Skip to main content

Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review

Abstract

Sustainability is a holistic and complex multi-dimensional concept encompassing economic, social and environmental issues, and its assessment is a key step in the implementation of sustainable agricultural systems. Realistic assessments of sustainability require: (1) the integration of diverse information concerning economic, social and environmental objectives; and (2) the handling of conflicting aspects of these objectives as a function of the views and opinions of the individuals involved in the assessment process. The assessment of sustainability is therefore increasingly regarded as a typical decision-making problem that could be handled by multi-criteria decision-aid (MCDA) methods. However, the number and variability of MCDA methods are continually increasing, and these methods are not all equally relevant for sustainability assessment. The demands for such approaches are also rapidly changing, and faster ex ante assessment approaches are required, to address scales currently insufficiently dealt with, such as cropping system level. Researchers regularly carry out comparative analyses of MCDA methods and propose guidelines for the selection of a priori relevant methods for the assessment problem considered. However, many of the selection criteria used are based on technical/operational assumptions that have little to do with the specificities of ex ante sustainability assessment of alternative cropping systems. We attempt here to provide a reasoned comparative review of the main groups of MCDA methods, based on considerations related to those specificities. The following main guidelines emerge from our discussion of these methods: (1) decision rule-based and outranking qualitative MCDA methods should be preferred; (2) different MCDA tools should be used simultaneously, making it possible to evaluate and compare the results obtained; and (3) a relevantly structured group of decision-makers should be established for the selection of tool variants of the choosen MCDA methods, the design/choice of sustainability criteria, and the analysis and interpretation of the evaluation results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alphonce C.B. (1997) Application of the analytic hierarchy process in agriculture in developing countries, Agr. Syst. 53, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoli M., Tellarini V. (2000) Farm sustainability evaluation: methodology and practice, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arondel C., Girardin P. (2000) Sorting cropping systems on the basis of their impact on groundwater quality, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 127, 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayalew L., Yamagishi H., Marui H., Kanno T. (2005) Landslides in Sado Island of Japan: Part II. GIS-based susceptibility mapping with comparisons of results from two methods and verifications, Eng. Geol. 81, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker D., Bridges D., Hunter R., Johnson G., Krupa J., Murphy J., Sorenson K. (2002) Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods, WSRC-IM-2002-00002, Department of Energy, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C.A., Vansnick J.C. (1997) Applications of the MACBETH approach in the framework of an additive aggregation model, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 6, 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohanec M., Džeroski S., Žnidaršiè M., Messean A., Scatasta S., Wesseler J. (2004) Multi-attribute modelling of economic and ecological impact of cropping systems, Informatica (Ljubljana, Slovenia) 28, 387–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontkes T.S., van Keulen H. (2003) Modelling the dynamics of agricultural development at farm and regional level, Agr. Syst. 76, 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D., Perny P., Pirlot M., Tsoukias A., Vincke P. (1993) A manifesto for the new MCDA era, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 2, 125–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D., Marchant T., Pirlot M., Perny P., Tsoukiàs A., Vincke P. (2000) Evaluation and decision models: a critical perspective, Kluwer Academic, Boston, London, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D., Marchant T., Pirlot M., Tsoukias A., Vincke P. (2006) Evaluation decision models with multiple criteria. Stepping stones for the analyst, Springer Science + Business Media Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans J.P. (1982) L’ingénierie de la décision; Élaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. La méthode PROMETHEE, in: Nadeau R., Landry M. (Eds.), L’aide à la décision: Nature, Instruments et Perspectives d’Avenir, Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, pp. 183–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka G. (2006) Answer Sets and Qualitative Optimization, Logic Jnl. IGPL 14, 413–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner N., Starkl M. (2004) Decision aid systems for evaluating sustainability: a critical survey, Environ. Impact. Assess. Rev. 24, 441–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerdan O., Souchère V., Lecomte V., Couturier A., Le Bissonnais Y. (2002) Incorporating soil surface crusting processes in an expert-based runoff and erosion model STREAM (Sealing Transfer Runoff Erosion Agricultural Modification), Catena 46, 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S.J., Hwang C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crist P.J., Kohley T.W., Oakleaf J. (2000) Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversity using an expert systems tool, Landscape Ecol. 15, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Keyser W., Peters P. (1994) ARGUS — a new multiple criteria method based on the general idea of outranking, in: Paruccini M. (Ed.), Applying multiple criteria aid for decision to environmental management, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 263–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Biggelaar C., Suvedi M. (2000) Farmers’ definitions, goals, and bottlenecks of sustainable agriculture in the North-Central Region, Agr. Hum. Val. 17, 347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dent J.B., Edward-Jones G., McGregor M.J. (1995) Simulation of ecological, social, and economic factors in agricultural systems, Agr. Syst. 49, 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias L.C., Tsoukiàs A. (2003) On the constructive and other approaches in decision aiding, in: Henggeler Antunes C.A., Figueira J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Meeting of the EURO MCDA Working Group, University of Tuscia, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogliotti S., Rossing W.A.H., Van Ittersum M.K. (2004) Systematic design and evaluation of crop rotations enhancing soil conservation, soil fertility and farm income: a case study for vegetable farms in South Uruguay, Agr. Syst. 80, 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogliotti S., Van Ittersum M.K., Rossing W.A.H. (2005) A method for exploring sustainable development options at farm scale: a case study for vegetable farms in South Uruguay, Agric. Syst. 86, 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke J., Aull-Hyde R. (2002) Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process, Ecol. Econ. 42, 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul Karsak E. (2004) Fuzzy multiple objective decision making approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment, Int. J. Prod. Res. 42, 3957–3974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005) Impact assessment Guidelines, 15th of June 2005 with March 2006 Update, SEC (2005) 791.

