An evaluation of agri-environmental indicators through a multi-criteria decision-making tool in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Turkey

• Autorzy: Gurluk S. , Uzel G.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Our study investigates the historical achievements of agri-environmental and economic policies in order to ensure food security in the nations of Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Various agroeconomic and environmental indicators are tested, such as per capita cereals, per capita meat production, per capita milk production, yield of cereals, gross agricultural production value, fertilizer and pesticide use efficiency, and total agricultural emissions. The study attempts to rank the countries according to sustainability criteria. In the studies of ranking, multi-criteria decision-making methods are best suited for effectively dealing with a number of multifaceted evaluation criteria. The current study employs the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution method to rank the countries according to the above-mentioned criteria. Results show that Turkey was the closest to an optimal solution in 1980, while the Netherlands was farthest from an optimal solution the same year. In 2013 the country closest to an optimal solution was France. We can infer that economic indicators have some effects on ideal solutions because the Netherlands has less agricultural land, but its agri-economic value is higher than in other countries.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 25
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.1523-1528,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Gurluk S.

• Department of Agricultural Economics, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey

autor

Uzel G.

• Department of Agricultural Economics, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. Behzadian M., Otaghsara S. K., Yazdani M., Ignatius J. Review: A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal 39, 13051, 2012.
• 2. Chen P.C., Su H.J., Ma H.W. Trace anthropogenic arsenic in Taiwan-Substance flow analysis as a tool for environmental risk management. Journal of Cleaner Production 53, 13, 2013.
• 3. Ren Li., Liu J.T. Health Evaluation of a Lake Wetland Ecosystem based on the TOPSIS Method. Journal of Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 23, 2183, 2014.
• 4. Jozi S.A., Majd N.M. Health, safety, and environmental risk assessment of steel production complex in central Iran using TOPSIS. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186, 6969, 2014.
• 5. Vulevic T., Dragovic N. Kostadinov S., Simic S. B., Milovanovic I. Prioritization of Soil Erosion Vulnerable Areas Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods. Journal of Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 21 (1), 317, 2015.
• 6. Jiang Y., Liu Y.S., Ying G.G., Hong W.W., Liang Y.Q., Chen X.W. A new tool for assessing sediment quality based on theWeight of Evidence approach and grey TOPSIS. Science of the Total Environment 537, 369, 2015.
• 7. Mir M.A., Ghazvine i P.T. , Sulaiman N.M.N., Basri N.E.A., Saher i S., Mahmood N.Z., Jahan A., Begum R.A., Aghamohammad i N. Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR improved versions in a multi criteria decision analysis to develop an optimized municipal solid waste management model. Journal of Environmental Management 166, 109, 2016.
• 8. Guimares B., Simoes P., Marques R.C. Does performance evaluation help public managers? A balanced scorecard approach in urban waste services. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 2632, 2010.
• 9. Ahmad i Z., Dehagh i M.R., Meybod i M.E., Goodarzi M., Aghajan i M. Pollution Levels in Iranian Economy Sectors Using Input-Output Analysis and TOPSIS Technique: An Approach to Sustainable Development. Social and Behavioral Sciences 141, 1363, 2014.
• 10. Yee S.H., Carriger J.F., Bradley P., Fisher W.S., Dyson B. Developing scientific information to support decisions for sustainable coral reef ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 115, 39, 2015.
• 11. Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42, 131, 2002.
• 12. Gamper C.D., Turcanu C. On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis. Ecological Economics 62, 298, 2007.
• 13. Da Cruz N., Marques R. A multi-criteria model to determine the sustainability level of water services. Water Asset Management International, 9, 16, 2013.
• 14. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization Statistical Office (FAOSTAT) database, 2014.
• 15. Qin X., Huang G., Chakma A., Nie X., Lin Q.A MCDM-based expert system for climate-change impact assessment and adaptation planning – A case study for the Georgia Basin, Canada. Expert Systems with Applications, 34 (3), 2164, 2008.
• 16. Ic Y. An experimental design approach using TOPSIS method for the selection of computer-integrated manufacturing technologies. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 28, 245, 2012.
• 17. Boulanger P., Brechet T. Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics 55, 337, 2005.
• 18. Muralidhar P., Ravindranath K., Srihari V. Evaluation of Green Supply Chain Management Strategies Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS P. Journal of Engineering 2, 824, 2012.
• 19. Velasque z M., Hester P.T. An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Opreration Research 10, 56, 2013.
• 20. Ishizaka A., Nemery P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods and Software. Wiley Publishing, UK, 2013.
• 21. Zhang X., Gao L., Barrett D., Chen Y. Multi-criteria evaluation of water management for sustainable development in mining. 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide, Australia, 1-6 December 2013.
• 22. Jozi A.S., Saffarian S., Shafiee M. Environmental Risk Assessment of a Gas Power Plant Exploitation Unit Using Integrated TOP-EFMEA Method. Journal of Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 21, 95, 2012

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15244/pjoes/62127