Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The crop pattern has a significant impact on the feasibility of sustainable agricultural practices. Selected crop pattern influences environmental and economic condition and affects sustainability profoundly in agricultural practices. Hence, a careful intervention is required in the selection of an optimal crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices. Selection of a particular set of crop pattern depends on many criteria that may vary from place to place thus pose challenges in deciding an optimum crop pattern. The present research focuses on the crop selection pattern in Indian environment that considers comprehensive criteria related to sustainable farming practices. Based on the in-depth review of the literature and experts opinion, comprehensive criteria related to sustainable farming practices for Ravi season crop are identified. Total twelve criteria covering socioeconomic conditions, soil and water conditions, environmental and climatic conditions are earmarked and taken into account for eight most commonly grown crops in Ravi season and later on modeled to determine the crop pattern for most needed sustainability. A fuzzy-based multi-criteria decision-making model has been developed considering the Indian farming system. The scarce resources availability to Indian farmers poses many challenges to practice farming with most needed sustainability. The present research will be useful in the area of Indian farming practices in particular and global farming practices in general. It will also help stakeholders in their cost effective decision making for better crop productivity leading to sustainable farming practices. Additionally, the state policy makers will be able to formulate effective state driven sustainable farming policy to enhance its stake in gross domestic product to become self-reliance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bozdağ, A., Yauaz, F., & Günay, A. S. (2016). AHP and GIS based land suitability analysis for Cihanbeyli (Turkey) County. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 813. doi:10.1007/s12665-016-5558-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. T. (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobuloglu, H. I., & Büyüktahtakın, I. E. (2015). A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable biomass crop selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15–16), 6065–6074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, E. J., Hennessy, T., & Hynes, S. (2009). Towards measurement of farm sustainability-an Irish case study. Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the international association of 108 Environmentalist (2012) 32:99–110 Agricultural Economists Conference, Beijing, China, 16–22.

  • Elaalem, M. (2010). The application of land evaluation techniques in jeffara plain in Libya using fuzzy methods. University of Leicester, 1-248.

  • Gómez-Limón, J. A., Arriazab, M., & Riesgo, L. (2003). An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. European Journal of Operational Research, 151(3), 569–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowda, M. J. C., & Jayaramaiah, K. M. (1998). Comparative evaluation of rice production systems for their sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 69(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. P., Harboe, R., & Tabucanon, M. T. (2000). Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making for crop area planning in Narmada river basin. Agricultural Systems, 63(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attributes decision-making methods and applications, a state-of-the-art survey. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nambiar, K. K. M., Gupta, A. P., Fu, Q., & Li, S. (2001). Biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 87(2), 209–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pramanik, M. K. (2016). Site suitability analysis for agricultural land use of Darjeeling district using AHP and GIS techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2, 56. doi:10.1007/s40808-016-0116-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, M. N., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2008). Decision support model for evaluation and selection of Third Party Logistics service providers. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 4(3), 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M., & Shaha, S. K. (2008). Remote sensing, spatial multi criteria evaluation (SMCE) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in optimal cropping pattern planning for a flood prone area. Spatial Science, 53(2), 161–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez-García, J., Carrillo, J. M., Ruiz, M., Alonso-Ayuso, M., & Quemada, M. (2015). Multicriteria decision analysis applied to cover crop species and cultivars selection. Field Crops Research, 175, 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, T., & Romero, C. (1993). The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems: Some basic considerations. Agricultural Systems, 41(3), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Karami, E. (2008). A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(4), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., & Chan, N. W. (2012). An assessment of agricultural sustainability indicators in Bangladesh: Review and synthesis. Environmentalist, 32(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singha, C., & Swain, K. C. (2016). Land suitability evaluation criteria for agricultural crop selection: A review. Agricultural Reviews, 37(2), 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, A. A., van Beest, F. M., & Brook, R. K. (2015). Quantifying overlap in crop selection patterns among three sympatric ungulates in an agricultural landscape. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(7), 601–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, S., Zhou, X., Wan, C., Li, Y., & Kong, W. (2016). Land use changes to cash crop plantations: Crop types, multilevel determinants and policy implications. Land Use Policy, 50, 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydorovych, O., & Wossink, A. (2008). The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Agricultural Systems, 98(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. J., & Chang, T. C. (1995). Tool steel materials selection under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 72(3), 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8(3), 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy Environment. Management Science, 17(4), 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1974). A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Computers & Operations Research, 1(3), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, R., & Govind, R. (1991). Algebraic characteristics of extended fuzzy numbers. Information Science, 54(1–2), 103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L., Routray, J. K., Zoebisch, M. A., Chen, G., Xie, G., & Cheng, S. (2005). Three dimensions of sustainability of farming practices in the North China Plain: A case study from Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 105(3), 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, L., Zoebisch, M. A., Chen, G., & Feng, Z. (2006). Sustainability of farmers’ soil fertility management practices: A case study in the North China Plain. Journal of Environmental Management, 79(4), 409–419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

