2.3. Methodology
Methodologically, in assessing the various economic, social, and phytosanitary parameters, a multi-criteria analysis was carried out, submitting the case study to various stakeholders in the sector. For the multi-criteria analysis, the NAIADE method was used [
34], in which the three hypotheses of the project strategy were derived as a response to citrus grove damage from the flood rains. For the multi-criteria analysis, both quantitative and qualitative data provided by stakeholders, expressed during the evaluation phase of alternative planning development scenarios, were used.
The proposed model is based on: definition of the assessment context, i.e., the decision criteria; assessment of the impact of alternative scenarios in relation to these criteria; and the final creation of the impact matrix.
The methodology proposed for the analysis of the case study has never been applied to evaluations concerning specific investments, but it was chosen to apply it because it does not only refer to economic parameters and represents an evaluation and operational indication by the stakeholders of the sector in the event of damage resulting from ongoing climate change. From a methodological point of view, a multi-criteria analysis was carried out to assess the various economic, social and phytosanitary parameters, submitting the case study to various stakeholders in the sector. For the multi-criteria analysis, the NAIADE method [
34] was used, in which the three project strategy hypotheses were derived as a response to the damage suffered by citrus groves as a result of the flood rains. For the multi-criteria analysis, the quantitative and qualitative data provided by stakeholders, expressed during the evaluation phase of the alternative planning development scenarios, were used.
The proposed model is based on:
Definition of the assessment context, i.e., the decision-making criteria, assessment of the impact of the alternative scenarios in relation to these criteria, and final creation of the impact matrix;
The use of focus groups as a social research methodology, aimed at acquiring information on stakeholder opinions with respect to a set of scenarios to be implemented for farm damage restoration. This is used to provide the evaluation phase of the planning activity with information on different interests with the creation of the equity matrix.
The impact and equity matrices are the basis for the use of the discrete multi-criteria evaluation model, which is able to handle qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate intervention measures. This tool supports: the ranking of the proposed alternative scenarios according to certain decision criteria and the consideration of possible “alliances” and “conflicts” between stakeholder groups regarding the proposed scenarios by measuring their acceptability.
The entire process was divided into three phases, referring in the specific case to citrus fruits with damage resulting from phenomena generated by climate change and specifically by flood rains:
Phase 1 involves the ‘planning’ of the meetings. During this phase, the following were established the number of sessions and the time devoted to each of them (8, as an expression of the individual categories considered, varying from 4 to 8 h); the selection of participants (stratified selection); the creation of an interview guide to lead the discussion (scientific and popular material on climate change issues, related damages, and flood events).
Phase 2 involves conducting the entire activity, based on the pre-determined interview guide. It starts with the presentation of the action strategy for the management of surface flood damage, using supporting material (documents, results, photographs), specially prepared to introduce the topic under consideration and stimulate discussion and interaction between the participants. During this phase, a variety of ideas and opinions were acquired, representing the feedback from the participants.
Phase 3 involves the processing of the ‘qualitative results’ and the production of the final report. In this context, various qualitative analysis tools, based on intentionally prepared input and specific rules, proved useful. Overall, focus groups can be considered as social experiments, capable of producing collective opinions, revealing communication barriers, studying conflictual behaviour, acquiring local information, creating acceptable options, synthesising information, etc. [
35].
The advantage of the focus group in defining intervention strategies lies in the profound interaction between participants, which highlights its role as a fundamental tool to support a “mutual learning process” [
36]. This allows new dimensions of the topic under investigation to emerge, thereby emphasising the participants’ ability to produce results. In particular, the analysis aims to rank alternative scenarios on the basis of their performance against certain decision criteria.
The basic input of the NAIADE method is the impact matrix (criteria/alternative matrix), composed of scores that can take the following forms: crunch numbers, stochastic elements, fuzzy elements, and linguistic elements (such as ‘good’, ‘average’, etc.) [
37]. To compare alternative scenarios, the concept of distance is introduced. In the presence of crisp numbers, the distance between two alternative scenarios with respect to a given evaluation criterion is calculated by subtracting the respective crisp numbers. In any other case, the concept of semantic distance was used, measuring the distance between two functions by which the scores of the alternative scenarios are expressed [
37].
The ranking of alternative scenarios was based on data from the impact matrix, which was used for:
Comparison of each individual pair of alternatives for all evaluation criteria considered;
Determination of a credibility index for each of the above comparisons, which measures the credibility of a preference relation “… alternative scenario a is better/worse, etc. than alternative scenario b “;
Aggregation of the credibility indices produced during the previous stage resulting in an intensity index of the preference μ*(a,b) of an alternative “a” over another “b” for all evaluation criteria, associated with the concept of entropy H*(a,b), as an indication of the variation of the credibility indices;
Classification of alternative scenarios on the basis of the above information.
