Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:59:27.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A multi-criteria evaluation of the environmental performances of conventional, organic and integrated olive-growing systems in the south of Spain based on experts' knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2007

Carlos Parra-López ,
Javier Calatrava-Requena  and
Tomás de-Haro-Giménez
Carlos Parra-López*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Andalusian Institute of Agricultural Research—IFAPA, PO Box 2027 18080Granada, Spain.
Javier Calatrava-Requena
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Andalusian Institute of Agricultural Research—IFAPA, PO Box 2027 18080Granada, Spain.
Tomás de-Haro-Giménez
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Policy, University of Cordoba, PO Box 3048 14080Cordoba, Spain.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The medium to long-term environmental performances of organic, integrated and conventional olive-growing systems in the average conditions of the south of Spain are evaluated and compared with respect to soil erosion, soil fertility, rational use of irrigation water, water contamination, atmospheric pollution and biodiversity, based on experts’ knowledge. The aim of the research was to test the common implicit assumption of environmental superiority of the two alternative farming systems over the conventional system. For this purpose, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a widely used multi-criteria decision-making tool, has been implemented. AHP enables us to deal with complex decision-making problems with multiple criteria, stakeholders and decision-makers, high uncertainty and risk, such as in the case of multi-criteria environmental comparison of alternative farming systems. Twenty experts in olive production, clustered into three groups according to their professional field of interest, were involved in the analysis. The utilization of experts' knowledge is justified when information relevant for urgent decision-making is not available, is partial or is time and resource demanding, and a holistic perspective is required. Indexes and procedures are proposed for group decision-making, to detect variation in expert opinions and differences between alternative systems' performances. Despite bias in the judgments of the groups of experts in some topics, results confirm the holistic environmental superiority of organic and integrated alternatives over the conventional olive system in Andalusia in the medium to long-term. The results represent a scientific base to justify and endorse institutional support regarding the promotion and implementation of organic and integrated olive-growing systems in the region, which are likely to result in greater social welfare.