    Ram Karan Singh & Mohd. Abul Hasan

Authors
  1. Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ram Karan Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohd. Abul Hasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 3, 4 and 5.

Table 3 Fuzzy decision matrix of Ravi season crop pattern selection for sustainable farming practices
Full size table
Table 4 Normalized fuzzy decision matrix of Ravi season crop pattern selection for sustainable farming practices
Full size table
Table 5 Fuzzy weighted decision matrix of Ravi season crop pattern selection for sustainable farming practices
Full size table

Appendix 2

2.1 Sample Questionnaire

With respect to the overall goal of “Selection of Ravi Season Crops for Sustainable Agricultural Practices”

Q1.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Water Tariff?

Q2.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Cultivation?

Q3.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Crop Value?

Q4.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Crop Demand?

Q5.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Crop Storage Infrastructure?

Q6.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Water Availability?

Q7.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Water Quality?

Q8.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Soil Texture?

Q9.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Irrigation Methods?

Q10.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria E T?

Q11.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Rainfall?

Q12.:

What degree of importance do you assign to criteria Environmental Condition?

With respect to: Selection of Ravi Season Crops for Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Importance (or preference) of each Criterion

Questions

Criteria

(0, 0.1, 0.3) Very low

(0.1, 0.3, 0.5) Low

(0.3, 0.5, 0.7) Medium

(0.5, 0.7, 0.9) High

(0.7, 0.9, 1) Very high

Q1

Water Tariff

  

✓

  

Q2

Cultivation

   

✓

 

Q3

Crop Value

✓

    

Q4

Crop Demand

  

✓

  

Q5

Crop Storage Infrastructure

  

✓

  

Q6

Water Availability

   

✓

 

Q7

Water Quality

✓

    

Q8

Soil Texture

  

✓

  

Q9

Irrigation Methods

   

✓

 

Q10

E T

✓

    

Q11

Rainfall

   

✓

 

Q12

Environmental Condition

✓

    

Appendix 3

Scoring of alternatives with respect to criteria for overall goal of “Selection of Ravi Season Crops for Sustainable Agricultural Practices”

Q13.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to criteria Water Tariff?

Q14.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to criteria Cultivation?

Q15.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to criteria Crop Value?

Q16.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to criteria Crop Demand?

Q17.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Crop Storage Infrastructure?

Q18.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Water Availability?

Q19.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Water Quality?

Q20.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Soil Texture?

Q21.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Irrigation Methods?

Q22.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to E T?

Q23.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference Rainfall?

Q24.:

What scores do you assign to crop alternative Wheat with reference to Environmental Condition?

With respect to: Selection of Ravi Season Crops for Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Performance of each Crop Alternative with respect to each Criterion

Questions

Criteria

Crop alternative

(0, 1, 3) Very poor

(1, 3, 5) Poor

(3, 5, 7) Fair

(5, 7, 9) Good

(7, 9, 10) Very good

Q13

Water Tariff

Wheat

   

✓

 

Q14

Cultivation

Wheat

   

✓

 

Q15

Crop Value

Wheat

  

✓

  

Q16

Crop Demand

Wheat

     

Q17

Crop Storage Infrastructure

Wheat

  

✓

  

Q18

Water Availability

Wheat

   

✓

 

Q19

Water Quality

Wheat

    

✓

Q20

Soil Texture

Wheat

  

✓

  

Q21

Irrigation Methods

Wheat

   

✓

 

Q22

E T

Wheat

  

✓

  

Q23

Rainfall

Wheat

   

✓

 

Q24

Environmental Condition

Wheat

 

✓

   

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qureshi, M.N., Singh, R.K. & Hasan, M.A. Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices using fuzzy MCDM. Environ Dev Sustain 20, 641–659 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9903-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation