IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2374-d156887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying Data Mining to China’s Swine Farming Industry: A Compromise Perspective of Economic, Environmental and Overall Performances

Author

Listed:
  • Diejun Huang

    (Institute of Geography and Tourism, Guangdong University of Finance &Economics, Guangzhou 510320, China)

  • Qiuzhuo Ma

    (Business School, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 2 Baiyun Avenue, Baiyun District, Guangzhou 510420, China)

  • Liangyu Feng

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, 483 Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Xiaowei Wen

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, 483 Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Hua Li

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, 483 Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

The economic and environmental performances of the swine farming industry have always resulted in heated discussions in developing countries. Exploring the relationship between these features and the producers’ overall performance is the focus of this paper. For constructing multi-objective features that include the above features, a compromise approach for optimization is taken into consideration. For classifying the overall performance into different levels and detecting the effect of economic and environmental features on such features, an iteration scheme is developed in which the overall performance is treated as a target label. By neglecting this target label, a k-means clustering method is then used to help predict the producer’s overall performance given their economic and environmental features. In data pre-processing, correlation analysis for feature selection shows that the producer’s pollution emission and received regulation intensity largely affect its overall performance, while profit is found to be negatively correlated with pollution emission as regulation intensity is neglected. The classification result derived from the Silhouette Coefficient shows that the data set can be efficiently split into different groups in terms of the producer’s overall performance. The average distance between the objects in the low-performance group is larger than that of the high-performance group. The threshold position between the two groups is found to be largely dependent on the features of pollution emission and regulation intensity. The clustering result obtained by the k-means method shows good effectiveness and efficiency in separating the objects into different groups based on various features other than the overall performance. In 2- and 3-cluster cases, the result also shows evidence of the impact of economic and environmental features on the clustering result. The cross-validation analysis under a set of randomly chosen splitting points shows an increasing out-of-sample prediction quality with increases in training sample size. As one of the by-products of this paper, the geographical distribution in the clustering result is found partially consistent with the official report from Chinas central government regarding advantageous regions within the industry. In addition to current research, the ease of using the knowledge obtained in this paper for transfer learning is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Diejun Huang & Qiuzhuo Ma & Liangyu Feng & Xiaowei Wen & Hua Li, 2018. "Applying Data Mining to China’s Swine Farming Industry: A Compromise Perspective of Economic, Environmental and Overall Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2374-:d:156887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2374/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2374/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Randy Becker & Vernon Henderson, 1997. "Effects of Air Quality Regulation on in Polluting Industries," NBER Working Papers 6160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Becker, Randy A. & Pasurka, Carl & Shadbegian, Ronald J., 2013. "Do environmental regulations disproportionately affect small businesses? Evidence from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 523-538.
    3. Key, Nigel & McBride, William & Mosheim, Roberto, 2008. "Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Change in the U.S. Hog Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 137-149, April.
    4. HAN, Chengying & QI, Zhenhong & ZHANG, Dongmin & LI, Xinrui, 2016. "Research on Influence Factors of Pig Farmers’ Ecological Farming Behavior:Based on the TPB and SEM," Asian Agricultural Research, USA-China Science and Culture Media Corporation, vol. 8(02), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Larue, Solène & Latruffe, Laure, 2009. "Agglomeration externalities and technical efficiency in French pig production," Working Papers 210403, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    6. Adam B. Jaffe et al., 1995. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(1), pages 132-163, March.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. McBride, William D. & Key, Nigel D., 2003. "Economic And Structural Relationships In U.S. Hog Production," Agricultural Economic Reports 33971, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Hansson, Helena, 2007. "Strategy factors as drivers and restraints on dairy farm performance: Evidence from Sweden," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 726-737, June.
    10. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    11. MacDonald, James M. & O'Donoghue, Erik J. & McBride, William D. & Nehring, Richard F. & Sandretto, Carmen L. & Mosheim, Roberto, 2007. "Profits, Costs, and the Changing Structure of Dairy Farming," Economic Research Report 6704, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Ricardo F.M. Teixeira & Tiago Domingos, 2019. "Current Practice and Future Perspectives for Livestock Production and Industrial Ecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-5, August.

    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. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    2. Consoli, Davide & Marin, Giovanni & Marzucchi, Alberto & Vona, Francesco, 2016. "Do green jobs differ from non-green jobs in terms of skills and human capital?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1046-1060.
    3. Rubinstein, Ariel & Zhou, Lin, 1999. "Choice problems with a 'reference' point," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 205-209, May.
    4. Kapeller, Jakob & Steinerberger, Stefan, 2017. "Stability, fairness and random walks in the bargaining problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 488(C), pages 60-71.
    5. Guan, Jin & He, Dongwei & Zhu, Qigui, 2022. "More incentive, less pollution: The influence of official appraisal system reform on environmental enforcement," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Subrato Banerjee, 2020. "Effect of reduced opportunities on bargaining outcomes: an experiment with status asymmetries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(3), pages 313-346, October.
    7. M. Voorneveld & A. Nouweland & R. McLean, 2011. "Axiomatizations of the Euclidean compromise solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(3), pages 427-448, August.
    8. Claus-Jochen Haake & Cheng-Zhong Qin, 2018. "On unification of solutions to the bargaining problem," Working Papers CIE 113, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    9. Morgenstern, Richard D. & Pizer, William A. & Shih, Jhih-Shyang, 2002. "Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 412-436, May.
    10. Arik Levinson, 2001. "An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 131-158, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Junxiu Sun & Feng Wang & Haitao Yin & Rui Zhao, 2022. "Death or rebirth? How small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises respond to responsible investment," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1749-1762, May.
    12. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    13. Nejat Anbarci, 1998. "Simple Characterizations of the Nash and Kalai/smorodinsky Solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 255-261, December.
    14. Key, Nigel D. & McBride, William D., 2008. "Do Production Contracts Raise Farm Productivity? An Instrumental Variables Approach," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12.
    15. Younghwan In, 2008. "On the relevance of alternatives in bargaining: generalized average pay-off solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(2), pages 251-264, June.
    16. Keyzer, Michiel & van Wesenbeeck, Cornelia, 2011. "Optimal coalition formation and surplus distribution: Two sides of one coin," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 604-615, December.
    17. Carson, Richard T. & McCubbin, Donald R., 1998. "Policy Paper 32: Emissions and Development in the United States: International Implications," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt02t32857, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    18. Ok, Efe A., 1998. "Inequality averse collective choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 301-321, October.
    19. Ma, Qiuzhuo & Song, Haiqing & Zhu, Wenbin, 2018. "Low-carbon airline fleet assignment: A compromise approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 86-102.
    20. Pizer, William A. & Kopp, Raymond, 2005. "Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1307-1351, Elsevier.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2374-:d:156887. 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.