IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v189y2008i3p594-608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling impacts of cropping systems: Demands and solutions for DEX methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Znidarsic, Martin
  • Bohanec, Marko
  • Zupan, Blaz

Abstract

Decision modelling of diverse groups of problems makes different requirements to the modelling methodologies and software. We present an actual decision problem and the required characteristics of corresponding decision models. The problem is from agronomy and addresses the ecological and economic impacts of cropping systems, with the focus on the differences between cropping systems with conventional crops and the ones with genetically modified crops. We describe the extensions of an existing DEX qualitative multi-attribute modelling methodology, which were made to cope with the challenges of the problem. The extensions address general hierarchical structures, probabilistic utility functions and numerical values of basic attributes. A new, freely available software tool called proDEX was implemented to support the extended methodology. In this paper we describe the problem of cropping system assessment, propose methodological extensions to DEX, and present the implementation of proDEX.

Suggested Citation

  • Znidarsic, Martin & Bohanec, Marko & Zupan, Blaz, 2008. "Modelling impacts of cropping systems: Demands and solutions for DEX methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(3), pages 594-608, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:189:y:2008:i:3:p:594-608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(06)01171-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Weaver & Justus Wessler, 2004. "Monopolistic pricing power for transgenic crops when technology adopters face irreversible benefits and costs," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(15), pages 969-973.
    2. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    3. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    4. Arondel, Cecile & Girardin, Philippe, 2000. "Sorting cropping systems on the basis of their impact on groundwater quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(3), pages 467-482, December.
    5. Denis Bouyssou & Thierry Marchant & Marc Pirlot & Alexis Tsoukiàs & Philippe Vincke, 2006. "Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-31099-2, April.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    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. Nejc Trdin & Marko Bohanec, 2018. "Extending the multi-criteria decision making method DEX with numeric attributes, value distributions and relational models," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-41, March.
    2. Carof, M. & Colomb, B. & Aveline, A., 2013. "A guide for choosing the most appropriate method for multi-criteria assessment of agricultural systems according to decision-makers’ expectations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-62.
    3. Mouron, Patrik & Heijne, Bart & Naef, Andreas & Strassemeyer, Jörn & Hayer, Frank & Avilla, Jesus & Alaphilippe, Aude & Höhn, Heinrich & Hernandez, José & Mack, Gabriele & Gaillard, Gérard & Solé, Joa, 2012. "Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-15.
    4. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Ronald W. Spahr & Mark A. Sunderman & Audrius Banaitis & João J. M. Ferreira, 2017. "A learning-oriented decision-making process for real estate brokerage service evaluation," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 11(3), pages 453-474, September.
    5. E. Hernandez & Venkatesh Uddameri, 2010. "Selecting Agricultural Best Management Practices for Water Conservation and Quality Improvements Using Atanassov’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(15), pages 4589-4612, December.
    6. Borodin, Valeria & Bourtembourg, Jean & Hnaien, Faicel & Labadie, Nacima, 2016. "Handling uncertainty in agricultural supply chain management: A state of the art," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 348-359.
    7. Ivanovska, Aneta & Todorovski, Ljupčo & Debeljak, Marko & Džeroski, Sašo, 2009. "Modelling the outcrossing between genetically modified and conventional maize with equation discovery," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(8), pages 1063-1072.
    8. Marjan Brelih & Uroš Rajkovič & Tomaž Ružič & Blaž Rodič & Daniel Kozelj, 2019. "Modelling decision knowledge for the evaluation of water management investment projects," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, September.
    9. Johnson Holt & Adrian W. Leach & Gritta Schrader & Françoise Petter & Alan MacLeod & Dirk Jan van der Gaag & Richard H. A. Baker & John D. Mumford, 2014. "Eliciting and Combining Decision Criteria Using a Limited Palette of Utility Functions and Uncertainty Distributions: Illustrated by Application to Pest Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 4-16, January.

    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. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    2. Bohanec, Marko & Messéan, Antoine & Scatasta, Sara & Angevin, Frédérique & Griffiths, Bryan & Krogh, Paul Henning & Žnidaršič, Martin & Džeroski, Sašo, 2008. "A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 247-261.
    3. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    4. Figueira, Jose & Roy, Bernard, 2002. "Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 317-326, June.
    5. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    6. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2004. "A new airline safety index," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 369-383, May.
    7. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    9. Punys, P. & Radzevičius, A. & Kvaraciejus, A. & Gasiūnas, V. & Šilinis, L., 2019. "A multi-criteria analysis for siting surface-flow constructed wetlands in tile-drained agricultural catchments: The case of Lithuania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 1036-1046.
    10. Salah Ghabri & Jean-Michel Josselin & Benoît Le Maux, 2019. "Could or Should We Use MCDA in the French HTA Process?," Post-Print halshs-02319704, HAL.
    11. Yang, J.B. & Wang, Y.M. & Xu, D.L. & Chin, K.S., 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 309-343, May.
    12. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    13. Wen-Tao Guo & Van-Nam Huynh & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2017. "A proportional linguistic distribution based model for multiple attribute decision making under linguistic uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(2), pages 305-328, September.
    14. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    15. Johannes S. Timmermans & Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2004. "An Experimental Assessment of Coleman's Linear System of Action for Supporting Policy Negotiations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 267-285, November.
    16. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    17. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    18. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Salah Ghabri & Jean-Michel Josselin & Benoît Maux, 2019. "Could or Should We Use MCDA in the French HTA Process?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(12), pages 1417-1419, December.
    20. Yamei Wang & Zhongwu Li & Zhenghong Tang & Guangming Zeng, 2011. "A GIS-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach for Flood Risk Assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(13), pages 3465-3484, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:ejores:v:189:y:2008:i:3:p:594-608. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.