IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/ecaqec/vhtml10.3280-ecag2014-002005.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

L?accettabilit? delle innovazioni nella filiera lattiero casearia: un?analisi tramite la metodologia Q sort

Author

Listed:
  • Simona Naspetti
  • Serena Mandolesi
  • Raffaele Zanoli

Abstract

This work illustrates the acceptability of innovations in the Italian dairy supply chain. The research is part of a larger study financed by the EU Commission (EU-FP7 SOLID - "Sustainable Organic and Low-Input Dairying") aimed at optimising the financial, agronomic and nutritional aspects of the organic and low input dairy sector. Several studies demonstrate how the development and the adoption of innovations are critical in improving and increasing the competitiveness of the supply chains (es. Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003). In this work, the Q methodology was applied to investigate the innovation acceptability to organic and low input dairy supply chain members (Consumers, Farmers and Retailers & Processors). The aim was to identify and analyse different and common opinions of the Q participants. The results showed two different perspectives. The first one is a ?sustainable? view, shared by the majority of participants to the Q study; the second one is more practical, and mostly adopted by farmers. Some methodological and strategic implications are also presented in detail.

Suggested Citation

  • Simona Naspetti & Serena Mandolesi & Raffaele Zanoli, 2014. "L?accettabilit? delle innovazioni nella filiera lattiero casearia: un?analisi tramite la metodologia Q sort," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 16(2), pages 79-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag2014-002005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=51657&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    2. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi & Lyn Kathlene & Jeanette Wright, 2016. "Sustainable citizenship as a methodology for engagement: navigating environmental, economic, and technological rationalities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 617-630, September.
    4. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    5. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    6. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Astari, Annisa Joviani & Lovett, Jon C., 2019. "Does the rise of transnational governance ‘hollow-out’ the state? Discourse analysis of the mandatory Indonesian sustainable palm oil policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    9. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    10. Marina Masso & Christos Zografos, 2015. "Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 183-198, June.
    11. Tahereh Zobeidi & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Masoumeh Forouzani & Bahman Khosravipour, 2016. "Climate change discourse among Iranian farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 521-535, October.
    12. Eden, Sally & Bear, Christopher & Walker, Gordon, 2008. "The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 624-630, December.
    13. Jiayuan Li, 2018. "Translating Idea into Reality? A Q-Methodological Investigation of Chinese Local Officials’ Response to the Initiative of a Happiness Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 433-452, September.
    14. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    15. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    16. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.
    17. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Huge, 2018. "Climate change adaptation tools at the community level: An integrated literature review," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/269477, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. E. M. Nkoana & T. Waas & A. Verbruggen & C. J. Burman & J. Hugé, 2017. "Analytic framework for assessing participation processes and outcomes of climate change adaptation tools," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1731-1760, October.
    19. Paul Sylvestre & Tarah Wright & Kate Sherren, 2014. "A Tale of Two (or More) Sustainabilities: A Q Methodology Study of University Professors’ Perspectives on Sustainable Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-23, March.
    20. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag2014-002005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=214 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.