Sustainability analysis of water management, with emphasis on Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in Koga Irrigation Scheme, Ethiopia

IF 5.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Abebe Belay Gebeyehu
{"title":"Sustainability analysis of water management, with emphasis on Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in Koga Irrigation Scheme, Ethiopia","authors":"Abebe Belay Gebeyehu","doi":"10.1016/j.indic.2025.100667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The study focused on investigating how Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) recommended measures are supporting sustainable development. A five-member analysis group was established to ensure objectivity and consensus in addressing the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) through mDSS software. The Pair-Wise Comparison (PWC) method developed by Saaty (1980) was used for assessing the criterion weights i.e. the relative importance of each pillar of sustainability; relative importance of measures to each pillar and the order of layers in wedding cake framework was determined. Furthermore, it aids in validating the criticisms made regarding the ordering of layers. This pairwise comparisons result gives social 6.3 percent, economic 26.5 percent of the criteria priority, and with the most important criteria being environment, at 67.2 percent. The economic pillar came in the middle layer of the wedding cake framework. The measures were not equally adapted to different pillars. These trade-offs appear to be particularly obvious in the short term, as long-term synergy among the pillars of sustainable development appears to be prominent. The ranking of measures depends on the sustainability framework of the relative importance of pillars and method of aggregation. The analysis shows that the EIA-recommended measures are likely to succeed in promoting sustainable development, especially when synergy in sustainable development is considered, as most of them are progressing well. The most favored adaptation and mitigation measures are training and extension courses, and planting forest seedlings. Planting forests appears to be the only method to achieve sustainable development in some circumstances under Wedding Cake framework. However, planting forest seedlings does not fully comprehend as a sustainable solution because of the negative consequences of eucalyptus plantations on environment and a threat to food security, as it is being planted in fertile lands. Proper planting and management are essential. The academia should also determine the suitable sustainable development framework of whether a triple bottom line or wedding cake framework should be adopted given the current environmental situations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36171,"journal":{"name":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100667"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental and Sustainability Indicators","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972725000881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study focused on investigating how Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) recommended measures are supporting sustainable development. A five-member analysis group was established to ensure objectivity and consensus in addressing the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) through mDSS software. The Pair-Wise Comparison (PWC) method developed by Saaty (1980) was used for assessing the criterion weights i.e. the relative importance of each pillar of sustainability; relative importance of measures to each pillar and the order of layers in wedding cake framework was determined. Furthermore, it aids in validating the criticisms made regarding the ordering of layers. This pairwise comparisons result gives social 6.3 percent, economic 26.5 percent of the criteria priority, and with the most important criteria being environment, at 67.2 percent. The economic pillar came in the middle layer of the wedding cake framework. The measures were not equally adapted to different pillars. These trade-offs appear to be particularly obvious in the short term, as long-term synergy among the pillars of sustainable development appears to be prominent. The ranking of measures depends on the sustainability framework of the relative importance of pillars and method of aggregation. The analysis shows that the EIA-recommended measures are likely to succeed in promoting sustainable development, especially when synergy in sustainable development is considered, as most of them are progressing well. The most favored adaptation and mitigation measures are training and extension courses, and planting forest seedlings. Planting forests appears to be the only method to achieve sustainable development in some circumstances under Wedding Cake framework. However, planting forest seedlings does not fully comprehend as a sustainable solution because of the negative consequences of eucalyptus plantations on environment and a threat to food security, as it is being planted in fertile lands. Proper planting and management are essential. The academia should also determine the suitable sustainable development framework of whether a triple bottom line or wedding cake framework should be adopted given the current environmental situations.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
57 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信