IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v232y2014i3p643-653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Gebrezgabher, Solomie A.
  • Meuwissen, Miranda P.M.
  • Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M.

Abstract

The intensification of livestock operations in the last few decades has resulted in an increased social concern over the environmental impacts of livestock operations and thus making appropriate manure management decisions increasingly important. A socially acceptable manure management system that simultaneously achieves the pressing environmental objectives while balancing the socio-economic welfare of farmers and society at large is needed. Manure management decisions involve a number of decision makers with different and conflicting views of what is acceptable in the context of sustainable development. This paper developed a decision-making tool based on a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach to address the manure management problems in the Netherlands. This paper has demonstrated the application of compromise programming and goal programming to evaluate key trade-offs between socio-economic benefits and environmental sustainability of manure management systems while taking decision makers’ conflicting views of the different criteria into account. The proposed methodology is a useful tool in assisting decision makers and policy makers in designing policies that enhance the introduction of economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manure management systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:232:y:2014:i:3:p:643-653
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.08.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713006528
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.08.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hadrich, Joleen C. & Wolf, Christopher A. & Roy Black, J. & Harsh, Stephen B., 2008. "Incorporating Environmentally Compliant Manure Nutrient Disposal Costs into Least-Cost Livestock Ration Formulation," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 287-300, April.
    2. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. Kruseman, Gideon & Blokland, Pieter-Willem & Bouma, Foppe & Luesink, Harry H. & Mokveld, Lennard J. & Vrolijk, Hans C.J., 2008. "Micro-simulation as a tool to assess policy concerning non-point source pollution: the case of ammonia in Dutch agriculture," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6661, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Stonehouse, D. P. & de Vos, G. W. & Weersink, A., 2002. "Livestock manure systems for swine finishing enterprises," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 279-296, September.
    6. González-Pachøn, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, June.
    7. Gonzalez-Pachon, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 351-361, October.
    8. P Linares & C Romero, 2000. "A multiple criteria decision making approach for electricity planning in Spain: economic versus environmental objectives," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(6), pages 736-743, June.
    9. Linares, Pedro & Romero, Carlos, 2002. "Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: a goal-programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 89-95, April.
    10. Bart Van der Straeten & Jeroen Buysse & Stephan Nolte & Ludwig Lauwers & Dakerlia Claeys & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2010. "A multi-agent simulation model for spatial optimisation of manure allocation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(8), pages 1011-1030.
    11. Greening, Lorna A. & Bernow, Steve, 2004. "Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 721-735, April.
    12. Løken, Espen, 2007. "Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(7), pages 1584-1595, September.
    13. Marchamalo, M. & Romero, C., 2007. "Participatory decision-making in land use planning: An application in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 740-748, September.
    14. El-Gayar, Omar F. & Leung, PingSun, 2001. "A multiple criteria decision making framework for regional aquaculture development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(3), pages 462-482, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikkel Bojesen & Luc Boerboom & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2014. "Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector," IFRO Working Paper 2014/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    3. Köninger, Julia & Lugato, Emanuele & Panagos, Panos & Kochupillai, Mrinalini & Orgiazzi, Alberto & Briones, Maria J.I., 2021. "Manure management and soil biodiversity: Towards more sustainable food systems in the EU," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    4. Jones, Dylan & Florentino, Helenice & Cantane, Daniela & Oliveira, Rogerio, 2016. "An extended goal programming methodology for analysis of a network encompassing multiple objectives and stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(3), pages 845-855.
    5. Anissa Frini & Sarah Benamor, 2018. "Making Decisions in a Sustainable Development Context: A State-of-the-Art Survey and Proposal of a Multi-period Single Synthesizing Criterion Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 341-385, August.
    6. Kim Maund & Mark Maund & Thayaparan Gajendran, 2022. "Land use planning: An opportunity to avert devastation from bushfires," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(5), pages 1371-1388, June.
    7. Hanks, Robert W. & Weir, Jeffery D. & Lunday, Brian J., 2017. "Robust goal programming using different robustness echelons via norm-based and ellipsoidal uncertainty sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 636-646.
    8. Yao, Yiyu & Zhou, Bing, 2016. "Two Bayesian approaches to rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 904-917.
    9. Heidari, Mohammad Davoud & Turner, Ian & Ardestani-Jaafari, Amir & Pelletier, Nathan, 2021. "Operations research for environmental assessment of crop-livestock production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. David Gálvez Ruiz & José Luis Pino Mejías, 2016. "Dealing with Imprecision in Performance Evaluation Processes Using Indicators: A Fuzzy Distance-Based Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(1), pages 403-423, October.
    11. Pradeep Dogra & V. Sharda & P. Ojasvi & Shiv Prasher & R. Patel, 2014. "Compromise Programming Based Model for Augmenting Food Production with Minimum Water Allocation in a Watershed: a Case Study in the Indian Himalayas," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(15), pages 5247-5265, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    2. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.
    3. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Pedro Linares & Sara Lumbreras & Alberto Santamaría & Andrea Veiga, 2016. "How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 227-244, October.
    5. Roberto Cervelló-Royo & Francisco Guijarro & Victor Martinez-Gomez, 2019. "Social Performance considered within the global performance of Microfinance Institutions: a new approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 737-755, September.
    6. J. Cabello & M. Luque & F. Miguel & A. Ruiz & F. Ruiz, 2014. "A multiobjective interactive approach to determine the optimal electricity mix in Andalucía (Spain)," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 22(1), pages 109-127, April.
    7. Bruno Domenech & Laia Ferrer‐Martí & Rafael Pastor, 2019. "Comparison of various approaches to design wind‐PV rural electrification projects in remote areas of developing countries," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), May.
    8. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    9. Jayaraman, Raja & Colapinto, Cinzia & Torre, Davide La & Malik, Tufail, 2015. "Multi-criteria model for sustainable development using goal programming applied to the United Arab Emirates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 447-454.
    10. Marchamalo, M. & Romero, C., 2007. "Participatory decision-making in land use planning: An application in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 740-748, September.
    11. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    12. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    13. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    14. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    15. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    16. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. B. Domenech & L. Ferrer-Martí & R. Pastor, 2022. "Multicriteria analysis of renewable-based electrification projects in developing countries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 312(2), pages 1375-1401, May.
    18. Raupp, I. & Costa, F., 2021. "Hydropower expansion planning in Brazil - Environmental improvements," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. Madlener, Reinhard & Stagl, Sigrid, 2005. "Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 147-167, April.
    20. Rojas-Zerpa, Juan C. & Yusta, Jose M., 2015. "Application of multicriteria decision methods for electric supply planning in rural and remote areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 557-571.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:232:y:2014:i:3:p:643-653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.