A multi-attribute decision analysis of pest management strategies for Norwegian crop farmers

被引:17
|
作者
Lavik, Ming Su [1 ,2 ]
Hardaker, J. Brian [3 ]
Lien, Gudbrand [1 ,2 ]
Berge, Therese W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Inst Bioecon Res NIBIO, POB 115, NO-1431 AS, Norway
[2] Inland Norway Univ Appl Sci, POB 952, N-2604 Lillehammer, Norway
[3] Univ New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
关键词
Integrated Pest management; Multi-attribute utility theory; Pesticides; Simple multi-attribute rating technique; Winter wheat; Plant diseases; SYSTEMS; SUSTAINABILITY; INDICATOR;
D O I
10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102741
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
This study provides a multi-attribute approach to support decisions by Norwegian crop farmers considering adopting innovative crop protection measures. In modelling choice among pest management strategies, we have accounted for both economic risks, risks to human health and risks to the environment. We used the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) to evaluate the results of a field trial comparing four different pest management strategies. In the trial, various pre-crops in year one were followed by two consecutive years of winter wheat. Two treatments had different levels of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM1 was the most innovative treatment and used less pesticides (i.e. herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) than IPM2. The third treatment ('Worst Case', WC) used pesticides routinely. The fourth treatment ('No Plant Protection', NPP) used no plant protection measures except one reduced dose of herbicide per year on winter wheat. Two main attributes were included in the SMART analysis, an economic indicator and a pesticide load indicator, each of which comprised a number of attributes at a subsidiary level. The results showed that the IPM1 and NPP strategies performed better than IPM2 and the WC strategies. However, the ranking of the pest management practices depended on the weighting of the two main attributes. Although the SMART analysis gave ordinal utility values, permitting only ranking of the alternatives, we were able to transform the results to measure financial differences between the alternatives.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] On the exams of a Multi-Attribute Decision Making electronic course
    Resteanu, Cornel
    Somodi, Marius
    Andreica, Marin
    NUMERICAL METHODS AND APPLICATIONS, 2007, 4310 : 173 - 180
  • [32] Linguistic multi-attribute decision making with multiple priorities
    Yan, Hong-Bin
    Zhang, Xueqing
    Li, Yashuai
    COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING, 2017, 109 : 15 - 27
  • [33] L-p-metric sensitivity analysis for single and multi-attribute decision analysis
    Ringuest, JL
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1997, 98 (03) : 563 - 570
  • [34] Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making
    Xu, Zeshui
    Yager, Ronald R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPROXIMATE REASONING, 2008, 48 (01) : 246 - 262
  • [35] PROXY APPROACH TO MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING
    OPPENHEIMER, KR
    MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1978, 24 (06) : 675 - 689
  • [36] Question selection for multi-attribute decision-aiding
    Holloway, HA
    White, CC
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2003, 148 (03) : 525 - 533
  • [37] Modeling Strategy Switches in Multi-attribute Decision Making
    Lee M.D.
    Gluck K.A.
    Computational Brain & Behavior, 2021, 4 (2) : 148 - 163
  • [38] Linguistic Multi-Attribute Decision Making with a Prioritization Relationship
    Wei, Cuiping
    Tang, Xijin
    Wang, Xiaojie
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE AND SYSTEMS SCIENCE, 2013, 4 (04) : 46 - 54
  • [39] Application of multi-attribute decision making in maintainability design
    Du, Xiaoming
    Yu, Yongli
    Hu, Hui
    Zhongguo Jixie Gongcheng/China Mechanical Engineering, 1999, 10 (12): : 1386 - 1388
  • [40] Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies
    Dekker, Thijs
    Hess, Stephane
    Brouwer, Roy
    Hofkes, Marjan
    RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2016, 43 : 57 - 73