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. Booth, Heather, 2006. "Demographic forecasting: 1980 to 2005 in review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 547-581.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Alho, Juha, 2008. "Aggregation across countries in stochastic population forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 343-353.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Geert Demuijnck & Hubert Ngnodjom, 2013. "Responsibility and Informal CSR in Formal Cameroonian SMEs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(4), pages 653-665, February.
    11. Clotilde Grandval & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Herve Guyomard & Laurence Roudart, 2006. "Panorama des analyses prospectives sur l'évolution de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale à l'horizon 2020-2030," Working Papers hal-02819396, HAL.
    12. Gregorio Sánchez-Marín & Gabriel Lozano-Reina & Mané Beglaryan, 2022. "HRM Policies and SMEs Performance: The Moderating Role of CSR Orientation," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2022(1), pages 85-110.
    13. Angélique Catharina Elford & Claus-Heinrich Daub, 2019. "Solutions for SMEs Challenged by CSR: A Multiple Cases Approach in the Food Industry within the DACH-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-31, August.
    14. Rosalia Diaz‐Carrion & Macarena López‐Fernández & Pedro M. Romero‐Fernandez, 2020. "Sustainable human resource management and employee engagement: A holistic assessment instrument," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1749-1760, July.
    15. Heidi Weltzien Hoivik & Domènec Melé, 2009. "Can an SME Become a Global Corporate Citizen? Evidence from a Case Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 551-563, September.
    16. Omazic Mislav Ante & Vlahov Rebeka Danijela & Matesic Mirjana, 2013. "Difference Between Wish And Need -- Evidence Of Building Csr Index In Croatia," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 9(2), pages 111-120.
    17. Eugenio De Gregorio & Ivana Tagliafico & Alfredo Verde, 2018. "A comparison of qualitatively and quantitatively driven analytic procedures of psychotherapeutic group sessions with deviant adolescents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1731-1760, July.
    18. Leiwen Jiang & Karen Hardee, 2011. "How do Recent Population Trends Matter to Climate Change?," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 30(2), pages 287-312, April.
    19. Phan Van Thanh & Szilárd Podruzsik, 2018. "CSR in Developing Countries: Case Study in Vietnam," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 13(4), pages 287-300.
    20. Michele Preziosi & Roberto Merli & Mara D’Amico, 2016. "Why Companies Do Not Renew Their EMAS Registration? An Exploratory Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, 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.