Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The use of SWOT analysis to explore and prioritize conservation and development strategies for local cattle breeds

  • D. Martín-Collado (a1), C. Díaz (a1), A. Mäki-Tanila (a2), F. Colinet (a3), D. Duclos (a4), S. J. Hiemstra (a5), EURECA Consortium and G. Gandini (a6)...

Abstract

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis is a tool widely used to help in decision making in complex systems. It suits to exploring the issues and measures related to the conservation and development of local breeds, as it allows the integration of many driving factors influencing breed dynamics. We developed a quantified SWOT method as a decision-making tool for identification and ranking of conservation and development strategies of local breeds, and applied it to a set of 13 cattle breeds of six European countries. The method has four steps: definition of the system, identification and grouping of the driving factors, quantification of the importance of driving factors and identification and prioritization of the strategies. The factors were determined following a multi-stakeholder approach and grouped with a three-level structure. Animal genetic resources expert groups ranked the factors, and a quantification process was implemented to identify and prioritize strategies. The proposed SWOT methodology allows analyzing the dynamics of local cattle breeds in a structured and systematic way. It is a flexible tool developed to assist different stakeholders in defining the strategies and actions. The quantification process allows the comparison of the driving factors and the prioritization of the strategies for the conservation and development of local cattle breeds. We identified 99 factors across the breeds. Although the situation is very heterogeneous, the future of these breeds may be promising. The most important strengths and weaknesses were related to production systems and farmers. The most important opportunities were found in marketing new products, whereas the most relevant threats were found in selling the current products. The across-breed strategies utility decreased as they gained specificity. Therefore, the strategies at European level should focus on general aspects and be flexible enough to be adapted to the country and breed specificities.

Copyright

Corresponding author

E-mail: cdiaz@inia.es

Footnotes

Hide All

http://www.regionalcattlebreeds.eu

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Alderson, S 2003. Animal genetic resources and sustainable livelihood. Ecological Economics 45, 331339.
Drucker, A, Gomez, V, Anderson, S 2001. The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: a survey of available methods. Ecological Economic 36, 118.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2007. The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO 2010. Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal genetic resources. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Fimland, E, Oldenbroek, K 2007. Practical implications of utilization and management. In Utilization and conservation of farm animal genetic resources (ed. K Oldenbroek), pp. 195213. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Gable, GG, Lee, JN, Kwahk, KY, Green, P 2007. Administrative placement of the information systems academic discipline: a comparative SWOT analysis. Communications of the Associations for Information Systems 21, 137165.
Gandini, G, Villa, E 2003. Analysis of the cultural value of livestock breeds: a methodology. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 120, 111.
Gandini, G, Martín-Collado, D, Colinet, F, Duclos, D, Hiemstra, SJ, Sooini, K, EURECA Consortium, Díaz, C 2012. Farmer's views and values to focus on cattle conservation policies: the case of eight European Countries. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 427435.
Groeneveld, LF, Lenstra, JA, Eding, H, Toro, MA, Scherf, B, Pilling, D, Negrini, R, Finlay, EK, Jianlin, H, Groeneveld, E, Weigend, S, , The GLOBALDIV Consortium 2010. Genetic diversity in farm animals – a review. Animal Genetics 41, 631.
Hill, T, Westbrook, R 1997. SWOT analysis: it's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning 30, 4652.
Impoinvil, DE, Ahmad, S, Troyo, A, Keating, J, Githeko, AK, Mbogo, CM, Kibe, L, Githure, JI, Gad, AM, Hassan, AN, Orshan, L, Warburg, A, Calderón-Arguedas, O, Sánchez-Loria, VM, Velit-Suarez, R, Chadee, DD, Novak, RJ, Beier, JC 2007. Comparison of mosquito programs in seven urban sites in Africa, the Middle East and the Americas. Health Policy 83, 196212.
Kajanus, M, Kangas, J, Kurttila, M 2004. The use of value focused thinking and the A'WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tourism Management 25, 499506.
Kangas, J, Kurttila, M, Kajanus, M, Kangas, A 2003. Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland state – the S-O-S approach. Journal of Environmental Management 69, 349358.
Karppi, I, Kokkonen, M, Lähteenmäki-Smith, K 2001. SWOT-analysis as a basis for regional strategies. Working Paper 2001, 4. Nordregio-Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kurttila, M, Pesonen, M, Kangas, J, Kajanus, J 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its applications to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 4152.
Lee, KL, Huang, WC, Teng, JY 2009. Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical method. Quality & Quantity 43, 87107.
Rege, JEO, Gibson, JP 2003. Animal genetic resources and economic development: issues in relation to economic valuation. Ecological Economic 45, 319330.
Saaty, TL 1986. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32, 843855.
Saaty, TL 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Service Sciences 1, 8398.
Saaty, TL, Takizawa, M 1986. Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research 26, 229237.
Tisdell, C 2003. Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment. Ecological Economics 45, 365376.
Vonk, G, Geertman, S, Schot, P 2007. A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environmental and Planning A 39, 16991714.
Weihrich, H 1989. The TOWS matrix – a tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning 15, 5466.
Yüksel, I, Dagdeviren, M 2007. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis – a case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences 177, 33643382.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Martín-Collado Supplementary Material
Appendix

 Unknown (34 KB)
34 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed