IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i2p785-d722266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing the SWOT Scorecard Technique to Analyse Diversified AE Collective Schemes with a DEX Model

Author

Listed:
  • Janja Rudolf

    (Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Andrej Udovč

    (Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Comparing diversified agri-environmental (AE) collective schemes in their capability to provide AE public goods faces great challenges, mostly because of their diversified nature and relatively new way to approach the provision of AE public goods. The state of the art is that there are not yet any common quantitative indicators or data to build a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model to compare it with other practices and to set the strategic plan for the scheme’s improvement. Nevertheless, some qualitative common data of SWOT analyses are available, but the question remains how to simultaneously compare several SWOT analyses in an MCDM model. This study introduces a new way of transforming the qualitative results of SWOT analyses to fit in the MCDM Decision Expert (DEX) model using a special transformation technique SWOT scorecard. The SWOT scorecard evaluates the importance of qualitative results of several SWOT analyses simultaneously in a quantitative way, describing with points how supportive the environment is to each criterion in the DEX model. The SWOT scorecard keeps track of the original results from SWOT analysis and considers the diversity of AE schemes, which results in an appearance of the convergence points. This gives a key for comparing the AE collective schemes in providing AE public goods. Furthermore, it gives a solution for discussing the synergy between aspects that affect AE public goods provision for every AE scheme investigated. The technique is tested via five AE collective schemes in the DEXi program and gives deeper insight into factors that affect each scheme’s performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Janja Rudolf & Andrej Udovč, 2022. "Introducing the SWOT Scorecard Technique to Analyse Diversified AE Collective Schemes with a DEX Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:785-:d:722266
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/785/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/785/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cisilino, Federica & Marangon, Francesco & Troiano, Stefania, 2015. "Conservation and efficient use of natural resources through Payments for Ecosystem Services: the role of CAP in supporting a collective approach," 147th Seminar, October 7-8, 2015, Sofia, Bulgaria 212247, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Georgios Apostolidis & Haris Doukas, 2020. "An AHP-SWOT-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Achieving a Cross-Border RES Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-28, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Onggarbek Alipbeki & Gauhar Mussaif & Chaimgul Alipbekova & Aizada Kapassova & Pavel Grossul & Meirzhan Aliyev & Nursultan Mineyev, 2023. "Untangling the Integral Impact of Land Use Change, Economic, Ecological and Social Factors on the Development of Burabay District (Kazakhstan) during the Period 1999–2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-36, May.

    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. Svetla Stoilova & Nolberto Munier, 2021. "Analysis of Policies of Railway Operators Using SWOT Criteria and the SIMUS Method: A Case for the Bulgarian Railway Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Li, Xiangrong & Zhu, Shaoying & Yüksel, Serhat & Dinçer, Hasan & Ubay, Gözde Gülseven, 2020. "Kano-based mapping of innovation strategies for renewable energy alternatives using hybrid interval type-2 fuzzy decision-making approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    3. Apostolos Arsenopoulos & Vangelis Marinakis & Konstantinos Koasidis & Andriana Stavrakaki & John Psarras, 2020. "Assessing Resilience to Energy Poverty in Europe through a Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Christian Viñán, 2020. "An Institutional Trust Indicator Based on Fuzzy Logic and Ideal Solutions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-14, May.
    5. Federica Cisilino & Francesco Vanni, 2019. "Agri-environmental collaborative projects: Challenges and perspectives in Italy," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 21(2), pages 459-479.
    6. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Havle, Celal Alpay & Feyzioğlu, Orhan, 2021. "An integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS methodology for digital transformation strategy analysis in airline industry," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Madjid Tavana & Akram Shaabani & Francisco Javier Santos-Arteaga & Iman Raeesi Vanani, 2020. "A Review of Uncertain Decision-Making Methods in Energy Management Using Text Mining and Data Analytics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, August.
    8. Mukeshimana, Marie Claire & Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Nshimiyimana, Jean Pierre, 2021. "Evaluating strategies for renewable energy development in Rwanda: An integrated SWOT – ISM analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 402-414.
    9. Agyekum, Ephraim Bonah & Amjad, Fahd & Mohsin, Muhammad & Ansah, Michael Nii Sanka, 2021. "A bird's eye view of Ghana's renewable energy sector environment: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making approach," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:2:p:785-:d:722266. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.