Interdisciplinary tool for optimizing agricultural production and erosion: a conceptual model

  • L. G. J. Boerboom
  • I. D. Flitcroft
  • E. T. Kanemasu
Chapter
Part of the Systems Approaches for Sustainable Agricultural Development book series (SAAD, volume 5)

Abstract

What are the areas in a catchment where soil conservation practices can be most effectively implemented? To be able to answer that question, erosion rates and farm profitability from different land uses need to be optimized according to physical economic and social constraints, which differ for the interest groups in and outside a catchment. The Interdisciplinary Tool for Optimizing Productivity and Erosion (ITOPE), a conceptual model at this point, offers the opportunity for hydrologists, economists and anthropologists to integrate their knowledge about the erosion problem. It optimizes farm profitability and soil loss and quantifies the economic impact of soil conservation measures for subcatchments, given physical, social and economic constraints, by linking a hydrologic model, a multiple criteria optimization model and an expert system. It should serve as a tool for regional planners, which ensures that social and economic boundary conditions for each of the interest groups in a watershed are considered. It should also serve as a negotiation tool for groups inside and outside the watershed, to allocate the costs and benefits of soil conservation. The development of the conceptual model has led to the observation of interdisciplinary methodological opportunities.

Keywords

multiple objective optimization non-point source pollution modelling expert systems erosion control interdisciplinarity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold J G, Williams J R, Nicks A D, Sammons N B (1990) SWRRB, a basin scale simulation model for soil and water resources management. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Tex., USA. 142 p.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold J G, Williams J R, Maidment D R (1995) Continuous-time water and sediment routing model for large basins. J. Hydrol. Eng. 121(2):171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold J G, Williams J R, Srinivasan R, King K W (1996) SWAT, soil and water assessment tool. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Tex., USA. 102 p.Google Scholar
  4. AVRDC — Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (1995) Progress report 1994. AVRDC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan (ROC). 520 p.Google Scholar
  5. Boster J S, Johnson J C (1989) Form or function: A comparison of expert and novice judgements of similarity among fish. Am. Anthropol. 91:866–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkman R (1994) Recent developments in land use planning, with special reference to FAO. Pages 11–21 in Fresco L O, Stroosnijder L, Bouma J, Van Keulen H (Eds.) The future of the land: Mobilising nd integrating knowledge for land use options. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Coulson R N, Lovelady C N, Flamm R O, Spradling S L, Saunders M C (1991) Intelligent geographic information systems for natural resource management. Quantitative Methods Landscape Ecol. 82:153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Groot W T (1992) Environmental science theory, concepts and methods in a one-world, problem-oriented paradigm. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 583 p.Google Scholar
  9. Dieng R, Giboin A, Tourtier P, Corby O (1992) Knowledge acquisition for explainable multi-expert, knowledge-based design systems. Pages 298–317 in Siekmann J (Ed.) Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Duchessi P, O’Keefe R M (1992) Contrasting successful and unsuccessful expert systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 61:122–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairweather J R, Keating N C (1994) Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agric. Syst. 44:181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedl M A, Estes J E, Star J L (1988) Advanced formation-extraction tools in remote sensing for earth science application: AI and GIS. AI Appl. 2(2–3):17–30.Google Scholar
  13. Furbee L (1989) A folk expert system: Soils classification in the Colca Valley, Peru. Anthropol. Q. 62(2):83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldsworthy P R, Eyzaguirre P, Boerboom L (1994) The institutional and organizational implications of integrating natural resource management and production-oriented research. Pages 139–152 in Goldsworthy P R, Penning de Vries F W T (Eds.) Opportunities, use, and transfer of systems research methods in agriculture to developing countries. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamer W I (1981) Soil conservation consultant report. Part A: A soil degradation assessment methodology, Technical note No. 7. Center for Soil Research, Bogor, Indonesia. 50 p.Google Scholar
  16. Herskovits M J (1941) Economics and anthropology, a rejoinder. J. Political Econ. 49:269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson P (1990) Introduction to expert systems. 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, UK. 526 p.Google Scholar
  18. Janssen R (1992) Multi objective decision support for environmental management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 232 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knight F H (1941) Anthropology and economics. J. Political Econ. 49:247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krueger R A (1988) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, USA. 197 p.Google Scholar
  21. KSL — Knowledge Systems Laboratory (1994) FuzzyCLIPS version 6.02: User’s guide. National Research Council, Canada. 71 p.Google Scholar
  22. Liou Y I (1992) Collaborative knowledge acquisition. Expert Syst. Appl. 5:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luenberger D G (1995) Microeconomic theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA. 486 p.Google Scholar
  24. MacLeod K R, Reeves G R (1993) AXIS: A framework for interactively combining structured algorithms and knowledge based systems. Comput. Oper. Res. 20(6):613–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nazarea-Sandoval V D (1995) Local knowledge and agricultural decisionmaking in the Philippines, class, gender, and resistance. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. 226 p.Google Scholar
  26. Nevo A, Oad R, Podmore T H (1994) An integrated expert system for optimal crop planning. Agric. Syst. 45:73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plant R E (1993) Expert systems in agriculture and resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 43:241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Röling N (1994) Platforms for decisionmaking about ecosystems. Pages 385–393 in Fresco L O, Stroosnijder L, Bouma J, Van Keulen H (Eds.) The future of the land: Mobilising and integrating knowledge for land use options. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Romney A K, Weiler S C, Batchelder W H (1986) Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am. Anthropol. 88:313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider H K (1989) Economic man: The anthropology of economics. 2nd Edition. Sheffield Publishing Company, Salem, WI, USA. 278 p.Google Scholar
  31. Simon H A (1992) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Pages 39–54 in Egidi M, Marris R (Eds.) Economics, bounded rationality, and the cognitive revolution. Edward Elgar Publisher, Brookfield, VT, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Srinivasan R, Arnold J G (1994) Integration of a basin-scale water quality model with GIS. Water Res. Bull. 30(3):453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steuer R E (1989) Multiple criteria optimization: Theory, computation and application. 2nd Edition. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, USA. 546 p.Google Scholar
  34. Steuer R E (1994) Random problem generation and the computation of efficient extreme points in multiple objective linear programming. Comput. Organ. Appl. 333–347.Google Scholar
  35. Zadeh L A (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8:118–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. G. J. Boerboom
    • 1
  • I. D. Flitcroft
    • 1
  • E. T. Kanemasu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Crop and Soil SciencesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations