Selecting an agricultural technology package based on the flexible and interactive tradeoff method
- 48 Downloads
The aim of this paper is to solve an agricultural technology packages selection problem by considering multiple dimensions which influence a maize producer’s preferences. The decision-making process is aided by a new multicriteria method for eliciting scale constants in additive models: flexible and interactive tradeoff (FITradeoff). This method works with partial information, obtained from the decision maker (DM), and thus reduces the time that the DM has to spend on the process for eliciting his/her preferences as he/she may avoid answering difficult questions. The decision-making process makes use of a decision support system (DSS), in which the DM interactively gives preference statements in a structured manner. The DSS gives flexibility to the DM, in such way that he/she gives as much information as he/she is willing to. Graphical visualization is provided at each step in order to help the DM’s analyses. Throughout the description of an application, some insights are provided including a discussion of the advantages and features of the FITradeoff method.
KeywordsMulticriteria decision making Additive model Flexible and interactive tradeoff Partial information
The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial financial support for this research from CNPq (Brazilian research council).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Álvarez Carrillo, P. A., Leyva López, J. C., & Ahumada Valenzuela, O. (2017). A group decision outranking approach for the agricultural technology packages selection problem. In M. Schoop & D. Marc Kilgour (Eds.), International conference on group decision and negotiation (Vol. 293, pp. 187–201). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_14.Google Scholar
- Craheix, D., Angevin, F., Doré, T., & De Tourdonnet, S. (2016). Using a multicriteria assessment model to evaluate the sustainability of conservation agriculture at the cropping system level in France. European Journal of Agronomy, 76, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C. A. V., Alencar, M. H., Ferreira, R. J. P., Al-meida-Filho, A. T., & Garcez, T. V. (2015). Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. International series in operations research & management science (Vol. 231). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- FIRA. (2017a). Costos de cultivo de maize en temporada otoño-invierno 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.fira.gob.mx/InfEspDtoXML/abrirArchivo.jsp?abreArc=66317. Accessed 6 July 2017.
- FIRA. (2017b). Condiciones de operación del servicio de fondeo entre FIRA y los intermediarios financieros, MN-ACR-SCR-001. Retrieved from: https://www.fira.gob.mx/Nd/Lineamientos_FONAGUA.pdf. Accessed 9 July 2017.
- FIRA Agrocostos. (2017). Costos de producción agrícola. Retrieved from: https://www.fira.gob.mx/Nd/Agrocostos.jsp. Accessed 20 June 2017.
- Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value focused thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decision making with multiple objectives, preferences, and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Pelzer, E., Fortino, G., Bockstaller, C., Angevin, F., Lamine, C., Moonen, C., et al. (2012). Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multi-criteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecological Indicators, 18, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar