IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i2p272-d1039457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Interrelations Structure in Agro-Systems Using the Factor Analysis Technique (FA)

Author

Listed:
  • Zdena Krnáčová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Štefan Krnáč

    (METRA, Ltd., 841 05 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Mária Barančoková

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

Abstract

A model is not an exact copy of its original, but only its idealised reproduction that is simpler, more understandable, more accessible and easier, safer and more effective to work with. In the presented study, we used the technique of factor analysis (FA). We used 44 parameters to describe an agroecosystem, which proportionally describe the main components of the study agroecosystem. Based on Malinowsky error analysis, we extracted a 6-factor solution. We found out that Factor 1 [Climate factor] had primary factor loads in [average temperatures TIII-TIX (0.99) and [average atmospheric precipitation ZIII-ZIV (0.99)] variables. Factor 2 [Chemical parameters of geological foundation] was mainly saturated by [SiO 2 -G (0.92), Al 2 O 3 -(0.82), (CaO-G (0.83)] variables and secondary loads were observed in soil [SiO 2 -P (0.61], [CaO-P (0.64], [Al 2 O 3 -P (0.32)], [soil skeleton SKEL (0.47)] and [granularity GRN (0.39)] variables. Factor 3 [Phytomass production potential factor] had primary factor loads in [depth of soil profile DSP (0.76)], [quality of organic substances Q 4/6 (0.63)], [slopeness SL (0.67)] and [potential phytomass production PROD (0.65)] variables. In factor 4 [Physical-chemical soil properties factor] variables [Al 2 O 3, (0.81)], [granularity GRN (0.69)] and [SiO 2 (0.61)] have significant loads. Factor 5 [Erosion by water potential factor] has the highest primary loads in [large-scale arable land ALL (0.70)] and [soil loss as a result of erosion EROS (0.67)] variables, and secondary loads in the [continuous length of plot of land slope LS (0.53)] variable. Factor 6 [Biochemical properties factor] has the highest factor load values in the content of organic substances in soil [content of organic substances in soil H (0.69)]. Secondary loads can be seen in the properties of soil [GRN (0.35)], [SiO 2 (0.32)], [Al 2 O 3 -P (0.38)] and [depth of groundwater surface GWS (0.39)]. We determined the weight coefficients for the individual factors with the aim of quantifying ecological criteria with the obtained factor structure. The factor score F 0 determines the projections of the extracted factors for the individual elements of the selection (it is the value soil-ecological units—VSEU). Row vectors in this matrix represent the distribution of the individual factors for the specific realisation of the selection (spatial distribution). We re-scaled the obtained values of the factor score into seven categories and projected them into VSEU units. We could propose a sustainable agroecosystem management based on quantifying the ecological criteria for each VSEU unit.

