Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Social multicriteria evaluation of farming practices in the presence of soil degradation. A case study in Southern Tuscany, Italy

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is growing awareness in today’s society regarding the potential of sustainable farming practices to decrease soil degradation processes. This paper analyses the financial, environmental and social aspects of durum wheat cultivation practices linked to soil degradation processes in Southern Tuscany. The analysis has been conducted within a Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE) framework and utilizing NAIADE (Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments) as a software tool. Conventional, integrated and organic durum wheat cultivation practices have been compared. One key outcome of the analysis is that organic practices represent a good compromise solution in relation to the environmental and socio-economic evaluation criteria chosen. Finally, the paper also offers some considerations regarding the influence of Agricultural European Policies (such as the CAP-Common Agricultural Policy) on the management of farming systems and as a consequence on the soil degradation phenomena.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Accelerated erosion causes a faster decay of physical and structural characteristics of the superficial soil layer reducing considerable soil fertility and productivity.

  2. According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), desertification means land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climate variations and human activities. While land degradation means reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rainfed cropland, irrigated cropland or range, pasture, forest and woodlands, resulting from land uses or from a process of combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns. Definitions available at http://www.unccd.int.

  3. According to the GLASOD (Global Assessment of Soil Deterioration) classification (Oldeman et al. 1991) water erosion and wind erosion are defined as a decrease in the depth of the topsoil layer due to a more or less uniform removal of soil material by run-off water and by wind. Soil degradation is due to pollution as a consequence of location, concentration and adverse biological or toxic effects of a substance. The covering of the soil by infrastructure, roads or other uses takes the name of water-logging. Water-logging reduces the available surface for the development of the soil functions, between which the absorption of the water for infiltration, thus causing water erosion phenomena. Soil compacting is the deterioration of soil structure by trampling of cattle, the weight and/or frequent use of machinery. Salinisation is the net increase of the salt content of the top soil leading to a productivity decline.

  4. The most commonly used tool to evaluate all consequences of a decision in the context of sustainable development is the so-called ‘cost-benefit analysis’, which is based on the evaluation of the effects of an act by means of a single unit of measurement, the monetary valuation (Bresso 1996). Multicriteria analysis was created to avoid this kind of reductionism, since it allows defining a ranking among the alternatives leaving all criteria in their own unit of measurement (Janssen and Munda 1999).

  5. For more information on the methodologies used for the identification of the erosion forms see Angeli (2004) and Marker et al. (2008).

  6. In particular, the Albegna river basin is divided into the following municipalities: Arcidosso, Capalbio, Magliano in Toscana, Manciano, Orbetello, Roccalbegna, Santa Fiora, Scansano, Semproniano.

  7. Selected questionnaires can be found in the appendix. The other questionnaires and all of the results of the participatory process are available from the author upon request.

  8. The chapter VI ‘Agri-environment’ of the EU Regulation 1257/1999 disciplines the support for agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside. Support shall be granted to farmers who give agri-environmental commitments, such as: action 6.1: introduction or maintenance of organic agricultural methods; action 6.2: introduction or maintenance of integrated agricultural methods.

  9. ‘Reingrano’ means the cultivation of the durum wheat in the same yield in a short period of time.

  10. The Tuscany Region Rural Development Plan (TRRDP) provides an estimation of the effects of agri-environmental measures on the Tuscan farmers income with respect to the generic farms and to the type of cultivation. The data related to the costs for the agri-environmental measures adhesion considered in the study derive from such evaluations.

  11. In the consulted bibliography the coefficient was included in the interval 0.10–0.16 kg/h, the choice of the lower value was defined in consequence of an interview with Professor Piccarolo, author of the book, which, taking into consideration the reduction of the consumption of the modern machinery, advises the use of the lowest value.

  12. Aesthetic and ecological heterogeneities were evaluated using two sub-criteria, respectively: dynamism of the elements of the landscape (mainly crop rotations) and realization of soil conservation practices (crop rotations, fertilizers use, ploughing). The qualitative categories used go from very high to very low. The final evaluation depends on the capacity of each alternative to satisfy the sub-criteria. This capacity is expressed using “+” and “−” signs, the sum of the signs (a “−” cancels out a “+”) gives the final qualitative evaluation on the basis of the percentage of the “+” signs obtained. More detailed information regarding the criteria evaluation exercise is available from the author upon request.

