Advertisement

Multi-criteria Evaluation of Bran Use to Promote Circularity in the Cereal Production Chain

  • Valeria GrippoEmail author
  • Severino Romano
  • Antonella Vastola
Original Paper
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Cereal production, as well as other agricultural activities, has a relevant impact on the environment contributing to produce negative externalities. Furthermore, it is wasteful, increasing the pressure on the environment, without any utility, and reducing the economic performance of producers. This is particularly evident in regions, like Basilicata and Puglia (located in Southern Italy), where cereal production represents an important quota of regional economy. In order to reduce waste, it is necessary to redefine the cereal production chain, to improve its efficiency and to reduce the ecological footprint of the production, helping, at the same time, farmers to improve their economic performance. Bran is an output of cereal production that is generally wasted; however, it can be used as an input to other production chains. Finding new market opportunities for bran can be a successful strategy to promote circularity of the cereal chain achieving a better balance between social, environmental and economic aspects. To promote a circular production pattern, this study evaluated three different alternative projects for bran use (i.e., paper production, biogas and feed), by using multi-criteria analysis as a tool for local authorities to evaluate projects promoting circular economy. Involving all representative stakeholders of the cereal production chain, the results show ability to achieve the best solution (in this case the biogas one) in order to increase bran utility, implementing the sustainable development of rural areas.

Keywords

Circular economy Multi-criteria analysis Rural development Bran uses 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out in the framework of the project “Smart Basilicata” (Contract n. 6386 - 3, 20 July 2016). Smart Basilicata was approved by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (Notice MIUR n.84/Ric 2012, PON 2007-2013 of March 2, 2012) and was funded with the Cohesion Fund 2007–2013 of the Basilicata Regional authority. The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief John Carranza and Special Issue Guest Editor Mauro Viccaro for their relevant comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