Keywords

organic agricultureintegrated farming systemsenvironmental assessmentmulti-criteria decision-makingAHPOlea europaea L
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 189 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 European Commission. 1985. The Green Book: Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy. Communication of the European Communities to the Council, document com(85) 333 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
2 WCED—World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Brundtland Report.Google Scholar
3 United Nations. 1992. Report on Environment and Development (Agenda 21). Annex II, UN Document A.Conf.151.26.Google Scholar
4 United Nations. 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. UN Document A/Conf.151/5/Rev.1.Google Scholar
5 European Commission. 1996. The Cork Declaration: A living countryside. European Conference on Rural Development: Rural Europe – Future Perspectives, Cork, Ireland, 7–9 November.Google Scholar
6 Directorate-General for Agriculture of the European Commission. 2003. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: Medium-term prospects for agricultural markets and income in the European Union 2003–2010. Available at Web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture.Google Scholar
7 Asociación Española Laboreo de Conservación-Suelos Vivos. 1999. Cubiertas Vegetales en Arboricultura Frutal. Ficha Técnica n° 5. Available at Web site: http://www.aeac-sv.org/pdfs/ficha5.pdf.Google Scholar
8 Labrador, Moreno J. and Guiberteau, Cabanillas A. 1990. La Agricultura Ecológica. Hojas divulgadoras N°11/90HD. MAPA, Dirección General de Investigación y Capacitación Agrarias.Google Scholar
9 Parra-López, C. and Calatrava-Requena, J. 2005. Factors related to the adoption of organic farming in Spanish olive orchards. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 3(1):5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Saaty, T.L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15:234–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill, New York. Reprinted in 1996 by RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
12 Saaty, T.L. 1994. The Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol. 6. AHP Series. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
13 Tiwari, D.N., Loof, R., and Paudyal, G.N. 1999. Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agricultural Systems 60(2):99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Mendoza, G.A. and Prabhu, R. 2000. Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 131:107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Bernetti, I., Casini, L., Romano, D., and Scotti, R. 1994. Environmental and land use issues in Multi-Purpose Forest Management: An application to the Vallombrosa National Forest (Tuscany). 34th EAAE Seminar. Available at Web site: http://www.unifi.it/unifi/deeaf/bernettiWEB/download/pubblica/p31.pdf.Google Scholar
16 Peterson, D.L., Silsbee, D.G., and Schmoldt, D.L. 1995. A Planning Approach for Developing Inventory and Monitoring Programs In National Parks. Work document, U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service. Available at Web site: http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/peterson.pdf.Google Scholar
17 Pirazzoli, C. and Castellini, A. 2000. Application of a model for evaluating the environmental sustainability of cultures in hill and mountain areas. Agricultural Economics Review 1:57–70.Google Scholar
18 Duke, J.M. and Aull-Hyde, R. 2002. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42:131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Hernández, A. and Cardells, F. 1999. Aplicación del método de las jerarquías analíticas a la valoración del uso recreativo de los espacios naturales de Canarias. Working paper, Gobierno de Canarias. Available at Web site: http://www.gobcan.es/medioambiente/revista/1999/13/61/index.html.Google Scholar
20 Reyna, D.S. and Cardells, R.F. 1999. Valoración AHP de los ecosistemas naturales de la Comunidad Valenciana. Revista Valenciana D'Estudis Autonomics 27:153–179.Google Scholar
21 Escobar, M.T. and Jiménez, J.M.M. 1994. Técnicas multicriterio discretas en la planificación de cuencas fluviales. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 1:7–29.Google Scholar
22 Moreno, Jiménez J.M. 1997. Priorización y toma de decisiones ambientales. Proceedings from I Encuentro Iberoamericano sobre Evaluación y Decisión Multicriterio. July, Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
23 Moreno, Jiménez J.M., Aguarón, J., Escobar, M.T., and Turón, A. 1999. The Multicriteria Procedural Rationality on SISDEMA. European Journal of Operational Research 119(2):388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Moreno, Jiménez J.M., Aguarón, J., and Escobar, M.T. 2001. Metodología científica en valoración y selección ambiental. Pesquisa Operacional 21:3–18.Google Scholar
25 Brunner, N. and Starkl, M. 2004. Decision aid systems for evaluating sustainability: a critical survey. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24(4):441–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Forman, E. and Selly, M.A. 2001. Decisions by Objectives. Expert Choice Inc. Available at Web site: http://www.expertchoice.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Forman, E., Saaty, T.L., Selly, M.A., and Waldron, R. 1983. Expert Choice. Decision Support Software. McLean, VA.Google Scholar
28 Saaty, T.L. 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. RSW Publications, Pittsburgh. Reprinted in 2001.Google Scholar
29 Ramanathan, R. and Ganesh, L.S. 1994. Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving member's weightages. European Journal of Operational Research 79:249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Forman, E. and Peniwati, K. 1998. Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 108:165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Aczél, J. and Saaty, T.L. 1983. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27(1):93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Saaty, T.L. 1989. Group decision making and the AHP. In Golden, B.L., Wasil, E.A., and Harker, P.T. (eds). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Applications and Studies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. p. 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Zahir, S. 1999. Clusters in a group: decision making in the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 112:620–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Zahir, S. 1999. Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 112:373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Shirani, A., Aiken, M., and Paolillo, J.G.P. 1998. Group decision support systems and incentive structures. Information and Management 33(5):231–240.Google Scholar
36 Bryson, N. 1996. Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers and Operations Research 23(1):27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Bryson, N. 1997. Consensus formation in group support systems using the qualitative discriminant process. Annals of Operations Research 71:75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Yeh, J.M., Kreng, B., and Lin, C. 2001. A consensus approach for synthesizing the elements of comparison matrix in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Systems Science 32(11):1353–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Junta, de Andalucía. 2004. Anuario de Estadísticas Agrarias y Pesqueras de Andalucía-2001. Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Servicio de Publicaciones y Divulgación.Google Scholar
40 Pastor, M., Caballero, J.I., Alvarado, M., and Civantos, M. 2000. La Producción Integrada en olivar en la Comunidad de Andalucía, Vida Rural 105. Available at Web site: http://www.eumedia.es/articulos/vr/Aceites/1abrolivar.htm.Google Scholar
41 Parra-López, C. and Calatrava-Requena, J. 2006. Comparison of farming techniques actually implemented and their rationality in organic and conventional olive groves in Andalusia, Spain. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 24(1): 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., and Huirne, R. 2003. Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Conacher, J. and Conacher, A. 1998. Organic farming and the environment, with particular reference to Australia: a review. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 16:145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Sánchez Sánchez, J.L. 2003. Evaluación de Sustentabilidad de Sistemas de Manejo de Olivares Ecológicos y Convencionales en Los Pedroches. 4th edition ‘Andrés Núñez de Prado’ award-winning work. Asociación Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica—CAAE, Sevilla, Spain.Google Scholar
45 Rigby, D., Young, T., and Burton, M. 2001. The development of and prospects for organic farming in the UK. Food Policy 26(6):599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Hansen, B., Alrøe, H.F., and Kristensen, E.S. 2001. Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83:11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T., and Burton, M. 2001. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecological Economics 39:463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Häring, A., and Dabbert, S. 2000. The environmental impact of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Vol. 6. University of Hohenheim, Germany.Google Scholar
49 Cobb, D., Feber, R., Hopkins, A., Stockdale, L., O'Riordan, T., Clements, B., Firbank, L., Goulding, K., Jarvis, S., and Macdonald, D. 1999. Integrating the environmental and economic consequences of converting to organic agriculture: evidence from a case study. Land Use Policy 16:207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., and Huirne, R. 2004. Ecological-economic modelling to support multi-objective policy making: a farming systems approach implemented for Tuscany. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 102:349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 Siegrist, S., Schaub, D., Pfiffner, L., and Mäder, P. 1998. Does organic agriculture reduce soil erodibility? The results of a long-term field study on loess in Switzerland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 69:253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 Gunapala, N., Venette, R.C., Ferris, H., and Scow, K.M. 1998. Effects of soil management history on the rate of organic matter decomposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30(14):1917–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Hummel, R.L., Walgenbach, J.F., Hoyt, G.D., and Kennedy, G.G. 2002. Effects of vegetable production system on epigeal arthropod populations. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93:177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 DEPA. 1999. Økologiske scenarier for Danmark. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Available at Web site: http://www.mst.dk/199903publikat/87-7909-292-6/oekologi.pdf.Google Scholar
55 Stockdale, E.A., Lampkin, N.H., Hovi, M., Keatinge, R., Lennartsson, E.K.M., Macdonald, D.W., Padel, S., Tattersall, F.H., Wolfe, M.S., and Watson, C.A. 2001. Agronomic and environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in Agronomy 70:261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56 Freemark, K.E. and Kirk, D.A. 2001. Birds on organic and conventional farms in Ontario: partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biological Conservation 101:337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57 Parra-López, C., De Haro Giménez, T., and Calatrava-Requena, J. Forthcoming. Diffusion and adoption of organic farming in the southern Spanish olive groves. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.Google Scholar