Multi-criteria policy scenarios analysis for public management of irrigated agriculture

Laura Riesgo, José A. Gómez-Limón

Abstract

In this paper we present a methodological approach to analyze the combination of different agricultural policy and irrigation water pricing alternatives. For this purpose we take into account that farmers consider a broad set of criteria at the same time when making decisions. Thus, policy scenario simulations are done trough multi-criteria mathematical programming models capable to simulate farmers’ future behaviour. For this purpose we have opted for models developed within the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). It is also worth noting that results obtained from the simulation models are not only related with farmers’ decision variables (crop mixes). A set of relevant economic, social and environmental attributes related to public objectives are also obtained as a way of measuring the efficiency of the policy scenarios proposed. The results obtained show the usefulness of this methodological approach to evaluate the combined pressures and impacts of both policies.

Keywords

Multiple-Criteria modelling; Irrigated agriculture; Scenario analysis; CAP; Water policy

Subject classification

Q25, Q15, C61.

Full Text:

PDF

References

Amador, F.; Sumpsi, J.M. y Romero, C. (1998). «A non-interactive methodology to assess farmers’ utility functions: An application to large farms in Andalusia, Spain». European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25(1):95-109. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/25.1.92

Bazzani, G.M.; Viaggi, D.; Berbel J.; López, M.J. y Gutiérrez, C. (2004). A methodology for the analysis of irrigated farming in Europe, en Berbel, J. y C. Gutiérrez (eds.): The Sustainability of European Irrigated Agriculture under Water Framework Directive and Agenda 2000. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, en prensa. http://www.uco.es/grupos/wadi.

Berbel, J. y Rodríguez, A. (1998). «An MCDM approach to production analysis: An application to irrigated farms in Southern Spain». European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1):108-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00216-6

Berkhout, F.; Eames, M. y Skea, J. (1998). Environmental Futures Scoping Study. Final Report. Science and Technology Policy Research Unit. Brighton. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/.

Day, R.H. (1963). «On aggregating linear programming models of production». Journal of Farm Economics, 45(4):797-813. https://doi.org/10.2307/1235749

Domínguez Vivancos, A. (1997). Tratado de fertilización. Mundi-Prensa. Madrid.

DTI (1999). Environmental futures. PB 4475. Department of Trade and Industry. U.K. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/.

DTI (2002). Foresight futures 2020 revised scenarios and guidance. Department of Trade and Industry. HMSO, UK.

Escartín, C.M. y Santafé, J.M. (2000). Application of the Cost Recovery Principle in Spain: Policies and Impacts. Sintra Seminar «Pricing Water: Economics, Environment and Society ». European Commission DGXI e Instituto da Água, Sintra (Portugal).

Gómez-Limón, J.A. y Riesgo, L. (2004). «Irrigation water pricing: Differential impacts on irrigated farms». Agricultural Economics, 31(1):47-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2004.tb00221.x

Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Riesgo, L. y Arriaza, M. (2004). Multi-Criteria analysis of input use in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(3):381-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00114.x

Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Arriaza, M. y Riesgo, L. (2003). «A MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion». European Journal of Operational Research, 151(3):569-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00625-2

Gómez de Barreda, D.; Lidón, A.; Gómez de Barreda Ferraz, D.; Gamón, A. y Sáez, A. (1998): Características fisioquímicas y biológicas que definen el comportamiento en el suelo de los fitosanitarios. SEMH (Sociedad Española de Malherbología). Ediciones y promociones Lav, S.L.

Hazell, P.B.R. y Norton, R.D. (1986). Mathematical programming for economic analysis in agriculture. MacMillan Publishing Company. Nueva York.

Keeney, R.L. y Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade offs. John Wiley & Sons. Nueva York.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente (1998). Libro blanco del agua. MIMAM. Madrid.

Morris, J.; Vasileiou, K. y Berbel, J. (2004). WADI scenario definition, en Berbel, J. y Gutiérrez, C. (eds.): The Sustainability of European Irrigated Agriculture under Water Framework Directive and Agenda 2000. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels, en prensa. http://www.uco.es/grupos/wadi.

OCDE (2001). Environmental indicators for agriculture. Volume 3 - Methods and Results. OCDE. París. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264188556-en

Riesgo, L. (2004). Sostenibilidad del regadío en la cuenca del Duero ante los retos de la DMA y la reforma de la PAC. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Oviedo.

Solano, C.; León, H.; Pérez, E. y Herrero, M. (2001). «Characterising objective profiles of Costa Rican dairy farmers». Agricultural Systems, 67(1):153-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00054-8

Sumpsi, J.M.; Amador, F. y Romero, C. (1997). «On farmers’ objectives: a multi-criteria approach ». European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1):64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00338-X

Volpi, R. (1992). Bilanci Energetici in agricoltura. Laruffa Ed. Italia.

Willock, J.; Deary, I.J.; Edwards-Jones, G.; McGregor, M.J.; Sutherland, A.; Dent, J.B.; Morgan, O. y Grieve, R. (1999). «The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision making: business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in Scotland». Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2):286-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00814.x

Abstract Views

322
Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




 Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 2174-7350   ISSN: 1578-0732   https://doi.org/10.4995/earn