IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i11p1116-d675535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensing Technology Applications Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Delphi

Author

Listed:
  • Limin Yu

    (College of Information and Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
    College of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong Agriculture and Engineering University, Jinan 250100, China)

  • Sha Tao

    (College of Information and Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yanzhao Ren

    (National Engineering Laboratory for Agri-Product Quality Traceability, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Wanlin Gao

    (College of Information and Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Xinliang Liu

    (National Engineering Laboratory for Agri-Product Quality Traceability, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yongkang Hu

    (College of Information and Electrical Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Redmond R. Shamshiri

    (Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy, 14469 Potsdam, Germany)

Abstract

The demand for smart irrigation and water-saving practices in agriculture has triggered the development of different soil moisture sensing techniques that can operate under harsh field conditions. In this study, a soil moisture sensing technology appropriate for the field applications was comprehensively evaluated. From a qualitative and quantitative perspective, the Delphi and analytic hierarchy process methods were used to construct an index system involving technological advantage, economic benefit, risk analysis, policy support, four second-level indicators, and 23 fourth-level indicators. The results showed that economic benefits account for the largest weight. The practical evaluation resulted in 12 farms that showed that the selected soil water sensing methods performed reasonably and exhibited obvious water-saving irrigation benefits, which are usually used for scheduling irrigation. The overall score of M4 in different soil types was 0.2% lower than that of M5. Farms with reasonable economic conditions and a high awareness scored 5.3% higher on technology than those with modest economic conditions, which clearly affects the evaluation scores of the two technologies. The evaluation results help farmers and government decision-making bodies in technology selection, production decision-making, and risk control.

Suggested Citation

  • Limin Yu & Sha Tao & Yanzhao Ren & Wanlin Gao & Xinliang Liu & Yongkang Hu & Redmond R. Shamshiri, 2021. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensing Technology Applications Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Delphi," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1116-:d:675535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1116/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/11/1116/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Skevas, Theodoros & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas, 2020. "Farmer awareness, perceptions and adoption of unmanned aerial vehicles: evidence from Missouri," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(3), August.
    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. Wang, Zeyi & Zhang, Hengjia & Wang, Yingying & Wang, Yong & Lei, Lian & Liang, Chao & Wang, Yucai, 2023. "Deficit irrigation decision-making of indigowoad root based on a model coupling fuzzy theory and grey relational analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    2. Agata Jędrzejuk & Marcin Bator & Adrian Werno & Lukasz Karkoszka & Natalia Kuźma & Ewa Zaraś & Robert Budzynski, 2022. "Development of an Algorithm to Indicate the Right Moment of Plant Watering Using the Analysis of Plant Biomasses Based on Dahlia × hybrida," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, April.

    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. Theodoros Skevas & Ray Massey & Jasper Grashuis, 2022. "Farmer adoption and intensity of use of extreme weather adaptation and mitigation strategies: evidence from a sample of Missouri farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Osrof, Hazem Yusuf & Tan, Cheng Ling & Angappa, Gunasekaran & Yeo, Sook Fern & Tan, Kim Hua, 2023. "Adoption of smart farming technologies in field operations: A systematic review and future research agenda," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Ioannis Skevas, 2023. "A novel modeling framework for quantifying spatial spillovers on total factor productivity growth and its components," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1221-1247, August.
    4. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi & Kumar, Sandeep & Miao, Yuxin & Rao, Xudong & Obembe, Oladipo & Mirzakhani Nafchi, Ali & Redfearn, Daren & Cheye, Stephen, 2023. "Understanding farmer views of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Collins M. Bulinda & Eric O. Gido & Holger Kirscht & Chrysantus M. Tanga, 2023. "Gendered Awareness of Pig and Poultry Farmers on the Potential of Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ) Farming in Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Aliloo, Jamileh & Abbasi, Enayat & Karamidehkordi, Esmail & Ghanbari Parmehr, Ebadat & Canavari, Maurizio, 2024. "Dos and Don'ts of using drone technology in the crop fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    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:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:11:p:1116-:d:675535. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.