IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v44y2024i2d10.1007_s10669-023-09946-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new multi-criteria, multi-phase, and multi-decision makers’ approach to the agricultural sustainability problem

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Amir Keskes

    (University of Strasbourg
    University of Sfax)

  • Alaeddine Zouari

    (University of Sfax)

  • Remy Houssin

    (University of Strasbourg)

  • Diala Dhouib

    (University of Sfax)

  • Jean Renaud

    (University of Strasbourg
    ETS)

Abstract

Making decisions in the agriculture sector is a complex and challenging process, especially when aiming for sustainability. Decision makers (DMs) face multiple contradictions, particularly when trying to reduce environmental and social impacts without decreasing economic profits. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to support a group of DMs in choosing the most sustainable agricultural practices, extraction method, and waste recovery management method so that the entire product life cycle becomes circular and sustainable. To achieve this goal, we propose a new multi-criteria framework to help DMs to rank the different life cycle scenarios. The main contributions of this article are as following: first, to build sustainable scenarios under the circular economy thinking, the Structured Analysis and Design Technique has been integrated to close and valorize the waste loops for each scenario. Then, the 2-Tuple model was used to deal with uncertainty in expert knowledge application. Afterward, a synthetic dynamic weight algorithm was used to aggregate the DMs opinions. Next, the VIKOR method was extended with the 2-Tuple model to rank the sustainability of each scenario. To illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach, a case study of olive oil life cycle in Sfax-Tunisia was conducted. Also, we perform a sensitivity analysis to reveal the effect of the subjective parameter variations on the initially obtained ranking. Finally, the obtained results prove that the proposed method is more accurate and effective for the agricultural sustainability problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Amir Keskes & Alaeddine Zouari & Remy Houssin & Diala Dhouib & Jean Renaud, 2024. "A new multi-criteria, multi-phase, and multi-decision makers’ approach to the agricultural sustainability problem," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 433-455, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:44:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-023-09946-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-023-09946-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-023-09946-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-023-09946-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Herrera, F. & Martinez, L. & Sanchez, P. J., 2005. "Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 115-132, October.
    2. Moncef Abbas & Zhor Chergui, 2017. "Performance of multicriteria decision making methods: study and cases," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 116-145.
    3. R. N. Ossei-Bremang & F. Kemausuor, 2021. "A decision support system for the selection of sustainable biomass resources for bioenergy production," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 437-454, September.
    4. Muhammad Razi & Yousaf Ali, 2019. "Ranking renewable energy production methods based on economic and environmental criteria using multi-criteria decision analysis," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 198-213, June.
    5. Boris Yatsalo & Sergey Gritsyuk & Terry Sullivan & Benjamin Trump & Igor Linkov, 2016. "Multi-criteria risk management with the use of DecernsMCDA: methods and case studies," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 266-276, September.
    6. Donald J. Jenkins & Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2022. "A decision analytic tool for corporate strategic sustainable energy purchases," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 504-520, December.
    7. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2023. "Multicriteria decision making and goal programming for determination of electric automobile aimed at sustainable green environment: a case study," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 211-231, June.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    2. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Feng, Jianghong & Guo, Ping & Xu, Guangyi & Xu, Gangyan & Ning, Yu, 2024. "An integrated decision framework for resilient sustainable waste electric vehicle battery recycling transfer station site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    5. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    8. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    10. Dilupa Nakandala & Yung Po Tsang & Henry Lau & Carman Ka Man Lee, 2022. "An Industrial Blockchain-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Global Freight Management in Agricultural Supply Chains," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    12. Zeng, Shouzhen & Zhou, Jiamin & Zhang, Chonghui & Merigó, José M., 2022. "Intuitionistic fuzzy social network hybrid MCDM model for an assessment of digital reforms of manufacturing industry in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    14. Željko Stević & Irena Đalić & Dragan Pamučar & Zdravko Nunić & Slavko Vesković & Marko Vasiljević & Ilija Tanackov, 2019. "A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 1-30, April.
    15. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    20. Huang, Beijia & Zhang, Long & Ma, Linmao & Bai, Wuliyasu & Ren, Jingzheng, 2021. "Multi-criteria decision analysis of China’s energy security from 2008 to 2017 based on Fuzzy BWM-DEA-AR model and Malmquist Productivity Index," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(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:spr:envsyd:v:44:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-023-09946-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.