IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v10y2020i9p409-d414465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Conventional and Organic Hazelnuts Production Systems in Center Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Coppola

    (Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Michele Costantini

    (Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Luigi Orsi

    (Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Davide Facchinetti

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Francesco Santoro

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Via G. Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy)

  • Domenico Pessina

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Jacopo Bacenetti

    (Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, 20133 Milano, Italy)

Abstract

In this study, the economic profitability of hazelnut production in central Italy using conventional and organic farming systems was evaluated using the cost–benefit analysis methodology. Viterbo’s province is the leading province in Italy in terms of quantity produced. Three indicators were calculated for both farming systems: net present value, payback time, internal rate of return. The analysis was conducted utilizing primary data collected by means of interviews and surveys with local farmers and organizations of producers. The collected production data refer to the decade 2008–2018; a global area of 100.34 ha and 76.14 ha were considered for conventional and organic cultivation, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was carried out considering different discount rates, price variability, and inflation rates. The net present value is equal to 92,800 €/ha and to 3778 €/ha, the payback time is 10.47 years and 42.94 years, while the internal rate of return is 12.2% and 1.1% for the conventional and organic production systems, respectively. The conventional production system performs significantly more remuneratively, considering that the price premium paid by the market for the organic product and the subsidies granted to organic farmers are not sufficient to balance the lower yield.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Coppola & Michele Costantini & Luigi Orsi & Davide Facchinetti & Francesco Santoro & Domenico Pessina & Jacopo Bacenetti, 2020. "A Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Conventional and Organic Hazelnuts Production Systems in Center Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:9:p:409-:d:414465
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/9/409/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/9/409/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Massimo De Franchi & Karem Boubaker, 2014. "Valorization of Hazelnut Biomass Framework in Turkey: Support and Model Guidelines from the Italian Experience in the Field of Renewable Energy," International Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 3(3), pages 130-144.
    2. Bacenetti, Jacopo, 2019. "Heat and cold production for winemaking using pruning residues: Environmental impact assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Rigby, D. & Caceres, D., 2001. "Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 21-40, April.
    4. Zinnanti, Cinzia & Schimmenti, Emanuele & Borsellino, Valeria & Paolini, Giulio & Severini, Simone, 2019. "Economic performance and risk of farming systems specialized in perennial crops: An analysis of Italian hazelnut production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Simone Pascuzzi & Francesco Santoro, 2017. "Analysis of the Almond Harvesting and Hulling Mechanization Process: A Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Massimo de Franchi & Karem Boubaker, 2014. "Valorization of Hazelnut Biomass Framework in Turkey: Support and Model Guidelines from the Italian Experience in the Field of Renewable Energy," International Journal of Sustainable Energy and Environmental Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 3(3), pages 130-144.
    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. Mohd Haizam Mohd Saudi & Obsatar Sinaga & Djoko Roespinoedji & Mohd Shahril Ahmad Razimi, 2019. "The role of renewable, non-renewable electricity consumption and carbon emission in development in Indonesia: Evidence from Distributed Lag Tests," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(3), pages 46-52.
    2. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    3. van Calker, Klaas Jan & Antink, Rudi H.J. Hooch & Beldman, Alfons C.G. & Mauser, Anniek, 2005. "Caring Dairy: A Sustainable Dairy Farming Initiative in Europe," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24234, International Farm Management Association.
    4. Marcos Ferasso & Miguel Blanco & Lydia Bares, 2021. "Territorial Analysis of the European Rural Development Funds (ERDF) as a Driving Factor of Ecological Agricultural Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Burton, Michael P. & Rigby, Dan & Young, Trevor, 2003. "Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using Duration Analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, March.
    6. Agnieszka Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska & Anna Kłoczko-Gajewska & Piotr Sulewski, 2019. "Between the Social and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability in Rural Areas—In Search of Farmers’ Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Mohamed Gafsi & Jean-Luc Favreau, 2014. "Diversity of operating logics and sustainability of organic farms [Diversité des logiques de fonctionnement et durabilité des exploitations en agriculture biologique]," Post-Print hal-02076167, HAL.
    8. Charalampos Konstantinidis, 2018. "Capitalism in Green Disguise: The Political Economy of Organic Farming in the European Union," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(4), pages 830-852, December.
    9. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    10. Abadi, Bijan & Yadollahi, Arash & Bybordi, Ahmad & Rahmati, Mehdi, 2020. "The discrimination of adopters and non-adopters of conservation agricultural initiatives in northwest Iran: Attitudinal, soil testing, and topographical modules," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Daniele, Bertolozzi-Caredio & Barbara, Soriano & Isabel, Bardaji & Alberto, Garrido, 2022. "Analysis of perceived robustness, adaptability and transformability of Spanish extensive livestock farms under alternative challenging scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    12. Beatrice Dingha & Leah Sandler & Arnab Bhowmik & Clement Akotsen-Mensah & Louis Jackai & Kevin Gibson & Ronald Turco, 2019. "Industrial Hemp Knowledge and Interest among North Carolina Organic Farmers in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Gafsi, Mohamed & Favreau, Jean-Luc, 2014. "Diversité des logiques de fonctionnement et durabilité des exploitations en agriculture biologique," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 339(January-M).
    14. Laura Seppänen & Juha Helenius, 2004. "Do inspection practices in organic agriculture serve organic values? A case study from Finland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Catrini, P. & Panno, D. & Cardona, F. & Piacentino, A., 2020. "Characterization of cooling loads in the wine industry and novel seasonal indicator for reliable assessment of energy saving through retrofit of chillers," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    16. Soyoung Seo & Hee-Kyung Ahn & Jaeseok Jeong & Junghoon Moon, 2016. "Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Babita Bastakoti & Dipak Khanal, 2022. "Organic Farming: A Feasible Solution To Agricultural Sustainability: A Detailed Review," INWASCON Technology Magazine(i-TECH MAG), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 4, pages 25-27, July.
    18. Franks, Jeremy & Frater, Poppy, 2013. "Measuring agricultural sustainability at the farm-level: A pragmatic approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(4), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Kis, Sandor, 2007. "Results of a questionnaire survey of Hungarian organic farms," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 106, pages 1-24, July.
    20. Dimara, Efthalia & Skuras, Dimitris, 2003. "Adoption of agricultural innovations as a two-stage partial observability process," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 187-196, May.

    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:jagris:v:10:y:2020:i:9:p:409-:d:414465. 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.