IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae11/114319.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multifunctional Impacts of the Olive Farming Practices in Andalusia, Spain: An Analytic Network Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Carmona-Torres, Carmen
  • Parra-Lopez, Carlos
  • Sayadi, Samir
  • Hinojosa-Rodriguez, Ascension

Abstract

Olive agriculture represents one of the most important economic activities in the region of Andalusia, Spain. Additionally to its economic importance the multifunctional character of agriculture and its wide territorial presence entails that it has a high potential incidence in the environmental and social dimensions of the sustainable development of the region. Despite this importance, it is hypothesised and aimed to be contrasted that olive farmers are not implementing the agricultural practices optimal from an economic, environmental and social point of view. Contrasting this hypothesis entails to evaluate with a holistic and systemic approach the multiple impacts of the different technical alternatives to diverse agricultural practices. The use of the Analytic Network Process, a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis technique, will be illustrated as a useful approach to deal with this kind of problems characterised by complexity, lack of information and risk. The study will focus on the average yield, climatic, environmental, etc., conditions of olive cultivation in Andalusia. The results seem to confirm the initial hypothesis when comparing the current situation with different scenarios of optimal technical alternatives. In particular the technical alternatives implemented nowadays they are far from being environmentally optimal. The multifunctional benefits and the technical costs of a change from the current situation to these optimal scenarios will be analysed.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Parra-Lopez, Carlos & Sayadi, Samir & Hinojosa-Rodriguez, Ascension, 2011. "Multifunctional Impacts of the Olive Farming Practices in Andalusia, Spain: An Analytic Network Approach," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114319, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:114319
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.114319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/114319/files/Carmona-Torres_Carmen_233.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.114319?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. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    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. Matthew D. Wood & Kenton Plourde & Sabrina Larkin & Peter P. Egeghy & Antony J. Williams & Valerie Zemba & Igor Linkov & Daniel A. Vallero, 2020. "Advances on a Decision Analytic Approach to Exposure‐Based Chemical Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 83-96, January.
    2. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    3. Rađenović Žarko & Veselinović Ivana, 2017. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Method for the Assessment of Health Management Information Systems Efficiency," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 55(1), pages 121-142, March.
    4. Sean Pascoe & Renae Tobin & Jill Windle & Toni Cannard & Nadine Marshall & Zobaidul Kabir & Nicole Flint, 2016. "Developing a Social, Cultural and Economic Report Card for a Regional Industrial Harbour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Lahtinen, Tuomas J. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 890-898.
    6. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    7. Bruno Eustaquio Carvalho & Rui Cunha Marques & Oscar Cordeiro Netto, 2018. "Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA): an Ex-Post Analysis of Water Services by the Legal Review in Portugal," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 32(2), pages 675-699, January.
    8. Mustafa S. Al-Tekreeti & Salwa M. Beheiry & Vian Ahmed, 2021. "A Framework for Assessing Commitment Indicators in Sustainable Development Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Parra-Lopez, Carlos & Groot, J.C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, W.A.H., 2008. "Exploring sustainable technical alternatives for Dutch dairy systems by integrating agro-economic modelling and public preferences assessment," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44253, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    11. Tom Pape, 2020. "Prioritising data items for business analytics: Framework and application to human resources," Papers 2012.13813, arXiv.org.
    12. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    13. Parra-López, Carlos & Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Sayadi, Samir & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Digital transformation of the agrifood system: Quantifying the conditioning factors to inform policy planning in the olive sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Parra-López, Carlos & Sayadi, Samir & Garcia-Garcia, Guillermo & Ben Abdallah, Saker & Carmona-Torres, Carmen, 2023. "Prioritising conservation actions towards the sustainability of the dehesa by integrating the demands of society," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    15. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    16. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    17. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    18. Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Parra-López, Carlos & de Haro-Giménez, Tomás & Carmona-Torres, Carmen, 2023. "Sustainability assessment of Territorial Short Food Supply Chains versus Large‐Scale Food Distribution: The case of Colombia and Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    19. Dong, Yucheng & Liu, Yating & Liang, Haiming & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2018. "Strategic weight manipulation in multiple attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 154-164.
    20. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Khoveyni, Mohammad, 2017. "A three-stage hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 93-105.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    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:eaae11:114319. 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/eaaeeea.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.