IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v157y2021i1d10.1007_s11205-019-02209-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Opinions: Food Sustainability as an Exemplary Case

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Carlsen

    (Awareness Center)

  • Rainer Bruggemann

    (Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries)

Abstract

Stakeholders decisions often are based on the construction of an indicative quantity (a composite indicator), which can be obtained by an aggregation process of a series of single indicators. This aggregation process combines single indicators to one quantity, the composite indicator. In the most simple aggregation technique a weighted sum is applied. Unfortunately, stakeholders often have different opinions concerning the individual weights that should be associated with single indicators. The resulting composite indicator applied for an eventual ranking may consequently be different from stakeholder to stakeholder. The present study focuses on a partial order based methodology for evaluating stakeholders’ opinions based on the food sustainability index for 2017 as an exemplary case. The paper presents the methodological background for the use of composite indicators under different weighting schemes. The food sustainability index (FSI) is composed through an aggregation of three main indicators, i.e., food loss and waste, sustainable agriculture and nutritional challenges. In the present case four fictitious ‘stakeholders’, represented by four different weighting schemes, expert-based, political, outcome-based and uniform are included. The study shows that differences between the four weighting schemes are present. Furthermore it is shown that within certain limits the overall ranking of 34 countries based on the FSI leads to a linear ranking of 4 specific groups of countries, virtually summarizing the different stakeholders’ opinions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Carlsen & Rainer Bruggemann, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Opinions: Food Sustainability as an Exemplary Case," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 43-56, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:157:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-019-02209-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-019-02209-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-019-02209-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-019-02209-6?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. Marco Fattore & Rosanna Grassi, 2014. "Measuring dynamics and structural change of time-dependent socio-economic networks," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1821-1834, July.
    2. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, December.
    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. Jose Antonio Fernández Gallardo & Jose María Caridad y Ocerín & María Genoveva Millán Vázquez de la Torre, 2019. "Evaluation of the Reception Capacity of a Certain Area Regarding Tourist Housing, Addressing Sustainable-Tourism Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Lars Carlsen, 2024. "Sustainability: An Ethical Challenge: The Overexploitation of the Planet as an Exemplary Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    4. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    5. Claudio Garuti & Enrique Mu, 2024. "A Rate of Change and Center of Gravity Approach to Calculating Composite Indicator Thresholds: Moving from an Empirical to a Theoretical Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-40, June.
    6. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    7. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    9. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & S. Arcuri, 2014. "Measuring the sustainability performances of the Italian regions," Discussion Papers 2014/187, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Nepelski, 2018. "Validation of the Innovation Radar assessment framework," JRC Research Reports JRC110926, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    12. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & Gianluca Gucciardi, 2017. "Communicating the uncertainty of synthetic indicators: a reassessment of the HDI ranking," Discussion Papers 2017/228, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Fikret Adaman & Yahya M. Madra, 2012. "Understanding Neoliberalism as Economization: The Case of the Ecology," Working Papers 2012/04, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    15. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.
    17. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    18. Marek Walesiak & Grażyna Dehnel, 2023. "A Measurement of Social Cohesion in Poland’s NUTS2 Regions in the Period 2010–2019 by Applying Dynamic Relative Taxonomy to Interval-Valued Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Wurth, Bernd, 2022. "OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 791-808.
    20. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.

    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:spr:soinre:v:157:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11205-019-02209-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.