IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i8p1545-d1209030.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Itzel Inti Maria Donati

    (Department of Architecture and Design Landscape and Environment Sapienza, University of Rome, Piazza Borghese 9, 00186 Rome, Italy)

  • Davide Viaggi

    (Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Viale Fanin 50, 40127 Bologna, Italy)

  • Zorica Srdjevic

    (Department of Water Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Bojan Srdjevic

    (Department of Water Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Antonella Di Fonzo

    (Council of Research in Agriculture and Analysis of Agricultural Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, Via Barberini 36, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Teresa Del Giudice

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Reggia di Portici, Via Università 100, 80055 Naples, Italy)

  • Orlando Cimino

    (Council of Research in Agriculture and Analysis of Agricultural Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, Via Barberini 36, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Andrea Martelli

    (Council of Research in Agriculture and Analysis of Agricultural Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, Via Barberini 36, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Anna Dalla Marta

    (Department of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences, University of Florence, Via delle Cascine 5, 50144 Florence, Italy)

  • Roberto Henke

    (Council of Research in Agriculture and Analysis of Agricultural Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, Via Barberini 36, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Filiberto Altobelli

    (Council of Research in Agriculture and Analysis of Agricultural Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-Economy, Via Barberini 36, 00187 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Objective: Stakeholders—farmers from four different European areas (Campania (IT), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (PL), Limburg (NL), Andalusia (ES))—are asked to share, from the OPERA project, their opinions on five criteria that all aim at improving the use of irrigation advisory services (IASs). Each criterion has different characteristics that affect the way farmers rank it. The present study has two objectives. The first is to individuate the priorities of the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. The second objective is to carry out a ranking of the weights of the criteria by case study, ranking the groups and their associated properties among farmers’ profiles. Methods : The answers to 120 questionnaires dispensed to the future users of IASs in the four agricultural sites were analyzed in detail, and then the given priorities were evaluated through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP methodology was used to determine the relative weights of the five assessment criteria, and finally, to select the one with major value. Results and conclusions : The results show that A5 (assuring economic sustainability) was the most important criterion. The contributions provided by this study are twofold: Firstly, it presents an application of a methodology that involves the conversion of a linguistic judgement of farmers in a correspondence weight. Secondly, it tackles decision making regarding improving the use of IASs, evaluating the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. Irrigation advisory services can play a key role in assisting users to adopt new techniques and technologies for more efficient water use and increased production.

Suggested Citation

  • Itzel Inti Maria Donati & Davide Viaggi & Zorica Srdjevic & Bojan Srdjevic & Antonella Di Fonzo & Teresa Del Giudice & Orlando Cimino & Andrea Martelli & Anna Dalla Marta & Roberto Henke & Filiberto A, 2023. "An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1545-:d:1209030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1545/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/8/1545/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Akbar Barati & Hossein Azadi & Milad Dehghani Pour & Philippe Lebailly & Mostafa Qafori, 2019. "Determining Key Agricultural Strategic Factors Using AHP-MICMAC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    3. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    4. Rocío Poveda-Bautista & Bernat Roig-Merino & Herminia Puerto & Juan Buitrago-Vera, 2021. "Assessment of Irrigation Water Use Efficiency in Citrus Orchards Using AHP," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, May.
    5. L. V. Noto & G. Cipolla & D. Pumo & A. Francipane, 2023. "Climate Change in the Mediterranean Basin (Part II): A Review of Challenges and Uncertainties in Climate Change Modeling and Impact Analyses," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(6), pages 2307-2323, May.
    6. Thomas L. Saaty, 1987. "Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 159-172, June.
    7. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    8. Bergez, J. -E. & Nolleau, S., 2003. "Maize grain yield variability between irrigation stands: a theoretical study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 43-57, April.
    9. Richards, Q.D. & Bange, M.P. & Johnston, S.B., 2008. "HydroLOGIC: An irrigation management system for Australian cotton," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 40-49, July.
    10. John J. Glen, 1987. "Feature Article—Mathematical Models in Farm Planning: A Survey," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(5), pages 641-666, October.
    11. Martin de Santa Olalla, F. & Calera, A. & Dominguez, A., 2003. "Monitoring irrigation water use by combining Irrigation Advisory Service, and remotely sensed data with a geographic information system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 111-124, June.
    12. Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    13. Duarte, A.C. & Mateos, L., 2022. "How changes in cropping intensity affect water usage in an irrigated Mediterranean catchment," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    14. Carmelo Picone & Roberto Henke & Myriam Ruberto & Emilio Calligaris & Raffaella Zucaro, 2021. "A Synthetic Indicator for Sustainability Standards of Water Resources in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Ortega, J.F. & de Juan, J.A. & Tarjuelo, J.M., 2005. "Improving water management: The irrigation advisory service of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain)," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(1-3), pages 37-58, August.
    16. Vuolo, Francesco & D’Urso, Guido & De Michele, Carlo & Bianchi, Biagio & Cutting, Michael, 2015. "Satellite-based irrigation advisory services: A common tool for different experiences from Europe to Australia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 82-95.
    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. Filiberto Altobelli & Roberto Henke, 2024. "Economic Strategies and Policy Suggestions of Agricultural Sustainable Food Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-7, March.

