IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cea/doctra/e2004_57.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a widely debated policy in terms of both its budget and its instruments. In order to serve the citizens of Europe properly, CAP requires optimal identification of the public objectives desired. This paper aims to analyse the relative weights that citizens assign to the various potential objectives of the CAP and to show how these can be used to improve the selection of policy instruments. As a means of identifying social preferences we used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique on a population sample in Castilla y León (Spain). Results show how the current policy decision process lacks mechanisms capable of identifying social preferences and thus leading to the choice of sub-optimal policies.

Suggested Citation

  • José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2004_57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://public.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/pdfs/E200457.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Fichtner, John, 1986. "On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 341-345.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    4. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G. & Dellmann, Klaus, 2003. "The allocation of intangible resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 169-184, September.
    5. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    6. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    7. Jayachandran N. Variyam & Jeffrey L. Jordan & James E. Epperson, 1990. "Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 257-267.
    8. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1998. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 211-224, August.
    9. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1996. "Public Preferences Regarding the Goals of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 538-549.
    10. Aczel, J. & Alsina, C., 1986. "On synthesis of judgements," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 333-339.
    11. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    12. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    13. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    14. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    15. Korhonen, Pekka & Wallenius, Jyrki, 1990. "Using qualitative data in multiple objective linear programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 81-87, September.
    16. Laininen, Pertti & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2003. "Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 514-524, August.
    17. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    18. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    19. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    20. Kline, Jeffrey & Wichelns, Dennis, 1996. "Measuring Public Preferences for the Environmental Amenities Provided by Farmland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 23(4), pages 421-436.
    21. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    22. Easley, Robert F. & Valacich, Joseph S. & Venkataramanan, M. A., 2000. "Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(1), pages 73-83, August.
    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. Jaijit, Sasarose & Paoprasert, Naraphorn & Pichitlamken, Juta, 2019. "The impact of rice research expenditure policy in Thailand," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 156-167.
    2. Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2015. "The ‘social choice’ of privatising urban water services: A case study of Madrid in Spain," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-629.
    3. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    4. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Liski, Eero & Assmuth, Aino & Myyrä, Sami, 2014. "The importance of agricultural objectives – summary of studies," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182792, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-López, Carlos & Hinojosa-Rodríguez, Ascensión & Sayadi, Samir, 2014. "Farm-level multifunctionality associated with farming techniques in olive growing: An integrated modeling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-114.
    6. Zein Kallas & José A. Gómez‐Limón & Manuel Arriaza, 2007. "Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 405-419, May.
    7. O. Flores Baquero & J. Gallego-Ayala & R. Giné-Garriga & A. Jiménez-Fernández. Palencia & A. Pérez-Foguet, 2017. "The Influence of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Normative Content in Measuring the Level of Service," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 763-786, September.
    8. Casanova Enault, Laure & Popoff, Tatiana & Debolini, Marta, 2021. "Vacant lands on French Mediterranean coastlines: Inventory, agricultural opportunities, and prospective scenarios," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Rocamora-Montiel, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania, 2014. "Social attitudes in southern Spain to shape EU agricultural policy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 156-171.
    10. Soregaroli, Claudio & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2011. "Agricultural policy modelling under imperfect competition," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 195-212, March.
    11. Gomez-Limon, Jose Antonio & Riesgo, Laura, 2008. "Alternative Approaches On Constructing A Composite Indicator To Measure Agricultural Sustainability," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6489, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Mesa, Pascual & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Berbel, Julio, 2008. "Análisis multicriterio de preferencias sociales en gestión hídrica bajo la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 8(02), pages 1-22.
    13. Brooks, Kate & Schirmer, Jacki & Pascoe, Sean & Triantafillos, Lianos & Jebreen, Eddie & Cannard, Toni & Dichmont, Cathy M., 2015. "Selecting and assessing social objectives for Australian fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 111-122.
    14. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre, 2008. "Does Intensity Of Change Matter? Factors Affecting Adoption In Two Agri-Environmental Schemes," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6458, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Kiryluk-Dryjska, Ewa & Baer-Nawrocka, Agnieszka, 2019. "Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU: Expected results and their social acceptance," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 607-622.
    16. Manos, Basil & Bournaris, Thomas & Papathanasiou, Jason & Chatzinikolaou, Parthena, 2009. "Evaluation of tobacco cultivation alternatives under the EU common agricultural policy (CAP)," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 225-238.
    17. Gajic, T. & Vujko, A. & Cvijanovic, D. & Penic, M. & Gagic, S., 2017. "The state of agriculture and rural development in Serbia," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 3(4), pages 196-202.

    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. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    2. Rico, Margarita & González, Andrés, 2015. "Social participation into regional forest planning attending to multifunctional objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Abbas, Ali E. & Hupman, Andrea C., 2023. "Scale dependence in weight and rate multicriteria decision methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 225-235.
    4. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    5. Zein Kallas & Teresa Serra & José Maria Gil, 2010. "Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: the case of Catalonian vineyard production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 409-423, September.
    6. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    7. Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt & Rico Ihle & Khadija Mhaouch, 2021. "Geographical indications for supporting rural development in the context of the Green Morocco Plan: Oasis dates," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(2), pages 70-79.
    8. Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    10. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    11. Hellerstein, Daniel & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Cooper, Joseph C. & Feather, Peter & Gadsby, Dwight M. & Mullarkey, Daniel J. & Tegene, Abebayehu & Barnard, Charles H., 2002. "Farmland Protection: The Role Of Public Preferences For Rural Amenities," Agricultural Economic Reports 33963, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.
    13. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    14. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    15. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Galdeano-Gómez, Emilio & Salinas Andújar, Jose A., 2012. "Logistics network and externalities for short sea transport: An analysis of horticultural exports from southeast Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 188-198.
    16. Cropper, Eric D. & McLeod, Donald M. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Keske, Catherine M. & Hoag, Dana L. & Cross, Jennifer E., 2012. "Factors Affecting Land Trust Agents’ Preferences for Conservation Easements," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16.
    17. Lynch, Lori & Duke, Joshua M., 2007. "Economic Benefits of Farmland Preservation: Evidence from the United States," Working Papers 7342, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    18. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    19. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Fatima Lambarraa-Lehnhardt & Rico Ihle & Hajar Elyoubi, 2021. "How Successful Is Origin Labeling in a Developing Country Context? Moroccan Consumers’ Preferences toward Local Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Common Agricultural Policy; Objectives; Social preferences; AHP; Castilla y León.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis

    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:cea:doctra:e2004_57. 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: Susana Mérida (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcanges.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.