다기준 의사결정기법 (AHP)을 활용한 논에서 발생하는 메탄 감축 방안의 우선순위 평가
Priority Evaluation of Methane Reduction Strategies in Rice Paddies Using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method (AHP)
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to identify and prioritize technological, policy, and economic strategies to reduce methane (CH₄) emissions from rice cultivation, a major source of agricultural greenhouse gases. Nine mitigation alternatives were categorized into three support types—technological, policy, and economic—and evaluated based on four criteria: technical effectiveness, economic feasibility, environmental sustainability, and social acceptability. A three-level Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework was employed to conduct a quantitative analysis. Surveys were administered to 40 experts, and 31 responses with a consistency ratio (CR) below 0.1 were analyzed. The research group prioritized technical effectiveness, ranking Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) highest, while the policy group emphasized institutional feasibility and farmer acceptance, favoring direct payments and low-methane certification. In the integrated analysis, carbon credit systems (0.139), direct payments (0.135), and AWD (0.133) were ranked highest, suggesting a preference for institutional and economic supports over purely technical solutions. Unlike previous studies that have focused mainly on the effectiveness of individual technologies, this research fills a critical gap by integrating technological, policy, and economic strategies into a unified AHP-based evaluation framework. This holistic approach provides more actionable insights for decision-makers seeking balanced and realistic mitigation strategies. Overall, the proposed framework offers a practical tool for advancing carbon neutrality in agriculture through multi-dimensional policy planning.
Abstract
This study aims to identify and prioritize technological, policy, and economic strategies to reduce methane (CH₄) emissions from rice cultivation, a major source of agricultural greenhouse gases. Nine mitigation alternatives were categorized into three support types—technological, policy, and economic—and evaluated based on four criteria: technical effectiveness, economic feasibility, environmental sustainability, and social acceptability. A three-level Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) framework was employed to conduct a quantitative analysis. Surveys were administered to 40 experts, and 31 responses with a consistency ratio (CR) below 0.1 were analyzed. The research group prioritized technical effectiveness, ranking Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) highest, while the policy group emphasized institutional feasibility and farmer acceptance, favoring direct payments and low-methane certification. In the integrated analysis, carbon credit systems (0.139), direct payments (0.135), and AWD (0.133) were ranked highest, suggesting a preference for institutional and economic supports over purely technical solutions. Unlike previous studies that have focused mainly on the effectiveness of individual technologies, this research fills a critical gap by integrating technological, policy, and economic strategies into a unified AHP-based evaluation framework. This holistic approach provides more actionable insights for decision-makers seeking balanced and realistic mitigation strategies. Overall, the proposed framework offers a practical tool for advancing carbon neutrality in agriculture through multi-dimensional policy planning.