IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i5p763-d822015.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Lopolito

    (Department of Economics, Management and Territory (DEMeT), University of Foggia, Via Da Zara 11, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

  • Edgardo Sica

    (Department of Economics, Management and Territory (DEMeT), University of Foggia, Via Da Zara 11, 71121 Foggia, Italy)

Abstract

The socio-economic consequences of the Xylella fastidiosa epidemic represent a global problem that can only be addressed through tailored, local solutions. The selection of public interventions is not a trivial task for policy makers, as they must weigh many different interests (e.g., private profit, ecosystem services, usability, preservation and growth of real estate value, amenities, and land protection). The present paper addresses this challenge by building participatory scenarios based on “fuzzy cognitive maps,” with the aim of identifying effective, acceptable, and efficient policy mixes to address the Xylella epidemic. The work investigates the case of southern Salento (Italy)–an olive production area at the epicentre of the global Xylella outbreak–to identify the most suitable actions for regenerating the landscape. To this end, the most efficient policy mixes are determined according to three possible policy perspectives, which provide different weights for effectiveness and acceptability. The results show that the proposed methodological approach may assist policy makers in coping with multifaceted policy challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Lopolito & Edgardo Sica, 2022. "Designing Policy Mixes to Address the World’s Worst Devastation of a Rural Landscape Caused by Xylella Epidemic," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:763-:d:822015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/763/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/763/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    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. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    2. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    3. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    4. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    5. Jin-Myong Lee & Hyo-Jung Kim & Jong-Youn Rha, 2017. "Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Marleen Kraaij-Dirkzwager & Joost Van der Ree & Erik Lebret, 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Venus, Terese E. & Strauss, Felix & Venus, Thomas J. & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "Understanding stakeholder preferences for future biogas development in Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Can microalgae biodiesel contribute to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030? A comparison between first, second and third generation biofuels though a range-," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1032-1046.
    10. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    12. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    13. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    14. Richard Taylor & John Forrester & Lydia Pedoth & David Zeitlyn, 2022. "Structured output methods and environmental issues: perspectives on co-created bottom-up and ‘sideways’ science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    16. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. van Dam, J. & Junginger, M., 2011. "Striving to further harmonization of sustainability criteria for bioenergy in Europe: Recommendations from a stakeholder questionnaire," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 4051-4066, July.
    18. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    19. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    20. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:5:p:763-:d:822015. 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.