  13. Marta Jarach in her article presents an analysis of different sources related to the calculation procedures of the energy conversion factors in agriculture, and in the light of these she suggests the use of some factors considering the characteristics of the Italian agricultural system.

  14. The methodology used (see note 12) for the qualitative evaluation of the social criteria (see Table 8 for the sub-criteria considered) is the same as that used in relation to the agricultural landscape protection criterion.

  15. Farming is only considered to be organic at EU-level if it complies with Council Regulation (EEC) no. 1257/1999. Organic farming involves holistic production management systems, for crops and livestock, emphasising the use of management practices in preference of the use of off-farm inputs. This is accomplished by using, where possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods in preference to fertilisers and pesticides (EEA-Environmental European Agency definition).

Abbreviations

UNCCD:

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

GLASOD:

Global Assessment of Soil Deterioration

UNCOD:

United Nations Conference On Desertification

NAP:

National Action Programmes

ARSIA:

Regional Agency for the Development and Innovation in Agriculture

CAP:

Common Agricultural Policy

CCP:

Conventional Cultivation Practices

SC:

Soil compacting

CRES:

Centre for Soil Erosion Studies

GSP:

Gross Saleable Production

ha:

Hectares

HFC:

Hourly Fuel Consumption

HLC:

Hourly Lubricant Consumption

hp:

Horse power

ICP:

Integrated Cultivation Practices

ISTAT:

Italian National Bureau of Statistics

Kg:

Kilograms

MEDALUS:

Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use

MJ:

Mega Joules

NAIADE:

Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environment

OCP:

Organic Cultivation Practices

Q:

Quintals

RUSLE:

Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

S:

Surface area

SEL:

Local Economic Systems

SMCE:

Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation

sq. km:

Square Kilometres

t:

Tonnes

JRC:

Joint Research Centre

EEC:

European Economic Community

EU:

European Union

EEA:

European Environmental Agency

TRRDP:

Tuscan Region Rural Development Plan

References

  • Angeli, L. (2004). Valutazione del rischio erosione, applicazioni del modello RUSLE. Centro Ricerche Erosione Suolo-Report 2004.

  • Angeli, L., Bottai, L., Marker, M., Coatantini, R., Gardin, L., Innocenti, L., Ferrari, R., & Siciliano, G. (2004, December). Sviluppo di metodologie di analisi per lo studio dell’erosione del suolo in ambienti mediterranei. Applicazione specifica a un’area pilota (Proceedings of the 8th Annual ASITA National Conference, Rome). http://www.lamma-cres.rete.toscana.it/rapporti/2004/2.pdf.

  • ANPA (Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente). (2001). Atlante degli indicatori del suolo. Torino: RTI CTN_SSC 3/2001.

  • Bresso, M. (1996). Per un’economia ecologica. Roma: NIS Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multi-criteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issue in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34(2), 267–282. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00162-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B., & Ravetz, J. (2001). Participatory approaches to environmental policy. Concerted Action EVE. Policy Research Brief, 10.

  • Dente, B., Fareri, P., & Ligteringen, J. (1998). A theoretical framework for case-study analysis. In B. Dente, P. Fareri & J. Ligteringen (Eds.), The waste and the Backyar. The creation of waste facilities: Success stories in six European countries (pp. 197–227). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, K., & Hodge, I. (2001). Pesticide taxation and multi-objective policy making: Farm modelling to evaluate profit/environment trade-offs. Ecological Economics, 36, 263–279. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00236-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., Martinez Alier, J., Munda, G., & Ravetz, J. R. (1999). Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity. European Environmental Agency: Experts’ Corner, Environmental Issues Series, 9.

  • Giampietro, M. (1994). Using hierarchy theory to explore the concept of sustainable development. Future, 26(6), 616–625. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(94)90033-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giampietro, M. (2004). Multi-scale integrated analysis of agro ecosystems. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32, 217–239. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gisotti, G. (1991). Principi di geopedologia. Bologna: Calderini Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H. M., Mann, D. E., Weatherford, G. D., & Cortner, H. J. (1984). Guidelines for improved institutional analysis in water resources planning. Water Resources Research, 20(3), 323–334. doi:10.1029/WR020i003p00323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istat. (2001a). 14° censimento generale della popolazione e delle abitazioni. Roma: ISTAT Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Istat. (2001b). 5° censimento generale agricoltura. Roma: ISTAT Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Istat. (2001c). 8° censimento dell’industria e dei servizi. Roma: ISTAT Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, R., & Munda, G. (1999). Multicriteria methods for quantitative, qualitative, and fuzzy evaluation problems. In J. Van den Bergh (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and resource economics (pp. 837–852). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarach, M. (1985). Sui valori di equivalenza per l’analisi e il bilancio energetici in agricoltura. Rivista di Ingegneria Agraria, 2, 102–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetten, V., de Roo, A., & Favis-Mortlock, D. (1999). Evaluation of field-scale and catchment-scale soil erosion models. Catena, 37(3), 521–541. doi:10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00037-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JRC. (1996). NAIADE manual and tutorial—version 1.0.ENG. Ispra site: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmas, C., Kirkby, M., & Geeson, N. (Eds.). (1999). The MEDALUS project Mediterranean desertification and land use. European Commission: Project report, EUR 18882, V.

