IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aiea18/275646.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation Of Bran Use Through Multi Criteria Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Grippo, Valeria
  • Vastola, Antonella

Abstract

In Italy, farmland decrease constantly over the years. From 1990 to now, we have already lost the 20% of cultivable area and 126 thousand hectares of farmland is lost every year. In the cereal sector the land available for the production reduced of 16% from 1990 to 2013. The cereal production, as the other agricultural activities, has a huge impact on environment, contributing to produce negative externalities. Furthermore, it is wasteful increasing the pressure on the environment without any utility and reducing the economic performance of producers. In the last years, the lower price of foreign cereals, especially wheat, joint to the weather conditions affected by the global warming, caused a loss of opportunity for domestic producers forced to reduce their production with negative consequences for all the productive system. This negative consequences of price volatility and environmental pressure, is particularly evident in region, like Basilicata and Puglia, where the cereal production represent an important part of regional GDP. Redefine the cereal system is necessary to improve the efficiency and reduce the ecological footprint of the production. Waste reduction of the entire cereal production chain could represent an opportunity to improve the system’s efficiency helping, at the same time, farmers to improve their economic performance. Furthermore, finding new market opportunity for production output that have a value, is desirable to promote circularity reducing the ecological footprint of that system. In this research, we analyze the cereals chain, in order to promote zero emission and zero waste project through the application of the so-called Zero Emission Strategy, in order to maximize the value of goods coupled to zero or reducing environmental impacts. The milling process of wheat produces large amount of wheat bran and in the area of study, each year are around 3 million tons of bran, the majority of which are wasted. Waste reduction it’s not only a problem of inefficiency of the cereal system as a whole but it’s also a problem of food security and social justice. To find new market opportunity for bran, a production output with a value, is desirable to promote circularity of the cereal chain, reducing the ecological footprint of that system and improving efficiency with environmental and economic advantages. This study aims to evaluate three different alternatives for bran use (i.e. paper production, biodiesel and feed) using 5 criteria: technical, environmental, circularity, social and economic and 17 sub-criteria, chosen to define and explain better the criteria. The evaluation of bran use through a multi-criterial analysis (MCA) is the best way to promote the adoption of closing-the-loop production patterns achieving a better balance and harmony between economy, environment and society. This research, aim also to explore the use of multi-criteria analysis like instrument for local authorities to evaluate project in order to promote the circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Grippo, Valeria & Vastola, Antonella, 2018. "Evaluation Of Bran Use Through Multi Criteria Analysis," 2018 Seventh AIEAA Conference, June 14-15, Conegliano, Italy 275646, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aiea18:275646
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.275646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/275646/files/134_AIEAA_Full_Paper2018_evaluation_of_bran_use_through_multi_criteria_analysis.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.275646?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Katrina & Adger, W. Neil & Tompkins, Emma & Bacon, Peter & Shim, David & Young, Kathy, 2001. "Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 417-434, June.
    2. Mendoza, Guillermo A. & Bruce Bare, B. & Zhou, Zehai, 1993. "A fuzzy multiple objective linear programming approach to forest planning under uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 257-274.
    3. Wolfgang Lutz & Warren Sanderson & Sergei Scherbov, 2001. "The end of world population growth," Nature, Nature, vol. 412(6846), pages 543-545, August.
    4. Heledd Jenkins, 2006. "Small Business Champions for Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 241-256, September.
    5. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    6. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    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. Tina Sendlhofer, 2020. "Decoupling from Moral Responsibility for CSR: Employees' Visionary Procrastination at a SME," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 361-378, November.
    2. Booth, Heather, 2006. "Demographic forecasting: 1980 to 2005 in review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 547-581.
    3. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    4. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    5. Foa, Roberto, 2009. "Social and governance dimensions of climate change : implications for policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4939, The World Bank.
    6. Alyssa L. Grecu & Andreas Hadjar & Kevin Simoes Loureiro, 2022. "The Role of Teaching Styles in the Development of School Alienation and Behavioral Consequences: A Mixed Methods Study of Luxembourgish Primary Schools," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    7. Haegeman, Karel & Marinelli, Elisabetta & Scapolo, Fabiana & Ricci, Andrea & Sokolov, Alexander, 2013. "Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 386-397.
    8. Petra C Gronholm & Oluwadamilola Onagbesan & Poonam Gardner-Sood, 2017. "Care coordinator views and experiences of physical health monitoring in clients with severe mental illness: A qualitative study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(7), pages 580-588, November.
    9. Faki, Hamid H. M. & Gumaa, Yousif T. & Ismail, Mohamed A., 1995. "Potential of the Sudan's irrigated sector in cereal grains production: Analysis of various policy options," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 457-483.
    10. O'Neill, Brian C. & Desai, Mausami, 2005. "Accuracy of past projections of US energy consumption," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 979-993, May.
    11. Anesa, Mattia & Bressan, Alessandro, 2024. "SMEs tax minimization as shared responsibility," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Carl Allwood, 2012. "The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1417-1429, August.
    13. Amrullah Rosadi & Paul Dargusch & Taryono Taryono, 2022. "Understanding How Marine Protected Areas Influence Local Prosperity—A Case Study of Gili Matra, Indonesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Alho, Juha, 2008. "Aggregation across countries in stochastic population forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 343-353.
    15. Warren C Sanderson & Sergei Scherbov & Patrick Gerland, 2017. "Probabilistic population aging," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, June.
    16. David Lam, 2011. "How the World Survived the Population Bomb: Lessons From 50 Years of Extraordinary Demographic History," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(4), pages 1231-1262, November.
    17. Sanjay Lama & Sojen Pradhan & Anup Shrestha, 2020. "Exploration and implication of factors affecting e-tourism adoption in developing countries: a case of Nepal," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 5-32, March.
    18. Malte Meinshausen, 2007. "Stylized Emission Path," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-2007-51, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    19. Sandrine Berger-Douce, 2014. "Sustainable Management and Performance in SMEs: A French Case Study," Post-Print emse-01010704, HAL.
    20. Linda Westman & Christopher Luederitz & Aravind Kundurpi & Alexander Julian Mercado & Sarah Lynn Burch, 2023. "Market transformations as collaborative change: Institutional co‐evolution through small business entrepreneurship," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 936-957, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aiea18:275646. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aieaaea.html .

    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.