IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v28y2013icp8-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A social choice approach to primary resource management: The rubber tree case in Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Diaby, Moussa
  • Ferrer, Hélène
  • Valognes, Fabrice

Abstract

We consider in the present paper an original approach to a decision making problem related to the management of a primary resource, namely the rubber tree. By using the social choice theory through approval voting, we show that it is possible to improve the return of the crop. Hence, by selecting the best varieties to be planted with respect to some environmental constraints, we demonstrate that approval voting can be easily used (opposed to classical operation research methods) by the African rubber tree planters in order to get a plantation at peak performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Diaby, Moussa & Ferrer, Hélène & Valognes, Fabrice, 2013. "A social choice approach to primary resource management: The rubber tree case in Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 8-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:8-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113000063
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.002?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moussa Diaby & Fabrice Valognes & André Clément-Demange, 2010. "Utilisation d'une méthode multicritère d'aide à la décision pour le choix des clones d'hévéa à planter en Afrique," Post-Print halshs-00565246, HAL.
    2. Martin, C. & Ruperd, Y. & Legret, M., 2007. "Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 338-349, August.
    3. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    4. Fishburn, Peter C., 1978. "Axioms for approval voting: Direct proof," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 180-185, October.
    5. Fabrice Valognes & Hélène Ferrer & Moussa Diaby & André Clément-Demange, 2011. "A comprehensive decision approach for rubber tree planting management in Africa," Post-Print halshs-00650533, HAL.
    6. Hokkanen, Joonas & Salminen, Pekka, 1997. "Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 19-36, April.
    7. Martin, Wade E. & Shields, Deborah J. & Tolwinski, Boleslaw & Kent, Brian, 1996. "An application of social choice theory to U.S.D.A. forest service decision making," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 603-621, December.
    8. Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1978. "Approval Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 831-847, September.
    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. Min, Shi & Bai, Junfei & Wang, Xiaobing & Waibel, Hermann, 2024. "Does an inconsistent land tenure certificate affect technical efficiency of smallholder rubber farming: Evidence from a panel data in Southwest China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    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. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    2. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    3. Samet, Dov & Schmeidler, David, 2003. "Between liberalism and democracy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 213-233, June.
    4. Eyal Baharad & Jacob Goldberger & Moshe Koppel & Shmuel Nitzan, 2012. "Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 113-130, January.
    5. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve & Stong, Richard, 2005. "Collective choice under dichotomous preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 165-184, June.
    6. François Maniquet & Philippe Mongin, 2015. "Approval voting and Arrow’s impossibility theorem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(3), pages 519-532, March.
    7. Marcella Maia Urtiga & Danielle Costa Morais & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2017. "Group Decision Methodology to Support Watershed Committees in Choosing Among Combinations of Alternatives," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 729-752, July.
    8. Alcantud, José Carlos R. & de Andres Calle, Rocio & Cascon, José Manuel, 2012. "Approval consensus measures," MPRA Paper 39610, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Erdamar, Bora & Sanver, M. Remzi & Sato, Shin, 2017. "Evaluationwise strategy-proofness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 227-238.
    10. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    11. Martínez, Ricardo & Moreno, Bernardo, 2017. "Qualified voting systems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 49-54.
    12. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    13. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2009. "Fully sincere voting," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 720-735, November.
    14. Norihisa Sato, 2014. "A characterization result for approval voting with a variable set of alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(4), pages 809-825, December.
    15. Duddy, Conal, 2014. "Electing a representative committee by approval ballot: An impossibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 14-16.
    16. Arnaud Dellis & Sean D’Evelyn & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2011. "Multiple votes, ballot truncation and the two-party system: an experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(2), pages 171-200, July.
    17. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Variable-population voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 210-221.
    18. Lucia Buenrostro & Amrita Dhillon & Peter Vida, 2013. "Scoring rule voting games and dominance solvability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 329-352, February.
    19. José Alcantud & Ritxar Arlegi, 2012. "An axiomatic analysis of ranking sets under simple categorization," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 227-245, March.
    20. Pivato, Marcus, 2014. "Formal utilitarianism and range voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 50-56.

    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:forpol:v:28:y:2013:i:c:p:8-14. 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/forpol .

    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.