References

  1. Akinci, H., Özalp, Y. A., & Turgut, B. (2013). Agricultural land use suitability analysis using GIS and AHP technique. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 97, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandratos, N. (1999). World food and agriculture: Outlook for the medium and longer term. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America, 96(11), 5908–5914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoli, M., & Tellarini, V. (2000). Farm sustainability evaluation: Methodology and practice. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 77(1–2), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141–156). Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Beinat, E., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.). (1998). Multicriteria analysis for land use management. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Belton, S., & Stewart, T. S. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis. An integrated approach. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., & Smith, V. H. (1998). Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Application, 8(3), 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods. In S. J. Chen & C. L. Hwang (Eds.), Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making (pp. 289–486). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, H., & Hu, Y. (2010). Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: Current and future practices in China. Bioresource Technology, 101(11), 3816–3824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohon, J. L. (1978). Multi-objective programming and planning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, A., & Fairchild, R. (2007). Sustainable food consumption at a sub-national level: An ecological footprint, nutritional and economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colon, M., & Fawcett, B. (2006). Community-based household waste management: Lessons learnt from EXNORA’s ‘zero waste management’ scheme in two South Indian cities. Habitat International, 30(4), 916–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cozzi, M., Di Napoli, F., Viccaro, M., Fagarazzi, C., & Romano, S. (2014). Ordered weight averaging multi-criteria procedure and cost-effectiveness analysis for Short Rotation Forestry siting in the Basilicata Region, Italy. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 37(5–6), 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cozzi, M., Romano, S., Viccaro, M., Prete, C., & Persiani, G. (2015a). Wildlife agriculture interactions, spatial analysis and trade-off between environmental sustainability and risk of economic damage. In A. Vastola (Ed.), The sustainability of agro-food and natural resource systems in the Mediterranean Basin (pp. 209–224). Springer Open.Google Scholar
  15. Cozzi, M., Viccaro, M., Di Napoli, F., Fagarazzi, C., Tirinnanzi, A., & Romano, S. (2015b). A spatial analysis model to assess the feasibility of short rotation forestry fertigated with urban wastewater: Basilicata region case study. Agricultural Water Management, 159, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cui, W. S., Wood, P. J., Weisz, J., & Beer, M. U. (1999). Non-starch polysaccharides from pre-processed wheat bran: Chemical composition and novel rheological properties. Cereal Chemistry, 76(1), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engelhardt, J. (1995). Sources, industrial derivatives and commercial application of cellulose. Carbohydrates in Europe, 12, 5–14.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (EC). (2005). Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/strategy.htm. Accessed June 10, 2018.
  19. European Commission (EC). (2011). Analysis associated with the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe Part II. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/working_paper_part1.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2018.
  20. European Commission (EC). (2016). Short term outlook for EU arable crops, dairy and meat markets in 2016 and 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/markets-and-prices/short-term-outlook/pdf/2016-3_en.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2018.
  21. European Union (EU). (2008). On waste and repealing certain Directives. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098&from=EN. Accessed September 23, 2018.
  22. European Union (EU). (2013). On a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. Decision no 1386/2013/EU of the European parliament and of the council. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN. Accessed September 23, 2018.
  23. European Union (EU). (2018). Circular economy package. Four legislative proposals on waste. Briefing EU Legislation in Progress. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-573936-Circular-economy-package-FINAL.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2018.
  24. FAO. (2009). Global agriculture towards 2015, How to feed the world in 2050. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf. Accessed May 2018.
  25. FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food wasteExtent, causes and prevention. Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2018.
  26. FAO. (2013). Toolkit: Reducing the food wastage footprint. Rome. www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3342e/i3342e.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2018.
  27. FAO. (2017). Biannual report on global food market. Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-I8080e.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2018.
  28. FAOSTAT. (2017). FAOSTAT data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. Accessed May 2018.
  29. Fellers, D. A., Sinkey, V., Shepherd, A. D., & Pence, J. W. (1966). Solubilization and recovery of protein from wheat millfeeds. Cereal Chemistry, 43(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  30. Gorback, S. L. (2001). Antimicrobial use in animal feed-time to stop. The New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 1202–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hwang, C. L., Masud, A. S., Paidy, S. R., & Yoon, K. (1979). Multiple objective decision making, methods and applications: A state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ISTAT. (2018). Agriculture and livestock: Cereals. http://agri.istat.it/sag_is_pdwout/jsp/Introduzione.jsp?id=15A%7C18A%7C25A. Accessed May 2018.
