelling
33