  • Ferraro D.O., Ghersa C.M., Sznaider G.A. (2003) Evaluation of environmental impact indicators using fuzzy logic to assess the mixed cropping systems of the Inland pampa, Argentina, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 96, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M. (2005) (Eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • French S. (1988) Decision Theory: an Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gafsi M., Legagneux B., Nguyen G., Robin P. (2006) Towards sustainable farming systems: Effectiveness and deficiency of the French procedure of sustainable agriculture, Agr. Syst. 90, 226–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P., Wright G. (1998) Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, second edition, John Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco S., Matarazzo B. (2005) Decision rule approach, in: Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guitouni A., Martel J.M. (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109, 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J.W. (1996) Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agr. Syst. 50, 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi K. (2000) Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122, 486–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hengsdijk H., Van Ittersum M.K. (2002) A goal-oriented approach to identify and engineer land use systems, Agr. Syst. 71, 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herath G. (2004) Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process, J. Environ. Manage. 70, 263–273.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanides G., Nijkamp P. (1997) Multicriteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural land use: a case of Lesvos, Research Memorandum 1997–5. Free University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.

  • Hwang C.L., Yoon K.L. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikerd J.E. (1993) The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 46, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jelassi M.T.J., Ozemoy V.M. (1988) A framework for building an expert system for MCDM models selection, in: Lockett A.G., Islei G. (Eds.), Improving Decision Making in Organzations, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 553–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J., Kangas A., Leskinen P., Pykäläinen J. (2001) MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 10, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R., Raiffa H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Performances and Value Trade-Offs, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim T.L., Wiggins L., Wright J. (1990) (Eds.) Expert Systems: Applications to Urban Planning, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropff M.J., Bouma J., Jones J.W. (2001) Systems approaches for the design of sustainable agro-ecosystems, Agr. Syst. 70, 369–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruseman G., Ruben R., Kuyvenhoven A. (1996) Analytical framework for disentangling the concept of sustainable land use, Agr. Syst. 50, 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leclerc J.P. (1984) Propositions d’extension de la notion de dominance en présence de relations d’ordre sur les pseudo-critères: MELCHIOR, Math. Social Sci. 8, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyce Ch., Rellier J.P., Meynard J.M. (2002a) Management planning for winter wheat with multiple objectives (1): the BETHA system, Agr. Syst. 72, 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyce Ch., Rellier J.P., Meynard J.M. (2002b) Management planning for winter wheat with multiple objectives (2): ethanol-wheat production, Agr. Syst. 72, 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma L. (2006) Knowledge Representation Under Inherent Uncertainty in a Multi-Agent System for Land Use Planning, Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 164 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon K.R. (1973) An overview of multiple objective decision making, in: Cochran J.L., Zeleny M. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macharis C., Springael J., De Brucker K., Verbeke A. (2004) PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Alier J., Munda G., O’Neill J. (1998) Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics, Ecol. Econ. 26, 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maystre L.Y., Pictet J., Simos J. (1994) (Eds.) Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzetto F., Bonera R. (2003) MEACROS: a tool for multi-criteria evaluation of alternative cropping systems, Eur. J. Agron. 18, 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Aurich A. (2005) Economic and environmental analysis of sustainable farming practices — a Bavarian case study, Agr. Syst. 86, 190–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffett A., Sarkar S. (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations, Diversity Distributions 12, 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G., Nijkamp P., Rietveld P. (1994) Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management, Ecol. Econ. 10, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G., Nijkamp P., Rietveld P. (1995) Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 82, 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda G. (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis and sustainable development, in: Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M. (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neher D. (1992) Ecological sustainability in agricultural systems, Definition and measurement, J. Sustain. Agr. 2, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp P., Rietveld P., Voogd H. (1990) Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

