IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9588-d1513536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Analysis of the Impact of Waste on the Production and Consumption of Dates in Saudi Arabia

Author

Listed:
  • Abdullah Alhamdan

    (Chair of Dates Industry and Technology, Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Yosef Alamri

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Fahad Aljuhaim

    (Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Alaa Kotb

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Emad Aljohani

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Sharafeldin Alaagib

    (Unit of Food Security, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mahmoud Elamshity

    (Chair of Dates Industry and Technology, Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

The goal of this study was to determine how the loss of dates affected food security in Saudi Arabia from 2000 to 2021. The researchers achieved this by using food security indicators, economic equations to quantify agricultural resource losses, and econometric analyses to develop a partial adjustment model. The results show that dates are considered a self-sufficient crop as well as an export crop, as the state resorts to exporting the surplus instead of storing it for local consumption. During the study period, there was an increase in the period of sufficiency in date production for local consumption and the period of coverage of imports for local consumption. In 2000, the volume of dates lost increased by approximately 131.22%. The total loss of land and water resources reached 31,918.4 hectares and 324.759 million cubic meters, respectively. The value of the partial adjustment coefficient (λ) indicates that about 81.1% of the imbalance in the equilibrium between the actual and equilibrium levels is adjusted within one year. Loss is considered one of the most important factors that determine food security for dates, in addition to the total value of loans financed to date factories, the total population, and the level of technological progress in the marketing and storage of dates. It was found that a change of 10% in these variables leads to a change in food security for dates of (−2.37%), 0.07, (−15.33%), and 0.58%, respectively, and the adjusted coefficient of determination was estimated at 0.93. This study recommends the following: (1) expanding the use of modern technologies for date post-harvest transportation and storage, and (2) increasing support and loans allocated to date factories to increase warehouses for cooling and storage to accommodate the increase in production and surplus consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdullah Alhamdan & Yosef Alamri & Fahad Aljuhaim & Alaa Kotb & Emad Aljohani & Sharafeldin Alaagib & Mahmoud Elamshity, 2024. "Economic Analysis of the Impact of Waste on the Production and Consumption of Dates in Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9588-:d:1513536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9588/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9588/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vijesh V. Krishna & Matin Qaim, 2008. "Consumer Attitudes toward GM Food and Pesticide Residues in India," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 233-251.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Danforth, Diana M. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Nayga, Rodolpho M. Jr & Delwaide, Anne-Cecile, 2015. "Are all GMO’s the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204869, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    3. Saunders, Caroline & Guenther, Meike & Tait, Peter & Saunders, John, 2013. "Consumer attitudes and willingness to pay for attributes of food, in particular from New Zealand," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 158378, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Juarez Tijerino, Andrea Maria & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Sustainable food consumption in China and India," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 198718, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    5. Anyam, Osemeke E. & Fashogbon, Ayodele E. & Oni, Omobowale A., 2013. "Consumers’Willingness to Pay for Safety Attributes of Bread in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161630, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    6. Saunders, Caroline & Guenther, Meike & Tait, Peter & John, Saunders, 2013. "Consumer attitudes towards and willingness to pay for NZ food attributes in the UK, China and India and the impact on NZ producer returns," 2013 Conference, August 28-30, 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand 160561, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Enthoven, Laura & Van den Broeck, Goedele, 2023. "How to boost the local trade of participatory guarantee system (PGS)-certified produce? A value chain perspective in Huánuco, Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    8. Sidali, Katia Laura & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Hofer, Marie, 2016. "Consumer Expectations Regarding Sustainable Food: Insights from Developed and Emerging Markets," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Birol, Ekin & Roy, Devesh & Torero, Maximo, 2010. "How safe is my food?: Assessing the effect of information and credible certification on consumer demand for food safety in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 1029, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Meyer-Höfer, Marie von & Spiller, Achim, 2015. ""Sustainability" a semi-globalisable concept for international food marketing: Consumer expectations regarding sustainable food," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    13. Saunders, Caroline & Tait, Peter & Guenther, Meike & Dalziel, P.C., 2015. "Consumer preferences in developing and developed country markets of relevance to New Zealand exporters," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202722, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L., 2015. "Indian Acceptance of Cisgenic Rice: Are all GMOs the same?," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211492, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    15. Bansal, Sangeeta & Gruère, Guillaume P., 2012. "Implications of mandatory labeling of GM food in India: Evidence from the supply side," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 467-472.
    16. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Hess, Sebastian & Okello, Julius & Hansson, Helena & Karanja, Nancy, 2013. "Food health risk perceptions among consumers, farmers, and traders of leafy vegetables in Nairobi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 92-104.
    17. Nielsen, Thea, 2012. "How do Concerns about Pesticides Impact Consumer Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified French Fries in Germany? Results from a Purchasing Experiment," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144986, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    18. von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "“Sustainability” a semi-globalisable concept for international food marketing - Consumer expectations regarding sustainable food – An explorative survey in industrialised and emerging countries," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 182513, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    19. Devesh Roy & Ekin Birol & Katharina Deffner & Bhushana Karandikar, 2010. "Developing Country Consumers’ Demand for Food Safety and Quality: Is Mumbai Ready for Certified and Organic Fruits?," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Rim Lassoued & Konstantinos Giannakas, 2010. "Economic Effects of the Consumer‐oriented Genetically Modified Products in Markets with a Labelling Regime," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 499-526, September.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9588-:d:1513536. 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.