IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/182959.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to deal with competing types of nature and agriculture in the same area: A case study on Spanish olive groves

Author

Listed:
  • Nekhay, Olexandr
  • Arriaza Balmón, Manuel
  • Zhadko, Konstantin

Abstract

In this paper the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) multicreteria evaluation method has been used to evaluate 4 different competing management options at olive plantations (Olea europaea L.) in mountain areas. All the evaluation process is integrated into a Geographical Information System (GIS) that gave possibility to allocate each of the options geographically. The results suggested that area currently occupied by conventional olive farming should be restructured as (% of area occupation): 35.8% to conventional olive farming, 23.3% to integrated olive farming, 19.1% to organic olive farming and 22.8% transformed to natural use as a Mediterranean forest in order to increase the social welfare of the society.

Suggested Citation

  • Nekhay, Olexandr & Arriaza Balmón, Manuel & Zhadko, Konstantin, 2014. "How to deal with competing types of nature and agriculture in the same area: A case study on Spanish olive groves," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182959, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182959
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.182959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/182959/files/Olexandr_Nekhay_et_al_Competing_land_uses_to_send.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.182959?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    2. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    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. Lundström, Johanna & Öhman, Karin & Rönnqvist, Mikael & Gustafsson, Lena, 2014. "How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-50.
    2. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    3. repec:rri:wpaper:200906 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    5. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    7. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    8. Jinyang Deng & David Dyre, 2009. "Linking Tourism Resources and Local Economic Benefits: A Spatial Analysis in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2009-06, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    9. Georgia Kandilioti & Christos Makropoulos, 2012. "Preliminary flood risk assessment: the case of Athens," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 61(2), pages 441-468, March.
    10. Ron Janssen & Gustavo A Arciniegas & Jos T A Verhoeven, 2013. "Spatial Evaluation of Ecological Qualities to Support Interactive Land-Use Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(3), pages 427-446, June.
    11. Jared Abigail Valencia-Salvador & Fabio Humberto Sepúlveda-Murillo & Miguel Alfonso Flores-Sánchez & Norely Margarita Soto Builes, 2022. "Spatial Distribution of Social Inequality in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Ecuador," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 753-769, September.
    12. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.
    13. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    14. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    15. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2008. "Multi-attribute preference modelling and regional land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 325-335, April.
    16. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    17. Farid El Wahidi & Julien Radoux & Quentin Ponette & Pierre Defourny, 2015. "Entity-Based Landscape Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Different Incentives Mechanisms on Argan Forest Dynamics," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-27, November.
    18. Volker Meyer & Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase, 2009. "A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 48(1), pages 17-39, January.
    19. Brianne Suldovsky & Daniel Taylor-Rodríguez, 2021. "Epistemic engagement: examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Imran Jamali & Ulla Mörtberg & Bo Olofsson & Muhammad Shafique, 2014. "A Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis Approach for Locating Suitable Sites for Construction of Subsurface Dams in Northern Pakistan," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(14), pages 5157-5174, November.
    21. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:eaae14:182959. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.