Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 15, pp 4589–4612 | Cite as

Selecting Agricultural Best Management Practices for Water Conservation and Quality Improvements Using Atanassov’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets

  • E. Annette Hernandez
  • Venkatesh Uddameri
Article

Abstract

Improper agricultural practices can affect ground water through leaching, surface water through runoff, algae infestations, deforestation, and air quality through burning operations and ammonia emissions. These effects may be mitigated through the institution of best management practices. The utility of best management practices (BMPs) is recognized and being actively promoted by agricultural agencies; however, identifying a set of mandatory BMPs is inappropriate given variations between climactic, demographic and geographic regions as well as differences in farming practices. In this study, a multi-criteria decision making model based on Attanassov’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (A-IFS) theory is introduced and its utility to rank agricultural best management practices is illustrated using a case-study from South Texas. Implementation of the A-IFS MCDM method to the South Texas region resulted in “irrigation scheduling” being ranked as the most preferred alternative, while “brush control/management” was the least preferred. The A-IFS MCDM approach was particularly suitable for prioritizing and ranking agricultural best management practices because decision makers often tend to have both likes and dislikes with regards to specific BMPs and for a given evaluation attribute. Not only does the A-IFS MCDM method provide a single composite score to rank the BMP alternatives, but the output of the A-IFS MCDM method also includes upper and lower bounds that help identify the uncertainties in the decision making process.