  33. Janssen, R. (1991). Multi-objective decision support for environmental management. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Jenkins, H. (2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2003). Multi-criteria approval and SMAA-O in natural resources decision analysis with both ordinal and cardinal criteria. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kangas, A. S., & Kangas, J. (2004). Probability, possibility and evidence: Approaches to considerer risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, K. H., Tsao, R., Yang, R., & Cui, S. W. (2006). Phenolic acid profiles and antioxidant activities of wheat bran extracts and the effect of hydrolysis conditions. Food Chemistry, 95(3), 466–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuehr, R. (2007). Towards a sustainable society: United Nations University’s zero emissions approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), 1198–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lahdelma, S., & Salminem, P. (2006). Stochastic multi criteria acceptability analysis using the data envelopment model. European Journal of Operational Research, 170(1), 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., Lomax, J., & Kitinoja, L. (2013). Reducing food loss and waste. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  41. MacArthur, E., Zumwinkel, K., & Stuchtey, M. R. (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. Malczewski, J. (2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in Planning, 62(1), 3–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Malczewski, J., Moreno-Sanches, R., Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., & Ongay-Delhumeau, E. (1997). Multi-criteria group decision making model for environmental conflict analysis in the Cape Region, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(3), 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, W. E., Wise Bender, H., & Shields, D. J. (2000). Stakeholder objectives for public lands: Rankings of forest management alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 58(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, I. G., Brooking, A. K., Oberender, A., Harford, J. M., & Horsley, P. G. (2003). Implementation of a zero waste program at a university campus. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 38(4), 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230(1–3), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Murphy, S., & Pincetl, S. (2013). Zero waste in Los Angeles: Is the emperor wearing any clothes? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 81, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ness, D. (2008). Sustainable urban infrastructure in China: Towards a Factor 10 improvement in resource productivity through integrated infrastructure system. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 15(4), 288–301.Google Scholar
  50. Peng, M., Gao, M., Abdel Aal, E. S. M., Hucl, P., & Chibbar, R. N. (1999). Separation and characterization of A-and B-type starch granules in wheat endosperm. Cereal Chemistry, 76(3), 375–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Preston, F. (2012). A global redesign? Shaping the circular economy. London: Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy%2C%20Environment%20and%20Development/bp0312_preston.pdf. Accessed October 15, 2018.
  52. Pukkala, T. (Ed.). (2013). Multi-objective forest planning (Vol. 6). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Romano, S., Cozzi, M., Viccaro, M., & Di Napoli, F. (2013). The green economy for sustainable development: A spatial multi-criteria analysis-ordered weighted averaging approach in the siting process for short rotation forestry in the Basilicata Region, Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 8(3), 158–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roy, B., & Vincke, P. (1984). Relational systems of preference with one or more pseudo criteria: Some new concepts and results. Management Science, 30(11), 1323–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruttan, V. W. (1999). The transition to agricultural sustainability. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America, 96(11), 5960–5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  57. Sakai, S., Yoshida, H., Hirai, Y., Asari, M., Takigami, H., Takahashi, S., et al. (2011). International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 13(2), 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36(1), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schnitzer, H., & Ulgiati, S. (2007). Less bad is not good enough: Approaching zero emissions techniques and systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), 1185–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1–2), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shekdar, A. V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries. Waste Management, 29(4), 1438–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A., & Lehtinen, A. (2003). Selecting forest reserves with a multi-objective spatial algorithm. Environmental Science & Policy, 6(3), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, K. E., Besser, J. M., Hedberg, C. W., Leano, F. T., Bender, J. B., Wicklund, J. H., et al. (1999). Quinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni infections in Minnesota, 1992–1998. The New England Journal of Medicine, 340(20), 1525–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Song, X., Zhu, W., Pei, Y., Ai, Z., & Chen, J. (2013). Effects of wheat bran with different colors on the qualities of dry noodles. Journal of Cereal Science, 58(3), 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stenmarck, A., Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. European Union report. https://www.eu-fusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2018.
  66. Tan, W. L., Williams, J., & Tan, T. M. (2005). Defining the ‘social’ in ‘social entrepreneurship’: Altruism and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 1(3), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., et al. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292, 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Varga, M., & Kuehr, R. (2007). Integrative approaches towards Zero Emissions regional planning: Synergies of concepts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13–14), 1373–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vastola, A., Pandi, Z., D’Amico, M., Pappalardo, G., Viccaro, M., Di Napoli, F., et al. (2017). A comparative multidimensional evaluation of conservation agriculture systems: A case study from a Mediterranean area of Southern Italy. Land Use Policy, 68, 326–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Viccaro, M., Cozzi, M., Caniani, D., Masi, S., Mancini, I. M., Caivano, M., et al. (2017). Wastewater reuse: An economic perspective to identify suitable areas for poplar vegetation filter systems for energy production. Sustainability, 9(12), 2161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Viccaro, M., Rocchi, B., Cozzi, M., & Romano, S. (2018). SAM multipliers and subsystems: Structural analysis of the Basilicata’s agri-food sector. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, 7(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  72. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Xie, X., Cui, S. W., Li, W., & Tsao, R. (2008). Isolation and characterization of wheat bran starch. Food Research International, 41(9), 882–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yong, R. (2007). The circular economy in China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 9(2), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction (Vol. 104). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zeleny, M. (1984). MCDM: Past decade and future trends: A source book of multiple criteria decision making. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Grippo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Severino Romano
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antonella Vastola
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Agricultural, Forests, Food and Environmental SciencesUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  2. 2.Trees and Timber InstituteNational Research Council of ItalySesto FiorentinoItaly

Personalised recommendations