[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02738164.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choix de pratiques des viticulteurs et facteurs comportementaux : une approche par la modélisation multi-objectif

Author

Listed:
  • Jesus Lozano Vita

    (Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Florence Jacquet

    (Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - CIHEAM-IAMM - Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier - CIHEAM - Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

  • Sophie Thoyer

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier, Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract
Les conséquences environnementales des activités agricoles sont devenues un sujet de préoccupation majeur pour la société. Dans ce contexte, tout un cortège de dispositifs et d'incitations publiques existe pour inciter les agriculteurs à rationaliser et diminuer l'usage des pesticides. Le raisonnement économique classique qui sous-tend ces politiques publiques est que les pratiques respectueuses de l'environnement sont plus coûteuses que les pratiques conventionnelles et qu'il faut donc accompagner financièrement l'agriculteur pour qu'il s'y engage. Cependant, les agriculteurs prennent leurs décisions en tenant compte de nombreux facteurs autres que ceux économiques comme : leur préoccupation pour l'environnement, les risques pour leur santé, leur perception de la norme sociale ou leurs habitudes (Aguilera et al., 2007 ; Anguines et Glavas, 2012 ; G. Grolleau et al., 2015). Ces types de motivations ont été identifiés comme facteurs clés dans les décisions des agriculteurs (Howley 2015). Cet article étudie l'influence de ces différents facteurs sur le choix d'un itinéraire technique dans le vignoble de Dom Brial. Notre méthode consiste à mener une enquête qualitative auprès des agriculteurs en les interrogeant sur les différentes motivations, économiques et non économiques, qui guident leurs choix de pratiques. Puis nous construisons un modèle de simulation des choix des agriculteurs intégrant ces différentes dimensions. Nous pouvons ainsi mieux expliquer l'hétérogénéité des pratiques observées sur des territoires où les contraintes techniques et économiques sont pourtant relativement semblables.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesus Lozano Vita & Florence Jacquet & Sophie Thoyer, 2017. "Choix de pratiques des viticulteurs et facteurs comportementaux : une approche par la modélisation multi-objectif," Post-Print hal-02738164, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02738164
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02738164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02738164/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laure Kuhfuss & Florence Jacquet & Raphaële Preget & Sophie Thoyer, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(4), pages 395-422.
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Preget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2014. "Préférences individuelles et incitations collectives : quels contrats agroenvironnementaux pour la réduction des herbicides par les viticulteurs ?," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 95(01), pages 111-143, March.
    3. Mokhtar S. Bazaraa & Aziz Bouzaher, 1981. "A Linear Goal Programming Model for Developing Economies with an Illustration from the Agricultural Sector in Egypt," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 396-413, April.
    4. von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan, 1992. "A critical assessment of the political preference function approach in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 7(3-4), pages 371-394, October.
    5. Peter Howley, 2015. "The Happy Farmer: The Effect of Nonpecuniary Benefits on Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1072-1086.
    6. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Sanja Pekovic, 2015. "Environmental management practices: good or bad news for innovations delivering environmental benefits? The moderating effect of market characteristics," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 339-359, June.
    7. Kamel Louhichi & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Hatem Belhouchette & Thomas Allen & Jacques Fabre & María Blanco Fonseca & Roza Chenoune & Szvetlana Acs & Guillermo Flichman, 2013. "Modelling Agri-Food Policy Impact at Farm-household Level in Developing Countries (FSSIM-Dev): Application to Sierra Leone," JRC Research Reports JRC80707, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Romero, Carlos & Rehman, Tahir, 1987. "Natural Resource Management and the Use of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques: A Review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 14(1), pages 61-89.
    9. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    10. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    11. Gordon C. Rausser & William E. Foster, 1990. "Political Preference Functions and Public Policy Reform," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 641-652.
    12. Assar Lindbeck, 1997. "The Swedish Experiment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1273-1319, September.
    13. Piech, Bozena & Rehman, T., 1993. "Application of multiple criteria decision making methods to farm planning: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 305-319.
    14. Ballestero, Enrique, 2007. "Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1369-1382, November.
    15. Tiwari, D. N. & Loof, R. & Paudyal, G. N., 1999. "Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 99-112, May.
    16. Various, 1973. "Conference Programs," NBER Chapters, in: The New Realities of the Business Cycle, pages 126-131, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Douglas Barnett & Brian Blake & Bruce A. McCarl, 1982. "Goal Programming via Multidimensional Scaling Applied to Senegalese Subsistence Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(4), pages 720-727.
    18. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Théodore Nikiema & Eugène C. Ezin & Sylvain Kpenavoun Chogou, 2023. "Bibliometric Analysis of the State of Research on Agroecology Adoption and Methods Used for Its Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, November.

    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. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    2. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    3. Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    4. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    5. Adelhart Toorop, Roos & Ceccarelli, Viviana & Bijarniya, Deepak & Jat, Mangi Lal & Jat, Raj Kumar & Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2020. "Using a positive deviance approach to inform farming systems redesign: A case study from Bihar, India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    6. Koronakos, Gregory & Sotiros, Dimitris & Despotis, Dimitris K. & Kritikos, Manolis N., 2022. "Fair efficiency decomposition in network DEA: A compromise programming approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    7. Guadalajara-Olmeda, N. & Rua-Aguilar, M. Jose, 2015. "Programación y compromiso. Cómo equilibrar dos objetivos, económico y ambiental, en una promoción de viviendas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(01).
    8. Gilles GROLLEAU & Naoufel MZOUGHI & Sophie THOYER, 2015. "Les incitations monétaires dans la politique agro-environnementale : peut-on faire mieux avec moins ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(2), pages 241-258.
    9. Lyons, Robert F. & Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, Leo K., 1996. "Putty-clay politics in transition economies," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0t30p88v, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    10. Stelios Rozakis & Alexandra Sintori & Konstantinos Tsiboukas, 2009. "Utility-derived Supply Function of Sheep Milk: The Case of Etoloakarnania, Greece," Working Papers 2009-11, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Kooten, G. Cornelis van, 2016. "Single versus Multiple Objective(s) Decision Making: An Application to Subsistence Farms in Northern Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 24(2), August.
    12. Coggins, Jay S., 1994. "Implementing Agricultural Policy Virtually: The Case of Set-Aside," Staff Papers 200579, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    13. Rodríguez, Beatriz & Molina, Julián & Pérez, Fátima & Caballero, Rafael, 2012. "Interactive design of personalised tourism routes," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 926-940.
    14. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    15. Skold, Melvin D., 1987. "Agricultural Price Policies, Policy Goals, and Methods of Estimating Costs of Production," 1987 Occasional Paper Series No. 4 197533, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Mousavi, M. & Gitinavard, H. & Mousavi, S.M., 2017. "A soft computing based-modified ELECTRE model for renewable energy policy selection with unknown information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 774-787.
    17. Peter Howley & Neel Ocean, 2022. "Can nudging only get you so far? Testing for nudge combination effects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 1086-1112.
    18. Arriaza, M. & Gomez-Limon, J. A., 2003. "Comparative performance of selected mathematical programming models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 155-171, August.
    19. Francisco Salas-Molina & Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar & David Pla-Santamaria, 2019. "Characterizing compromise solutions for investors with uncertain risk preferences," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 661-677, September.
    20. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02738164. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.