+7 495 989 9610, 9am6pm (GMT+3), Monday – Friday
ИД «Финансы и кредит»






Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice

Evaluation of investment agro-industrial projects: Criteria and risks

Vol. 15, Iss. 7, JULY 2016

PDF  Article PDF Version

Received: 17 March 2016

Received in revised form: 12 April 2016

Accepted: 12 May 2016

Available online: 27 July 2016


JEL Classification: C81, C93, D81, O22, Q19

Pages: 4-17

Yom Din G. Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel

Yunusova A. Kuzeev Institute for Ethnological Studies, Ufa Scientific Center of Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan, Russian Federation

Subject The article addresses the issues of evaluation of investment agro-industrial projects, multicriteriality of expert evaluation and its relation to decision-making under risk.
Objectives The aim of the study is to review the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the criteria of agro-industrial projects and decisions taken by experts, taking into account the tenets of the prospect theory.
Methods The study draws on the analytic hierarchy process as applied to the evaluation of agro-industrial projects, expert decisions based on the principles of the prospect theory, and the regression analysis.
Results We developed a questionnaire and interviewed experts in the Republic of Bashkortostan and the Orenburg oblast. The most significant project criteria are net income and jobs, as for ethnic and social indicators, the most important ones are material well-being of the population and tension among nationalities. The study confirms the hypothesis about decisions taken by experts in accordance with the prospect theory, and evaluates the regression of correspondence of responses of the prospect theory to ranking the criteria by their importance.
Conclusions and Relevance The analytic hierarchy process enables to calculate and compare the importance of criteria for evaluation of agro-industrial projects. Under risk, most of experts make decisions in accordance with basic principles of the prospect theory.

Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, prospect theory, project evaluation, regression, multicriteriality


  1. Kalugina Z.I. Vector of Post-crisis Development of Rural Russia. Regional Research of Russia, 2011, vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 149–156. doi: 10.1134/S2079970511020067
  2. Kovaleva I.V. [On the methodology and evaluation techniques for investment appeal]. Vestnik Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta = Bulletin of Altai State Agricultural University, 2014, no. 5, pp. 166–170. (In Russ.)
  3. Goncharenko L.P., Gerashchenkova T.M. [Investment in innovation processes in the agro-industrial production as a factor of food security of Russia]. Vestnik Finansovogo universiteta = Bulletin of Financial University, 2014, no. 2, pp. 13–23. (In Russ.)
  4. Klimov V.A., Shatokhin M.V., Chernikova A.A., Duplin V.V. [Financial evaluation of projects in the regional agro-industrial sector]. Vestnik Kurskoi gosudarstvennoi sel'skokhozyaistvennoi akademii = Bulletin of Kursk State Agricultural Academy, 2014, no. 7, pp. 35–36. (In Russ.)
  5. Saaty T.L. A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, vol. 15, iss. 3, pp. 234–281. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  6. Sipahi S., Timor M. The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: An Overview of Applications. Management Decision, 2010, vol. 48, iss. 5, pp. 775–808. doi: 10.1108/00251741011043920
  7. Yom Din G. [A survey of the application of the analytic hierarchy process in Russian and foreign studies]. Izvestiya Ufimskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN = Proceedings of the RAS Ufa Scientific Center, 2015, no. 3, pp. 120–128. (In Russ.)
  8. Luo J.L., Hu Z.H. Risk Paradigm and Risk Evaluation of Farmers Cooperatives' Technology Innovation. Economic Modelling, 2015, vol. 44, pp. 80–85. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.024
  9. Stokes J.R., Tozer P.R. Sire Selection with Multiple Objectives. Agricultural Systems, 2002, no. 73(2), pp. 147–164.
  10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 1979, vol. 47, iss. 2, pp. 263–291.
  11. Kuzina O.E. [Models of Financial Behaviour in Economic Psychology]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2004, no. 1, pp. 83–105. (In Russ.)
  12. Grishina N.P. [Investment decision-making from the point of view of behavioral finance]. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta = Vestnik of Saratov State Socio-Economic University, 2012, no. 1, pp. 16–20. (In Russ.)
  13. Fan Z.-P., Zhang X., Chen F.-D., Liu Y. Extended TODIM Method for Hybrid Multiple Attribute Decision Making Problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2013, no. 42, pp. 40–48.
  14. Yunusova A.B., Yom Din G., Tuzbekov A.I., Mukhametzyanova-Duggal R.M., Nadyrshin T.M., Baimov A.G. [Ethno-confessional and economic considerations of the social reaction of rural population in Bashkortostan to agroindustrial complex creation]. Izvestiya Ufimskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN = Proceedings of the RAS Ufa Scientific Center, 2015, no. 4, pp. 87–105. (In Russ.)
  15. Salo A.A., Hämäläinen R.P. On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1997, vol. 6, iss. 6, pp. 309–319.
  16. Brunelli M. Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, Springer, 2015, 83 p.
  17. Mustajoki J., Hämäläinen R.P. Web-HIPRE: Global Decision Support by Value Tree and AHP Analysis. INFOR, 2000, vol. 38, iss. 3, pp. 208–220.
  18. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist, 1979, no. 39(4), pp. 341–350.
  19. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, 1981, vol. 211, no. 4481, pp. 453–458.
  20. Coelho L.A.G., Pires C.M.P., Dionísio A.T., Serrão A.J.D.C. The Impact of CAP Policy in Farmer's Behavior – A Modeling Approach Using the Cumulative Prospect Theory. Journal of Policy Modeling, 2012, vol. 34, iss. 1, pp. 81–98.
  21. Bocquého G., Jacquet F., Reynaud A. Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximisers? Assessing Farmers' Risk Behavior from Field-Experiment Data. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2014, no. 41(1), pp. 135–172.
  22. Wehrung D.A. Risk Taking over Gains and Losses: A study of oil executives. Annals of Operations Research, 1989, no. 19, pp. 115–139.

View all articles of issue


ISSN 2311-8725 (Online)
ISSN 2073-039X (Print)

Journal current issue

Vol. 20, Iss. 2
February 2021