The intensity index μ*(a,b) of preference * (where * stands for >>,>,≅,=,<< and <) of alternative a versus b is defined by the equation [
34,
38]:
The intensity index μ*(a,b) has the following characteristics:
≤ μ*(a,b) ≤1;
μ*(a,b) = 0 if none of the μ*(a,b)_m are more than α;
μ*(a,b) = 1 if μ*(a,b)_m ≥ α ∀ m and μ*(a,b)_m > α for at least one criterion.
The information provided by the preference intensity index μ*(a,b) and by the corresponding entropies H*(a,b) can be used to construct the degrees of truth (F) of the following statements:
a is better than b;
a and b are the same;
a is worse than b.
The final classification of alternatives was the result (intersection) of two different classifications: the Φ+(a) classification based on the preference relations “better” and “significantly better”; and the Φ-(a) classification based on the preference relations “worse” and “significantly worse”.
According to Munda [
34,
38], the first Φ+(a) is based on the better and much better preference relations, and a value from 0 to 1 indicates how a is “better” than all other alternatives. The second Φ-(a) is based on the worse and much worse preference relations, its value going from 0 to 1, which indicates how a is “worse” than all other alternatives.
Φ+(a) and Φ-(a) are expressed by the following equations:
where N is the number of alternatives (n) and the ˆ operator can again be chosen between the minimum operator, which gives no compensation, and the Zimmermann–Zysno operator, which allows for varying degrees of compensation (from 0 minimum compensation to 1 maximum compensation).
In relation to the objective of this study, the principal priority analysis was applied to define the optimal management model for flood damage resulting from climate change in our context. The stakeholders involved in the focus group were in quantitative terms: producers (4), cooperatives (2), commercial operators (2), processing industries (2), trade unions (2), institutions (2), scientific groups (1), and service sector operators (2). For each of the groups mentioned, seven actors were identified, according to the NAIADE methodology.
Having defined the methodological framework, the next step was the economic assessment of the strategies to be implemented to restore the damage resulting from the flooding. The application area was the municipality of Lentini, in the province of Siracusa (Italy), identified for its high citrus growing vocation and for the frequent damage caused by flooding of the land following the overflowing of the rivers in the area.
Specifically, the case study is characterised by the possible implementation of three action hypotheses, as assessed in the multi-criteria analysis:
Total grubbing-up of the entire plot and its replanting;
Partial grubbing-up of 40% of the area with retention of plants with good vegetative and productive vigour;
Maintenance of the citrus grove in its post-flood state.
From a methodological perspective, in hypothesis “a” a total eradication would be carried out, with hydraulic-agricultural systems including the creation of raised ground bed where the plant would be placed in order to avoid damage from waterlogging due to future flooding, drip irrigation systems in order to optimise water availability and reduce waste, the application of innovative techniques deriving from the “agriculture 4.0” strategy (digitalisation of the process control). In the second hypothesis, it is foreseen to uproot and replant the plants with current and evident phytopathological phenomena deriving from the flooding, estimated at about 40% of the total. It should be noted that plants with obvious symptoms are either scattered or concentrated in parts of the individual plots concerned. Aware that the rest of the plants have a non-normal, albeit satisfactory, vegetative habitus, a curative prophylaxis will be applied to restore the normal, pre-damage productive status. In this second hypothesis, even if 40% of the plants are uprooted, there will be no change in the hydraulic-agricultural systems (raise ground bed), nor in the irrigation system and the management of the plot due to the presence of structural elements that do not allow the diffusion of agriculture 4.0. The third hypothesis is the maintenance of post-flood plants by implementing strategies aimed at restoring the productive vegetation habitus to try to re-establish the normal productive status before the damage.
Reference is made to Serpieri’s agrarian economic assessment [
39] for the analysis of the economic methodology used, using the Partial Balance Sheets’ for each year [
15]. The evaluation period considered was 10 years, to have a proper evaluation of the three hypotheses [
40,
41,
42,
43].
The methodology was applied using both data provided by the farm and data in our possession from other case studies of citrus groves in the same production area. In relation to the above economic data, it was therefore decided to use Gross Income (GI) as an indicator, obtained from the difference between Gross Saleable Production (GSP) and variable costs. The choice of calculating only variable costs and not fixed costs stems from the fact that it avoids partial allocations, which are difficult to apply in the farm’s total budget, as it has additional surface areas. The following economic indicators were assessed and estimated: pre-damage GSP, post-damage GSP, post-investment GSP, variable operating costs (VC), and costs necessary for restoration and replanting, from which Gross Income (GI) is determined [
44,
45,
46].