Keywords

Fuzzy sets Imprecision Multi-criteria decision making Vagueness BMPs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmad N (1990) Agricultural environment of Latin America and the Caribbean and the greenhouse effect. In: Proceedings of an international workshop on effects of expected climate change on soil processes in the tropics and sub-tropics. Nairobi, Kenya, Published by Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp 12–14Google Scholar
  2. Aneja VP, Blunden J, Roelle PA, Schlesinger WH, Knighton R, Niyogi D, Gilliam W, Jennings G, Duke CS (2008) Workshop on agricultural air quality: state of the science. Atmos Environ 42(14):3195–3208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atanassov KT (1994) New operations defined over the intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 61:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atanassov KT (1999) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Theory and applications. Physica, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Atanassov K (2005) Answer to D. Dubois, S. Gottwald, P. Hajek, J. Kacprzyk and H. Prade’s Paper. Terminological difficulties in fuzzy set theory—the case of “intuitionistic fuzzy sets”. Fuzzy Sets Syst 156(3):496–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Babel M, Gupta A, Nayak D (2005) A model for optimal allocation of water to competing demands. Water Resour Manag 19(6):693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: can decision makers articulate what they want? Manage Sci 54(1):56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bravo M, Gonzalez I (2009) Applying stochastic goal programming: a case study on water use planning. Eur J Oper Res 196(3):1123–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bustince H (2008) Generation of interval-valued fuzzy and Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy connectives from fuzzy connectives and from Kα; operators: laws for conjunctions and disjunctions, amplitude. Int J Intell Syst 23(6):680–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cattaneo G, Ciucci D (2006) Basic intuitionistic principles in fuzzy set theories and its extensions (A Terminological Debate on Atanassov IFS). Fuzzy Sets Syst 157:3198–3219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Centner TJ, Houston JE, Keeler AG, Fuchs C (1999) The adoption of best management practices to reduce agricultural water contamination. Limnologica 29:366–373Google Scholar
  13. Chen M, Chen J, Sun F (2008) Agricultural phosphorus flow and its environmental impacts in China. Sci Total Environ 405(1–3):140–152Google Scholar
  14. Chiou H-K, Tzeng G-H (2002) Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making approach for industrial green engineering. Environ Manage 30(6):0816–0830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Combs S (2008) Texas in focus: South Texas. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, AustinGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooper CM (1993) Biological effects of agriculturally derived surface water pollutants on aquatic systems—a review. J Environ Qual 22(3):402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox E (1998) The fuzzy systems handbook—a practitioner’s guide to building, using and maintaining fuzzy systems. Academic, Boston, p 716Google Scholar
  18. Dubois D, Gottwald S, Hajek P, Kacprzyk J, Prade H (2005) Terminological difficulties in fuzzy set theory—the case of “intuitionistic fuzzy sets”. Fuzzy Sets Syst 156(3):485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evrard O, Persoons E, Vandaele K, van Wesemael B (2007) Effectiveness of erosion mitigation measures to prevent muddy floods: a case study in the Belgian loam belt. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1–4):149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fawecett R (2009) A review of bmps for managing crop nutrients and conservation tillage to improve water quality. In: Conservation technology information center. Available at http://www.conservationinformation.org. Accessed 16 February 2009
  21. Fisher BEA (2006) Fuzzy approaches to environmental decisions: application to air quality. Environ Sci Policy 9(1):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greening LA, Bernow S (2004) Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32(6):721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grzegorzewski P, Mrówka E (2005) Some notes on (Atanassov’s) intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 156(3):492–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hajkowicz SA (2008) Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. J Environ Manag 88(4):607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21(9):1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hassanli AM, Ebrahimizadeh MA, Beecham S (2009) The effects of irrigation methods with effluent and irrigation scheduling on water use efficiency and corn yields in an arid region. Agric Water Manag 96(1):93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hernandez EA (2007) Risk based methodologies for watershed management—integrated simulation and optimization techniques. Environmental engineering. Texas A&M University–Kingsville, Kingsville, p 200Google Scholar
  28. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and application. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Kara E, Ribaudo M, Johansson RC (2008) On how environmental stringency influences adoption of best management practices in agriculture. J Environ Manag 88:1530–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karmakar S, Mujumdar PP (2006) Grey fuzzy optimization model for water quality management of a river system. Adv Water Resour 29(7):1088–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkwood CW (1997) Strategic decision making: multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  33. Li D-F (2005) Multiattribute decision making models and methods using intuitionistic fuzzy sets. J Comput Syst Sci 70(1):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu X, Wirtz KW (2007) Decision making of oil spill contingency options with fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Water Resour Manag 21(4):663–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Minella JPG, Walling DE, Merten GH (2008) Combining sediment source tracing techniques with traditional monitoring to assess the impact of improved land management on catchment sediment yields. J Hydrol 348(3–4):546–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murty Y, Bhallamudi S, Srinivasan K (2006) Non-uniform flow effect on optimal waste load allocation in rivers. Water Resour Manag 20(4):509–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nayak RC, Panda RK (2001) Integrated management of a canal command in a River Delta using multi-objective techniques. Water Resour Manag 15(6):383–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norwine J (1995) The changing climate of texaspredictability and implications for the future. Texas A&M University, GeoBooks, College of Geosciences and Maritime Studies, College StationGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Connor TG, Kiker GA (2004) Collapse of the Mapungubwe society: vulnerability of pastoralism to increasing aridity. Clim Change 66(1–2):49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saadatpour M, Afshar A (2007) Waste load allocation modeling with fuzzy goals; simulation–optimization approach. Water Resour Manag 21(7):1207–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sahoo B, Lohani A, Sahu R (2006) Fuzzy multiobjective and linear programming based management models for optimal land–water–crop system planning. Water Resour Manag 20(6):931–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silvert W (1989) Modelling for managers. Ecol Model 47:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singh AP, Ghosh SK, Sharma P (2007) Water quality management of a stretch of River Yamuna: an interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach. Water Resour Manag 21(2):515–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Srdjevic B, Medeiros Y (2008) Fuzzy AHP assessment of water management plans. Water Resour Manag 22(7):877–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Srdjevic B, Medeiros YDP, Faria AS (2004) An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resour Manag 18(1):35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2008) Using intuitionistic fuzzy sets in text categorization. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5097:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12(2):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tecle A, Yitayew M (1990) Preference ranking of alternative irrigation technologies via a multicriterion decision-making procedure. Trans ASAE 33(5):1509–1517Google Scholar
  49. TWDB (2005) Water conservation best management practices (BMP) guide for agriculture in Texas. Texas Water Development BoardGoogle Scholar
  50. TWDB (2006) Regional water plan: Brazos G regional water planning area. Volume II: Evaluation of water management strategies, January 2006Google Scholar
  51. TWRI (2008) Descriptions and expectations of recommended BMPs for improving the Bosque River Watershed. United States Department of Energy, Texas A&M AgriLIFE, and Texas Water Resources InstituteGoogle Scholar
  52. Uddameri V, Honnungar V (2007) Combining rough sets and Gis techniques to assess aquifer vulnerability characteristics in the semi-arid South Texas. Environ Geol 51(6):931–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Uddameri V, Kuchanur M (2007a) Estimating aquifer recharge in mission river watershed, Texas: model development and calibration using genetic algorithms. Environ Geol 51(6):897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Uddameri V, Kuchanur M (2007b) Simulation–optimization approach to assess groundwater availability in Refugio County, TX. Environ Geol 51:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. USDA NASS (2008) The census of agriculture. In: United State Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/. Accessed 28 September 2008
  56. van der Velde M, Green SR, Vanclooster M, Clothier BE (2007) Sustainable development in small island developing States: agricultural intensification, economic development, and freshwater resources management on the Coral Atoll of Tongatapu. Ecol Econ 61(2–3):456–468Google Scholar
  57. Vaníčeck J, Vrana I, Aly S (2009) Fuzzy aggregation and averaging for group decision making: a generalization and survey. Knowl-Based Syst 22(1):79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang SQ, Wee YP, Ofori G (2002) DSSDSS: a decision support system for dewatering systems selection. Build Environ 37(6):625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilcox BP, Dowhower SL, Teague WR, Thurow TL (2006) Long-term water balance in a semiarid shrubland. Rangeland Ecol Manag 59(6):600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Withers PJA, Hodgkinson RA, Bates A, Withers CL (2007) Soil cultivation effects on sediment and phosphorus mobilization in surface runoff from three contrasting soil types in England. Soil Tillage Res 93(2):438–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xu Z (2007) Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making. Inf Sci 177(11):2363–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yager RR (1978) Fuzzy decision making including unequal objectives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yurdusev M, O’Connell P (2005) Environmentally-sensitive water resources planning. Water Resour Manag 19(4):375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang X, Huang GH, Nie X (2009) Robust stochastic fuzzy possibilistic programming for environmental decision making under uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 408:192–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimmermann H-J (1991) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  67. Znidarsic M, Bohanec M, Zupan B (2008) Modelling impacts of cropping systems: demands and solutions for DEX methodology. Eur J Oper Res 189(3):594–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering, MSC 213Texas A&M University–KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Box 41023Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations