Evaluating the Functionality of Agricultural Systems: Social Preferences for multifunctional peri-urban agriculture. The Huerta de Valencia as case study

The debate on the multifunctionality of agriculture and its connections with territorial policies are the basis of the most appropriate approach to legitimize public interventions in the agricultural sector. The main obstacle of this public intervention is to know the goods and services provided by agricultural systems and elicitation of the social preferences for them. We created a descriptive approach for the multifunctionality of agricultural systems that is based on the review of the scientific literature focused on multifunctionality and the goods and services of agricultural systems. The review shows a large variety of activities and approaches, which can be grouped by their economic dimension, social dimension and environmental dimension. Multicriteria techniques, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), can help elicit the priorities and the relative importance of different functions attributed by the society as a whole. The authorities can take into account these results to inform and support their political decisions. This paper describes a methodological approach to determine the Social Welfare Function by using AHP. The proposed methodology is applied to the Huerta de Valencia , a rich peri-urban agricultural system with a variety of resources, around which there is an open political-institutional debate to define a protection scheme. The results are very interesting and useful to enrich this debate.The authors acknowledge the support received from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the research project "Multiple Criteria and Group Decision Making integrated into Sustainable Management" (Ref. ECO2011-27369).Marqués Pérez, I.; Segura García Del Río, B.; Maroto Álvarez, MC. (2014). Evaluating the Functionality of Agricultural Systems: Social Preferences for multifunctional peri-urban agriculture. The Huerta de Valencia as case study. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 12(4):889-901. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2014124-6061S889901124Abbler D, 2001. A synthesis of country reports on jointness between commodity and non commodity outputs in OECD agriculture. Workshop on Multifunctionality Vol 2(3), Paris, France.Aczél, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93-102. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7Aull-Hyde, R., Erdogan, S., & Duke, J. M. (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 290-295. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.06.037Aznar J, Estruch V, 2007. Valoración de activos ambientales mediante métodos multicriterio. Aplicación a la valoración del Parque Natural del Alto Tajo. Econ Agrar Recurs Nat 7(13): 107-125.de Blaeij A, Linderhof V, Polman N, Reinhard S, 2009. Social preferences for exploiting commercial wetlands. Conf on Economic Instruments to Enhance the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity. Venice (Italia).Duke, J. M., & Aull-Hyde, R. (2002). Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), 131-145. doi:10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00053-8Easley, R. F., Valacich, J. S., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (2000). Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision. European Journal of Operational Research, 125(1), 73-83. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00196-4EC, 1999. Safeguarding the multifunctional role of agriculture: which instruments? Info paper. European Commission DGVI A II 1. Info-Paper. Brussels, Belgium. September.Forman E, Peniwati K, 1998. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierachy process. Eur J Oper Res 9: 108-165.Gómez-Limón J, Barreiros J, 2007. La multifuncionalidad de la agricultura en Espa-a. In: La multifuncionalidad de la agricultura en Espa-a. Eumedia, Madrid (Spain), pp: 9-16.Gómez-Navarro, T., García-Melón, M., Acuña-Dutra, S., & Díaz-Martín, D. (2009). An environmental pressure index proposal for urban development planning based on the analytic network process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(5), 319-329. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.10.004Gómez-Orea D, 2001. Agricultura y medio ambiente. In: El sector agrario y agroalimentario de Almería ante el siglo XXI: evolución y perspectiva de nuestra agricultura en el a-o 2000. Producción integrada: incidencia de las nuevas normativas de residuos de plaguicidas sobre la horticultura almeriense. Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, pp: 143-162.Gómez-Villarino T, Gómez-Orea D, 2012. Agricultura y medio ambiente: en pos del desarrollo sostenible. UFLO Calidad de Vida 7: 3-22.Hall, C., McVittie, A., & Moran, D. (2004). What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(2), 211-225. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.08.004Huang, I. B., Keisler, J., & Linkov, I. (2011). Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of The Total Environment, 409(19), 3578-3594. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022Ishizaka A, Labib A, 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38: 14336-14345.Kallas Z, Gómez-Limón J, Barreiro J, 2007. Oferta y demanda de bienes y servicios públicos de la agricultura espa-ola. In: La multifuncionalidad de la agricultura en Espa-a. Eumedia, Madrid (Spain), pp: 131-153.Madureira, L., Rambonilaza, T., & Karpinski, I. (2007). Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(1), 5-20. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.015Maroto Álvarez, C., Segura, M., Ginestar, C., Uriol, J., & Segura, B. (2013). Sustainable Forest Management in a Mediterranean region: Social preferences. Forest Systems, 22(3), 546. doi:10.5424/fs/2013223-04135Mesa P, Martín-Ortega J, Berbel J, 2008. Análisis multicriterio de preferencias sociales en gestión hídrica bajo la DMA. Econ Agrar Recurs Nat 8(2): 105-1026.Moyano E, 2008. Multifuncionalidad, territorio y desarrollo de las areas rurales. Ambienta 81: 7-19.Nordström, E.-M., Eriksson, L. O., & Öhman, K. (2010). Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(8), 562-574. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006Parra-López, C., Calatrava-Requena, J., & de-Haro-Giménez, T. (2008). A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 820-834. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.004Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(1), 27-35. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0455Reig E, 2007. Fundamentos económicos de la multifuncionalidad. In: La multifuncionalidad de la agricultura espa-ola. Eumedia Madrid (Spain), pp: 19-39.Reig E, 2008. Agricultura, desarrollo rural y sostenibilidad medioambiental. Ciriec 61: 103-126.Ríos V, Díaz L, Romero C, 1998. Economía y gestión ambiental: un enfoque decisional multicriterio. Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 92(4): 399-408.Saaty T, 1997. Toma de decisiones para líderes: El proceso analítico jerárquico, la toma de decisiones en un mundo complejo. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA.SAATY, T. L., & VARGAS, L. G. (2005). THE POSSIBILITY OF GROUP WELFARE FUNCTIONS. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 04(02), 167-176. doi:10.1142/s0219622005001453Silva Pérez, R. (2010). Multifuncionalidad agraria y territorio: Algunas reflexiones y propuestas de análisis. EURE (Santiago), 36(109), 5-33. doi:10.4067/s0250-71612010000300001Sólnes, J. (2003). Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using AHP. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(3), 283-303. doi:10.1016/s0195-9255(03)00004-0Tió C, Atance I, 2000. La multifuncionalidad de la agricultura: aspectos económicos e implicaciones sobre política agraria. Estud Agrosoc Pesqu 189: 29-48.Van Huylenbroeck G, Vandermeulen V, Mettepenningen E, Verspecht A, 2007. Multifuntionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 1(3): 1-43.Whitmarsh, D., & Palmieri, M. G. (2009). Social acceptability of marine aquaculture: The use of survey-based methods for eliciting public and stakeholder preferences. Marine Policy, 33(3), 452-457. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.10.003Wiggering H, Müller F, Werner A, Helming K, 2003. The concept of multifuncionality in sustainable land development. In: Sustainable Land Development. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp: 3-18.Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—A review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy, 28(4), 639-648. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.00