IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v162y2018icp46-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues

Author

Listed:
  • Iofrida, Nathalie
  • De Luca, Anna Irene
  • Gulisano, Giovanni
  • Strano, Alfio

Abstract

Olive growing is one of the most significant sources of income for agricultural areas in the Mediterranean basin, and a characteristic element from environmental and landscape perspectives. Italy is the second largest producer of olive oil; this cultivation represents the nation's most important supply chain, especially in the southern Italian Calabrian region, contributing to both local and rural economies. However, in a Calabrian context, olive production underperforms due to structural and managerial weaknesses, and farming techniques' potential impacts are not properly addressed due to farmers' poor knowledge of agricultural sustainability techniques. Therefore, Calabrian olive growing requires innovation, especially to respond to new sustainability requirements, currently claimed by public policies (eco-conditionality), and consumers and citizens increasingly concerned with environmental quality, human health and social liveability. This paper analyses the aspects that require innovation towards sustainability aims by exploring the perceptions of various actors, including local and supply chain stakeholders, and highlighting and suggesting new pathways to be introduced in Calabrian olive growing. The application of a mixed qualitative/quantitative statistical method, or the ‘Q-methodology’, small and medium-sized farms, academic experts, technicians and consumers have been interviewed to investigate their perceptions and interpretations of sustainability issues. Further, their opinions on possible weaknesses and areas of improvement are examined, highlighting either a consensus or diversity regarding their points of view. The results indicated that all actors perceived a need to orient Calabrian olive growing towards more sustainable management practices by better exploiting its potential and focusing on product quality. Sustainable innovation, in this sense, would increase production efficiency and economic performance, thus satisfying the need for employment and fairer remunerations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:46-55
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17303761
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.020?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    2. Bockstael, Erika & Bahia, Natália C.F. & Seixas, Cristiana S. & Berkes, Fikret, 2016. "Participation in protected area management planning in coastal Brazil," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Johnson, Nancy L. & Lilja, Nina & Ashby, Jacqueline A., 2003. "Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 287-306, November.
    4. Spruijt, Pita & Knol, Anne B. & Petersen, Arthur C. & Lebret, Erik, 2016. "Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-52.
    5. P. Sinclair & S. Cowell & R. Löfstedt & R. Clift, 2007. "A Case Study In Participatory Environmental Systems Assessment With The Use Of Multimedia Materials And Quantitative Lca," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(04), pages 399-421.
    6. Weldegiorgis, Fitsum S. & Ali, Saleem H., 2016. "Mineral resources and localised development: Q-methodology for rapid assessment of socioeconomic impacts in Rwanda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-11.
    7. 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.
    8. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    9. Howard, Rebecca J. & Tallontire, Anne M. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Marchant, Rob A., 2016. "Which “fairness”, for whom, and why? An empirical analysis of plural notions of fairness in Fairtrade Carbon Projects, using Q methodology," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 100-109.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meiying Xie & Xiang Cai & Zhengli Xu & Nan Zhou & Dongqing Yan, 2022. "Factors contributing to abandonment of household biogas digesters in rural China: a study of stakeholder perspectives using Q-methodology," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7698-7724, June.
    2. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil, 2024. "Assessing the Landscape Recovery Scheme in the UK: a Q methodology study in Yorkshire, UK," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 13(1), May.
    4. Håkan Berg & Simon Dang & Nguyen Thanh Tam, 2023. "Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-15, July.
    5. 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).
    6. Fahma Fiqhiyyah Nur Azizah & Hiroe Ishihara & Aiora Zabala & Yutaro Sakai & Gede Suantika & Nobuyuki Yagi, 2020. "Diverse Perceptions on Eco-Certification for Shrimp Aquaculture in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.

    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. Díaz, Paula & Adler, Carolina & Patt, Anthony, 2017. "Do stakeholders’ perspectives on renewable energy infrastructure pose a risk to energy policy implementation? A case of a hydropower plant in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 21-28.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pawera, Lukas & Manickam, Ravishankar & Wangungu, Carolyne & Bonnarith, Uon & Schreinemachers, Pepijn & Ramasamy, Srinivasan, 2024. "Guidance on farmer participation in the design, testing and scaling of agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    7. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    8. Letty, Brigid & Shezi, Zanele & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2012. "An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa and implications for innovation indicator development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. 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.
    10. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, 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. 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.
    13. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    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. Susan Kaaria & Jemimah Njuki & Annet Abenakyo & Robert Delve & Pascal Sanginga, 2008. "Assessment of the Enabling Rural Innovation (ERI) approach: Case studies from Malawi and Uganda," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(1), pages 53-63, February.
    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. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    21. 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).

    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:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:46-55. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.