  • Lal, R. (1991). Soil structure and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1, 67–92. doi:10.1300/J064v01n04_06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Ridaura, S., van Keulen, H., van Ittersum, M. K., & Leffelaar, P. A. (2005). Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management system. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 51–69. doi:10.1007/s10668-003-6976-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marker, M., Angeli, L., Bottai, L., Costantini, R., Ferrari, R., Innocenti, L., et al. (2008). Assessment of land degradation susceptibility by scenario analysis: A case study in Southern Tuscany, Italy. Geomorphology, 93, 120–129. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26, 277–286. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (1995). Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment. Theory and applications in ecological economics, Contributions to Economics Series. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2004). Social multicriteria evaluation (SMCE): Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(3), 662–677. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00369-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2005). “Measuring sustainability”: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134. doi:10.1007/s10668-003-4713-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2003). Mathematical Modelling of composite indicators for ranking countries. Proceedings of the first OECD/JRC Workshop on composite indicators of country performance, JRC, Ispra, Italy.

  • Oldeman, L. R., Hakkeling, R. T. A., & Sombroek, W. G. (1991). World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation: An explanatory note (rev. ed.). Wageningen: UNEP and ISRIC Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (1993). Ecology, policy and politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., & Huirne, R. (2002). Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: A farm and field- scale analysis. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 95, 273–288. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00091-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panell, D. J., & Glenn, N. A. (2000). A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecological Economics, 33, 135–149. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00134-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccarolo, P. (1982). Scelta e impiego della trattrice agricola. Roma: REDA Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regione Toscana. (2000). Piano di sviluppo rurale della Regione Toscana. Firenze: Regione Toscana Press. Retrieved from http://www.ecoeco.org/education_encyclopedia.php.

  • Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., et al. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis. England: The Primer, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, G. R., & Podmore, T. H. (2000). A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 79, 29–41. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00147-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultink, G. (2000). Critical environmental indicators: Performance indices and assessment models for sustainable rural development planning. Ecological Modelling, 130, 47–58. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00212-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarantola, S. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis. England: The Primer, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toy, T. J., Foster, G. R., & Renard, K. G. (2002). Soil erosion: Processes, prediction, measurement and control. USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Werf, H. M. G., & Petit, J. (2002). Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: A comparison and analysis of 12 indicators-based methods. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 1922, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses. A guide to conservation planning. U.S.D.A., Washington, DC: Agricultural Handbook 537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanchi, C., & Giordani, C. (1995). Elementi di conservazione del suolo. Bologna: Patron Edition.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has been realized within the activities of the project “Development of methodological tools for the study of erosion phenomena. Application to a study area” of the Centre for Soil Erosion Studies (CRES) established by a joint initiative of the Tuscany Region and the CNR-IBIMET (National Researcher Council-Institute of Biometeorology, Italy). A special thanks goes to the team members of the CRES. It is also due to the representatives of agricultural associations that introduced me to farmers, and to farmers themselves for their kind collaboration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SSAV-School for Advanced Studies in Venice Foundation, Isola di San Servolo, Venezia, 30100, Italy

    Giuseppina Siciliano

Authors
  1. Giuseppina Siciliano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppina Siciliano.

Additional information

Readers should send their comments on this paper to: BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

Appendices

Appendix: Questionnaire 1: the farmers’ perception of the erosion processes in the study area

Questionnaire 2: information about the farms

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siciliano, G. Social multicriteria evaluation of farming practices in the presence of soil degradation. A case study in Southern Tuscany, Italy. Environ Dev Sustain 11, 1107–1133 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9169-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9169-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation