An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

Objective: Stakeholders—farmers from four different European areas (Campania (IT), Kujawsko-Pomorskie (PL), Limburg (NL), Andalusia (ES))—are asked to share, from the OPERA project, their opinions on five criteria that all aim at improving the use of irrigation advisory services (IASs). Each criterion has different characteristics that affect the way farmers rank it. The present study has two objectives. The first is to individuate the priorities of the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. The second objective is to carry out a ranking of the weights of the criteria by case study, ranking the groups and their associated properties among farmers’ profiles. Methods: The answers to 120 questionnaires dispensed to the future users of IASs in the four agricultural sites were analyzed in detail, and then the given priorities were evaluated through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP methodology was used to determine the relative weights of the five assessment criteria, and finally, to select the one with major value. Results and conclusions: The results show that A5 (assuring economic sustainability) was the most important criterion. The contributions provided by this study are twofold: Firstly, it presents an application of a methodology that involves the conversion of a linguistic judgement of farmers in a correspondence weight. Secondly, it tackles decision making regarding improving the use of IASs, evaluating the preferences expressed by the stakeholders. Irrigation advisory services can play a key role in assisting users to adopt new techniques and technologies for more efficient water use and increased production.

Keywords

• multicriteria decision analysis
• AHP
• irrigation advisory services
• agricultural decision making
• economic sustainability