IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i6p1230-d1170936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Tuscany Integrated Supply Chain Projects 2014–2022: A New Path to Support the Agri-Food Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Cisilino

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, 00187 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Antonio Giampaolo

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, 00187 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Francesco Licciardo

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, 00187 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Matteo Orlando

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, 00187 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Serena Tarangioli

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, 00187 Rome, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

The Integrated Supply Chain Projects (ISCP) are promoted under the framework of Rural Development Programs (RDPs). Considering the scarce literature on ISCP, the case of Tuscany, one of the Italian regions that has implemented ISCPs most aggressively, was analyzed. The aim of this work is to give evidence of the potential positive effects of ISCPs for the agricultural sector by considering the differences between ISCP beneficiaries (treated) and non-ISCP farms (non-treated). The materials used for the analysis are twofold: the Italian Rural Network database and the Italian Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) dataset. The analysis is based on a three-year period (2018–2020). The sample consists of 1693 farms, outliers excluded. The treated farms included in the FADN sample total 134. The variables used are both structural and economic. The statistical analysis carried out compares treated and non-treated farms using the Welch- t -test. The results show that some key variables are significant (area; labour; revenues and costs). In general, the treated farms are more likely to improve their production process through EU funding and through new investments. In conclusion, the ISCP could be a good opportunity to support the sector. This work suggests that beneficiaries could achieve higher economic performance, especially when carrying out diversified activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Cisilino & Antonio Giampaolo & Francesco Licciardo & Matteo Orlando & Serena Tarangioli, 2023. "The Tuscany Integrated Supply Chain Projects 2014–2022: A New Path to Support the Agri-Food Industry," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1230-:d:1170936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1230/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1230/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ascione, Elisa & Cristiano, Simona & Tarangioli, Serena, 2011. "Farm Advisory Services for the Agro-Food Supply Chain as a Foster of Innovation: The Case of Veneto Region," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122031, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Roberto Cagliero & Marzia Legnini & Francesco Licciardo, 2021. "Evaluating the New Common Agricultural Policy: Improving the Rules," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 27-33, December.
    3. Graeme D. Ruxton, 2006. "The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student's t-test and the Mann--Whitney U test," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(4), pages 688-690, July.
    4. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina, 2019. "Rural development programs’ impact on environment: An ex-post evaluation of organic faming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 454-462.
    5. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Giovanni Belletti & Paola Biagioni, 2020. "Integrated Supply Chain Projects and multifunctional local development: the creation of a Perfume Valley in Tuscany," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Anne Le Roy & Fiona Ottaviani, 2022. "The sustainable well-being of urban and rural areas," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(4), pages 668-682, April.
    7. Ventura, Flaminia & Diotallevi, Francesco & Ricciardulli, Nicolletta & Berletti, Maria, 2011. "Evaluation of policy measures for agri-food networks in Italian rural development programmes," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 100281, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    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. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Giovanni Belletti & Paola Biagioni, 2020. "Integrated Supply Chain Projects and multifunctional local development: the creation of a Perfume Valley in Tuscany," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Roberto Cagliero & Andrea Arzeni & Federica Cisilino & Alessandro Montelelone & Patrizia Borsotto, 2021. "Ten years after: Diffusion, criticism and potential improvements in the use of FADN for Rural Development assessment in Italy," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 23(3), pages 1-24.
    3. Kang, Wenjin & Tang, Ke & Wang, Ningli, 2023. "Financialization of commodity markets ten years later," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    4. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    5. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    6. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    7. Kim Young Joo & Skibniewski Miroslaw J., 2020. "Unsuccessful bids: Coefficient of variation of bids as indicator of project risk," Organization, Technology and Management in Construction, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 2193-2199, January.
    8. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    9. Wallert, John & Ekman, Urban & Westman, Eric & Madison, Guy, 2017. "The worst performance rule with elderly in abnormal cognitive decline," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 9-17.
    10. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    11. Yuichiro Amekawa & Surat Hongsibsong & Nootchakarn Sawarng & Sumeth Yadoung & Girma Gezimu Gebre, 2021. "Producers’ Perceptions of Public Good Agricultural Practices Standard and Their Pesticide Use: The Case of Q-GAP for Cabbage Farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    12. Ventura, Flaminia & Diotallevi, Francesco & Ricciardulli, Nicoletta & Berletti, Maria, 2011. "Valutazione delle misure per i network agroalimentari nei PSR1: l’esperienza del Veneto [Evaluation of measures for agri-food networks in PSR1: the experience of Veneto]," MPRA Paper 41465, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2011.
    13. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Saifi, Basim & Drake, Lars, 2008. "A coevolutionary model for promoting agricultural sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 24-34, March.
    15. Kabiri, Ngeta, 2016. "Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 511-517.
    16. Vatn, Arild & Kajembe, George & Mosi, Elvis & Nantongo, Maria & Silayo, Dos Santos, 2017. "What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Tamar Balgiashvili, 2017. "Comparing Entrepreneurial Passion of Social and Commercial Entrepreneurs in the Czech Republic," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(4), pages 45-61.
    18. repec:cep:sticas:/184 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Krystyna Kurowska & Renata Marks-Bielska & Stanisław Bielski & Audrius Aleknavičius & Cezary Kowalczyk, 2020. "Geographic Information Systems and the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Sarah White & Jethro Pettit, 2004. "Participatory Approaches and the Measurement of Human Well-being," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-57, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    21. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.

    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:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1230-:d:1170936. 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.