Exploring sustainable technical alternatives for Dutch dairy systems by integrating agro-economic modelling and public preferences assessment
AbstractTheoretical discussions on the joint consideration of multiple (economic, social and environmental) functions when assessing the sustainability of human actions are increasing. However few studies exist that integrate the social demand for multifunctional agriculture in the evaluation of the sustainability and the global welfare of society. This paper presents a methodology to answer to these questions: Which are the social demands for the multiple functions of agriculture and how can they be quantified?; Which are the feasible technical alternatives of land management to satisfy these demands?; What is the value of the land use alternatives according to social preferences and which alternatives optimally satisfy the social preferences?. The net utility of alternatives for society, and therefore their sustainability, will be measured as the sum of market and non-market net changes compared to the current situation. The proposed methodology combines economic valuation, integrated modelling, stakeholder analysis, and multi-criteria evaluation. In particular, different multi-criteria methods (QFD/ANP) and agro-economic modelling and optimizing tools (Landscape IMAGES) were used. The methodology will be fully illustrated through the case study of dairy farming landscapes in the Northern Friesian Woodlands, The Netherlands. Results show that for the case study it is possible to change current farming techniques and achieve more sustainable farming systems. The more sustainable alternatives are beneficial for farmers, obtaining higher gross margin, and for government, decreasing the current levels of subsidies in agri-environmental programs. Even current environmental restrictions can be slightly relaxed without compromising social demands to the analysed Dutch dairy farming systems.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by European Association of Agricultural Economists in its series 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium with number 44253.
Date of creation: 2008
Date of revision:
Land-use planning; public preferences; agro-economic models; Environmental Economics and Policy; Livestock Production/Industries;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Turner, R. Kerry & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Soderqvist, Tore & Barendregt, Aat & van der Straaten, Jan & Maltby, Edward & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2000. "Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 7-23, October.
- Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
- Partovi, Fariborz Y., 2006. "An analytic model for locating facilities strategically," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 41-55, January.
- Parra-López, Carlos & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, Walter A.H., 2008. "Integrating public demands into model-based design for multifunctional agriculture: An application to intensive Dutch dairy landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 538-551, November.
- Lootsma, F. A., 1996. "A model for the relative importance of the criteria in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 467-476, November.
- Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.