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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Meryem Abdi & Rachid Chaib & Ion Verzea, 2020. "Contribution to the Assessment of the Quality of Life at Work: a Case Study," International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organizations, EUROKD, vol. 4, pages 27-37.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Rachel Baker & John Wildman & Helen Mason & Cam Donaldson, 2014. "Q‐Ing For Health—A New Approach To Eliciting The Public'S Views On Health Care Resource Allocation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 283-297, March.
    10. E.O. Marfo & L. Chen & H. Xuhua & H.A. Antwi & E. Yiranbon, 2015. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Driving Dynamics on Firm’s Profitability in Ghana," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 116-132, July.
    11. Behnam Taebi, 2017. "Bridging the Gap between Social Acceptance and Ethical Acceptability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1817-1827, October.
    12. Roos, Andreas, 2024. "Renewing the Subterranean Energy Regime? How Petroculture Obscures the Materiality of Deep Geothermal Energy Technology in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    13. de Wildt, Tristan E. & Chappin, Emile J.L. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Herder, Paulien M., 2018. "A comprehensive approach to reviewing latent topics addressed by literature across multiple disciplines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2111-2128.
    14. Jarl Kampen & Peter Tamás, 2014. "Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3109-3126, November.
    15. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    16. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Späth, Leonhard, 2018. "Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on different perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable electricity development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 429-437.
    18. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Maria Schultz & Thomas Hahn & Claudia Ituarte-Lima & Niclas Hällström, 2018. "Deliberative multi-actor dialogues as opportunities for transformative social learning and conflict resolution in international environmental negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 671-688, October.
    20. Fulvio Biddau & Sonia Brondi & Paolo Francesco Cottone, 2022. "Unpacking the Psychosocial Dimension of Decarbonization between Change and Stability: A Systematic Review in the Social Science Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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: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.