    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. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. Ignacio Lorite & Margarita García-Vila & María-Ascensión Carmona & Cristina Santos & María-Auxiliadora Soriano, 2012. "Assessment of the Irrigation Advisory Services’ Recommendations and Farmers’ Irrigation Management: A Case Study in Southern Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2397-2419, June.
    4. Binkai Xu & Lei Liu & Yanming Sun, 2023. "The Spatio-Temporal Pattern of Regional Coordinated Development in the Common Prosperity Demonstration Zone—Evidence from Zhejiang Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    5. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    7. Alvarez, V. Martinez & Baille, A. & Martinez, J.M. Molina & Gonzalez-Real, M.M., 2006. "Efficiency of shading materials in reducing evaporation from free water surfaces," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 229-239, August.
    8. Nadeem, Adeel Ahmad & Zha, Yuanyuan & Shi, Liangsheng & Zafar, Zeeshan & Ali, Shoaib & Zhang, Yufan & Altaf, Adnan Raza & Afzal, Muhammad & Zubair, Muhammad, 2023. "SAFER-ET based assessment of irrigation patterns and impacts on groundwater use in the central Punjab, Pakistan," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    9. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2014. "Can Streamlined Multicriteria Decision Analysis Be Used to Implement Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 746-755, August.
    10. Gabriela D. Oliveira & Luis C. Dias, 2020. "The potential learning effect of a MCDA approach on consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 293(2), pages 767-787, October.
    11. Jana Stofkova & Matej Krejnus & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Peter Malega & Vladimira Binasova, 2022. "Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    12. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    13. Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2021. "Comparative Multicriteria Analysis Methods for Ranking Sites for Solar Farm Deployment: A Case Study in Greece," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    15. Csató, László, 2024. "Right-left asymmetry of the eigenvector method: A simulation study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 708-717.
    16. Domínguez, A. & Martínez, R.S. & de Juan, J.A. & Martínez-Romero, A. & Tarjuelo, J.M., 2012. "Simulation of maize crop behavior under deficit irrigation using MOPECO model in a semi-arid environment," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 42-53.
    17. F. Carrión & J. Montero & J. Tarjuelo & M. Moreno, 2014. "Design of Sprinkler Irrigation Subunit of Minimum Cost with Proper Operation. Application at Corn Crop in Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(14), pages 5073-5089, November.
    18. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    19. Andra Lovasz & Nicu Cornel Sabau & Ioana Borza & Radu Brejea, 2023. "Production and Quality of Biodiesel under the Influence of a Rapeseed Fertilization System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-27, April.
    20. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.

    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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:8:p:1545-:d:1209030. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.