  • Nijkamp P., Vindigni G. (1998) Integrated Multicriteria Evaluation Methods for Sustainable Agricultural Policy Analysis, Riv. Econom. Agr. 1-2, 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill J. (1997) Value pluralism, incommensurability and institutions, in: Foster J. (Ed.), Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World, Routledge, London, pp. 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacini C., Wossink A., Giesen G., Vazzana C., Huirne R. (2003) Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paelinck J.H.P. (1978) Qualifex, a flexible multiple criteria method, Econ. Lett. 1, 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell D.J., Schilizzi S. (1999) Sustainable agriculture: a question of ecology, equity, economic efficiency or expedience? J. Sustain. Agr. 13, 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J., Seaton R.A.F. (1996) Integrative research and sustainable agriculture, Agr. Syst. 50, 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak Z. (1991) Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillis Y.A., Andriantiatsaholiniaina L.A. (2001) Sustainability: an illdefined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic, Ecol. Econ. 37, 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillai C.R.S., Raju K.S. (1996) Ranking irrigation management alternatives by multicriterion analysis, Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 12, 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman T., Romero C. (1993) The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems: some basic considerations, Agr. Syst. 41, 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby D., Caceres D. (2001) Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems, Agr. Syst. 68, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers M., Bruen M. (1998) Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107, 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossing W.A.H., Meynard J.M., Van Ittersum M.K. (1997) Model-based explorations to support development of sustainable farming systems: case studies from France and the Netherlands, Eur. J. Agron. 7, 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roubens M. (1982) Preference relations on actions and criteria in multi-criteria decision making, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 10, 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B. (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode Électre), Rev. Fr. Informatique Recherche Opérationnelle 8, 57–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B. (1985) Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide à la Décision, Economica, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B., Bouyssou D. (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: Méthodes et cas, Economica, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T.L. (1980) The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salminen P., Hokkanen J., Lahdelma R. (1998) Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104, 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaller N. (1993) The concept of agricultural sustainability, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 46, 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schärlig A. (1985) Décider sur plusieurs critères, Panorama de l’aide à la décision multicritère, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoldt D.L., Kangas J., Mendoza G.A. (2001) (Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebillotte M. (1990) Système de culture, un concept opératoire pour les agronomes, in: Combe L., Picard D. (Eds.), Un point sur les systèmes de culture, INRA éditions, Paris, pp. 165–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha R.K., Alavalapati J.R.R., Kalmbacher R.S. (2004) Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in South-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method, Agr. Syst. 81, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith C.S., McDonald G.T. (1998) Assessing the sustainability at the planning stage, J. Environ. Manage. 52, 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer R.E. (1986) Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart T.J., Losa F.B. (2003) Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145, 645–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulser T.B., Duryea M.L., Frolich L.M. (2001) A field practical approach for assessing biophysical sustainability of alternative agricultural systems, Agr. Syst. 68, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Berge H.F.M., Van Ittersum M.K., Rossing W.A.H., van de Ven G.W.J., Schans J., van de Sanden P.A.C.M. (2000) Farming options for The Netherlands explored by multi-objective modelling, Eur. J. Agron. 13, 263–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tixier P., Malezieux E., Dorel M., Bockstaller C., Girardin P. (2007) Rpest-An indicator linked to a crop model to assess the dynamics of the risk of pesticide water pollution: Application to banana-based cropping systems, Eur. J. Agron. 26, 71–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tré J.P., Lowenberg-Deboer J. (2005) ex ante economic analysis of alternative mulch-based management systems for sustainable plantain production in Southeastern Nigeria, Agr. Syst. 86, 52–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK DTLR (2001) DTLR Multi-Criteria Analysis Manual, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, UK, 145 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Werf H., Zimmer C. (1998) An indicator of pesticide environmental impact based on a fuzzy expert system, Chemosphere 36, 2225–2249.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huylenbroeck G., Damasco-Tagarino D. (1998) Analyzing crop choice of Philippine vegetable farmers with multicriteria analysis, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 7, 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ittersum M., Ewert F., Heckelei T., Wery J., Alkan Olsson J., Andersen E., Bezlepkina I., Brouwer F., Donatelli M., Flichman G., Olsson L., Rizzoli A., van der Wal T., Wien J.E., Wolf J. (2007) Integrated assessment of agricultural systems a component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS), Agr. Syst. (in press).

  • Vereijken P. (1997) A methodical way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms, Eur. J. Agron. 7, 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke P. (1989) L’aide multicritère à la décision, Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogd H. (1983) Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, Pion, Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X., Triantaphyllou E. (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods, Omega, in press, available online 14 February 2006.

  • Weersink A., Jeffrey S., Pannell D. (2002) Farm-level modeling for bigger issues, Rev. Agr. Econ. 24, pp. 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis S.H., Solomon A., Wishart N., Dublish S. (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of selection methods, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 107, 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander P., Kächele H. (1999) Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development, Agr. Syst. 59, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang B., Zhang Y., Chen D., White R.E., Li Y. (2004) A quantitative evaluation system of soil productivity for intensive agriculture in China, Geoderma 123, 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P., Ang B.W., Poh K.L. (2006) Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update, Energy 31, 2604–2622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zupan B., Bohanec M., Demsar J., Bratko I. (1999) Learning by discovering concept hierarchies, Artif. Intell. 109, 211–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thierry Doré.

About this article

Cite this article

Sadok, W., Angevin, F., Bergez, JÉ. et al. Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28, 163–174 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007043

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007043

  • multi-criteria decision aid
  • cropping system
  • sustainability assessment
  • qualitative information
  • decision rules
  • outranking qualitative methods