Suggested Citation

  • Zdena Krnáčová & Štefan Krnáč & Mária Barančoková, 2023. "Analysis of Interrelations Structure in Agro-Systems Using the Factor Analysis Technique (FA)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-26, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:272-:d:1039457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/272/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/2/272/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Asghar Aliloo & Sharhryar Dashti, 2021. "Rural sustainability assessment using a combination of multi-criteria decision making and factor analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 6323-6336, April.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    3. Belcher, K. W. & Boehm, M. M. & Fulton, M. E., 2004. "Agroecosystem sustainability: a system simulation model approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 225-241, February.
    4. Mauro Agnoletti & Leonardo Conti & Lorenza Frezza & Antonio Santoro, 2015. "Territorial Analysis of the Agricultural Terraced Landscapes of Tuscany (Italy): Preliminary Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Radoslava Kanianska & Jana Jaďuďová & Jarmila Makovníková & Miriam Kizeková, 2016. "Assessment of Relationships between Earthworms and Soil Abiotic and Biotic Factors as a Tool in Sustainable Agricultural," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Roderick McDonald, 1962. "A note on the derivation of the general latent class model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 27(2), pages 203-206, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thanh Quang Nguyen & Sonia Longo & Maurizio Cellura & Le Quyen Luu & Alessandra Bertoli & Letizia Bua, 2024. "Evaluating and Prioritizing Circular Supply Chain Alternatives in the Energy Context with a Holistic Multi-Indicator Decision Support System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Alieh Abadi & Mehdi Khakzand, 2022. "Extracting the qualitative dimensions of agritourism for the sustainable development of Charqoli village in Iran: the promotion of vernacular entrepreneurship and environment-oriented preservation per," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 12609-12671, November.
    3. Hongxing Liu & Wendong Zhang & Elena Irwin & Jeffrey Kast & Noel Aloysius & Jay Martin & Margaret Kalcic, 2020. "Best Management Practices and Nutrient Reduction: An Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Model of the Western Lake Erie Basin," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(4), pages 510-530.
    4. Aleksandar Aleksić & Danijela Tadić, 2023. "Industrial and Management Applications of Type-2 Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Techniques Extended with Type-2 Fuzzy Sets from 2013 to 2022," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    5. Yuan-Wei Du & Yi-Pin Fan, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: A Study across 30 Chinese Provinces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, June.
    6. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Shuyang Yu & Dan Wang, 2022. "Quantitative SWOT Analysis on Factors Influencing the Sustainable Development of Non-Academic Education in China’s Open Universities: A Case Study of Beijing Open University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    8. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    9. Karol Król & Robert Kao & Józef Hernik, 2019. "The Scarecrow as an Indicator of Changes in the Cultural Heritage of Rural Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Jing-Wei Liu & Che-Wei Chang & Yao-Ji Wang & Yi-Hui Liu, 2022. "Constructing a Decision Model for Health Club Members to Purchase Coaching Programs during the COVID-19 Epidemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Dewey Wollmann & Maria Teresinha Arns Steiner, 2017. "The Strategic Decision-Making as a Complex Adaptive System: A Conceptual Scientific Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-13, January.
    12. Muwen Wang & Kecheng Zhang, 2022. "Improving Agricultural Green Supply Chain Management by a Novel Integrated Fuzzy-Delphi and Grey-WINGS Model," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, September.
    13. Wang, Junqi & Cao, Hongjun, 2022. "Improving competitive strategic decisions of Chinese coal companies toward green transformation: A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Jiancheng Tu & Zhibin Wu, 2025. "Analytic hierarchy process rank reversals: causes and solutions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 1785-1809, March.
    15. Punys, P. & Radzevičius, A. & Kvaraciejus, A. & Gasiūnas, V. & Šilinis, L., 2019. "A multi-criteria analysis for siting surface-flow constructed wetlands in tile-drained agricultural catchments: The case of Lithuania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 1036-1046.
    16. Richard, Bastien & Bonté, Bruno & Delmas, Magalie & Braud, Isabelle & Cheviron, Bruno & Veyssier, Julien & Barreteau, Olivier, 2022. "A co-simulation approach to study the impact of gravity collective irrigation constraints on plant dynamics in Southern France," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    17. Tian Dong & Churan Feng & Bangguo Yue & Zhengdong Zhang, 2024. "An Evaluation Model of Urban Green Space Based on Residents’ Physical Activity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.
    18. Chin-Yi Chen & Jih-Jeng Huang, 2019. "Deriving Fuzzy Weights of the Fuzzy Analytic Network Process via Fuzzy Inverse Matrix," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-14, October.
    19. Steven Andrew Culpepper, 2019. "An Exploratory Diagnostic Model for Ordinal Responses with Binary Attributes: Identifiability and Estimation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 921-940, December.
    20. Feola, Giuseppe & Binder, Claudia R., 2010. "Towards an improved understanding of farmers' behaviour: The integrative agent-centred (IAC) framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2323-2333, October.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:272-:d:1039457. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.