IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aesc23/334568.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How can the design of Decision Support Tools for different agricultural stakeholders be improved?

Author

Listed:
  • Iakovidis, Dimitrios
  • Gadanakis, Yiorgos
  • Park, Julian
  • Gonzalez, Jorge Campos

Abstract

The sustainability of Mediterranean agriculture is under threat due to factors such as climate change, the spatial distribution and size of holdings, the ageing rural population and the environmental and social pressures in rural areas. Decision Support Tools (DST) can help overcome these challenges by enhancing the decision-making of farmers and advisers, enabling evidence-based decisions which will improve the sustainability of farming systems in the area. An essential requirement of an effective design of a DST is the early-stage engagement of stakeholders in a co-production approach to define end user needs and requirements. In this research twenty-nine stakeholders comprising farmers and advisers, extension officers, policy makers and industry representatives were selected from within the regional unit of Argolida and the Greek National Ministry of Rural Development and Food to facilitate user need analysis. A Q-methodology approach was utilised to provide an in-depth understanding of the perspectives and needs of the differing stakeholder groups. The results illustrated that the use of the Q-methodology as a mechanism of analysing stakeholders’ subjective viewpoints can offer valuable insights and can be used to study distinct perspectives existing within a group on a topic of interest. In addition, the research illustrates how the method can serve as the required first step of end user need analysis in a co-production of services approach for the design of an effective DST in agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Iakovidis, Dimitrios & Gadanakis, Yiorgos & Park, Julian & Gonzalez, Jorge Campos, 2023. "How can the design of Decision Support Tools for different agricultural stakeholders be improved?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334568, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aesc23:334568
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334568/files/AES2023_DecisionSupportTools.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334568?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carr, Liam, 2016. "Stakeholder Perspectives on a Tourism - Dependent Economy," Working Papers 262594, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    2. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    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. Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    2. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    5. Alexander, Kim S. & Parry, Lucy & Thammavong, Phomma & Sacklokham, Silinthone & Pasouvang, Somphanh & Connell, John G. & Jovanovic, Tom & Moglia, Magnus & Larson, Silva & Case, Peter, 2018. "Rice farming systems in Southern Lao PDR: Interpreting farmers’ agricultural production decisions using Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Maria Lúcia Pato & Ana Sofia Duque, 2023. "Strategic Issues in Portuguese Tourism Plans: An Analysis of National Strategic Plans since 2000," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Paul Swagemakers & Maria Dolores Dominguez Garcia & Amanda Onofa Torres & Henk Oostindie & Jeroen C. J. Groot, 2017. "A Values-Based Approach to Exploring Synergies between Livestock Farming and Landscape Conservation in Galicia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    9. Dirtje Marie Derksen & Dagmar Mithöfer, 2022. "Thinking sustainably? Identifying Stakeholders' positions toward corporate sustainability in floriculture with Q methodology," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1762-1787, December.
    10. Elomina, Jerbelle & Pülzl, Helga, 2021. "How are forests framed? An analysis of EU forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Munari & Mahfudz & Sasterio Mansur & Abdul Rivai & Nawawi Natsir, 2020. "Quality of Academic Services in the Academic Bureau, Students, and Planning of Tadulako Palu University," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 4(8), pages 103-112, August.
    15. Loring, Philip A. & Hinzman, Megan S., 2018. "“They're All Really Important, But…”: Unpacking How People Prioritize Values for the Marine Environment in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 367-377.
    16. 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.
    17. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Góngora, R. & Milán, M.J. & López-i-Gelats, F., 2019. "Pathways of incorporation of young farmers into livestock farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 183-194.
    19. Hu, Yun-fei & You, Fei & Luo, Qi-you, 2018. "Characterizing the attitudes of the grain-planting farmers of Huaihe Basin, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 224-234.
    20. Namakando, Namakando, 2020. "Stakeholder perceptions of raw water quality and its management in Fetakgomo and Maruleng municipalities of Limpopo Province," Research Theses 334769, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aesc23:334568. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.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.