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
  • [41] An explainable multi-attribute decision model based on argumentation
    Zhong, Qiaoting
    Fan, Xiuyi
    Luo, Xudong
    Toni, Francesca
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2019, 117 : 42 - 61
  • [42] Research on Hybrid Multi-attribute Decision-Making
    Sun, Guidong
    Guan, Xin
    2016 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBER-ENABLED DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS - CYBERC 2016, 2016, : 272 - 277
  • [43] Comparison Study of Multi-attribute Decision Analytic Softwarez
    french, Simon
    Xu, Dong-Ling
    JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS, 2005, 13 (2-3) : 65 - 80
  • [44] Learning and strategy selection in multi-attribute decision making
    Arndt, Broeder
    Tilmann, Betsch
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2008, 43 (3-4) : 547 - 547
  • [45] Postoptimal analysis in a multi-attribute decision model for restoring contaminated aquatic ecosystems
    Mateos, A
    Ríos-Insua, S
    Gallego, E
    JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, 2001, 52 (07) : 727 - 738
  • [46] Monte Carlo Based Risk Analysis Method for Multi-attribute Decision Methods
    Li, Chao
    Wu, Zhengxiong
    Zhu, Ning
    2019 CROSS STRAIT QUAD-REGIONAL RADIO SCIENCE AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (CSQRWC), 2019,
  • [47] Bayesian strategy assessment in multi-attribute decision making
    Bröder, A
    Schiffer, S
    JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, 2003, 16 (03) : 193 - 213
  • [48] Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data
    Yue, Zhongliang
    INFORMATION FUSION, 2013, 14 (04) : 551 - 561
  • [49] Fuzzy Random Multi-attribute Decision Making Method
    Wang, Min
    FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FUZZY SYSTEMS AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, VOL 3, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, : 386 - 390
  • [50] Dynamic intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision making
    Xu, Zeshui
    Yager, Ronald R.
    International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2008, 48 (01): : 246 - 262