Different tools have been used to set up and adopt the model for the fulfillment of the objective of this research.
1. The Model
The base model that has been used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) adapted with the aim to perform a Benefit Cost Analysis.
The AHP developed by Thomas Saaty is a multicriteria decision - making technique which decomposes a complex problem into a hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discreet and continuous paired comparisons in multilevel hierarchic structures. These comparisons may be taken from actual measurements or from a fundamental scale that reflects the relative strength of preferences and feelings.
2. Tools and methods
2.1. The Expert Choice Software
The software Expert Choice is a tool that allows each operator to easily implement the AHP model in every stage of the problem.
2.2. Personal Interviews to the farms
For this research, the farms of the region Emilia Romagna certified EMAS have been detected. Information has been given by EMAS center in Wien.
Personal interviews have been carried out to each farm in order to have a complete and realistic judgment of each criteria of the hierarchy.
2.3. Questionnaire
A supporting questionnaire has also been delivered and used for the interviews .
3. Elaboration of the data
After data collection, the data elaboration has taken place. The software support Expert Choice has been used .
4. Results of the Analysis
The result of the figures above (vedere altro documento) gives a series of numbers which are fractions of the unit. This has to be interpreted as the relative contribution of each element to the fulfillment of the relative objective. So calculating the Benefits/costs ratio for each alternative the following will be obtained:
Alternative One: Implement EMAS
Benefits ratio: 0, 877
Costs ratio: 0, 815
Benfit/Cost ratio: 0,877/0,815=1,08
Alternative Two: Not Implement EMAS
Benefits ratio: 0,123
Costs ration: 0,185
Benefit/Cost ratio: 0,123/0,185=0,66
As stated above, the alternative with the highest ratio will be the best solution for the organization.
This means that the research carried out and the model implemented suggests that EMAS adoption in the agricultural sector is the best alternative. It has to be noted that the ratio is 1,08 which is a relatively low positive value. This shows the fragility of this conclusion and suggests a careful exam of the benefits and costs for each farm before adopting the scheme. On the other part, the result needs to be taken in consideration by the policy makers in order to enhance their intervention regarding the scheme adoption on the agricultural sector.
According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Benefits:
- Legal compliance seems to be the most important benefit for the agricultural sector since its rank is 0,471
- The next two most important benefits are Improved internal organization (ranking 0,230) followed by Competitive advantage (ranking 0, 221) mostly due to the sub-element Improved image (ranking 0,743)
Finally, even though Incentives are not ranked among the most important elements, the financial ones seem to have been decisive on the decision making process.
According to the AHP elaboration of judgments we have the following main considerations on Costs:
- External costs seem to be largely more important than the internal ones (ranking 0, 857 over 0,143) suggesting that Emas costs over consultancy and verification remain the biggest obstacle.
- The implementation of the EMS is the most challenging element regarding the internal costs (ranking 0,750).
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:unibo.it/oai:amsdottorato.cib.unibo.it:3190 |
| Date | 25 June 2010 |
| Creators | Preka, Rovena <1979> |
| Contributors | Litido, Maria |
| Publisher | Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna |
| Source Sets | Università di Bologna |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Doctoral Thesis, PeerReviewed |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0066 seconds