IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v348y2025i2d10.1007_s10479-022-05148-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk profiling of food security impediments using decision maker’s behavioural preference towards operational risk management

Author

Listed:
  • Rachita Gupta

    (Indian Institute of Management Kashipur)

  • Ravi Shankar

    (Indian Institute of Technology Delhi)

  • Kee-Hung Lai

    (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

  • Ajay Kumar

    (EMLYON Business School)

Abstract

For different decision makers, their approach towards management of operational risks differs due to difference in background and behavioural preferences. For such reasons, they attach different importance to various perspectives to manage operational risks. Present study conducts and analyses risk profiling of food security impediments, in which operational risk has come up as an important impediment. Based on three perspectives namely, social, economic, and operational, the research first evaluates severity of impediments in food security. Risk profiling is then conducted on the basis of decision makers’ preferences towards different perspectives. Integration of fuzzy set theory and evidential reasoning algorithm along with decision makers’ behavioural preferences have been used for the analysis. The proposed model generates a continuum of scenarios towards relative importance of three perspectives. It is observed that despite changing the importance of perspectives, a few risks show robustness in their severity, while other ones are sensitive to small changes. Based on these dynamic changes in risk-percept, insightful risk profiling is presented in this research. The risk profiling approach uniquely helps decision makers to adequately plan their course of actions to deal with operational risks associated with food security.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachita Gupta & Ravi Shankar & Kee-Hung Lai & Ajay Kumar, 2025. "Risk profiling of food security impediments using decision maker’s behavioural preference towards operational risk management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 348(2), pages 937-972, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:348:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-05148-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-05148-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-05148-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-022-05148-7?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. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Sachet, Erwan & Vanegas, Martha & Piispanen, Kyle, 2016. "Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 19-31.
    3. Beske, Philip & Land, Anna & Seuring, Stefan, 2014. "Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 131-143.
    4. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    5. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    6. Kostadis J. Papaioannou, 2017. "“Hunger makes a thief of any man”: Poverty and crime in British colonial Asia," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28.
    7. Vincent H. Smith & Joseph W. Glauber, 2020. "Trade, policy, and food security," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 159-171, January.
    8. Grace, Kathryn & Brown, Molly & McNally, Amy, 2014. "Examining the link between food prices and food insecurity: A multi-level analysis of maize price and birthweight in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 56-65.
    9. D. G. Mogale & Sri Krishna Kumar & Manoj Kumar Tiwari, 2020. "Green food supply chain design considering risk and post-harvest losses: a case study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 295(1), pages 257-284, December.
    10. Markus Reichstein & Felix Riede & Dorothea Frank, 2021. "More floods, fires and cyclones — plan for domino effects on sustainability goals," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7854), pages 347-349, April.
    11. Dong-Ling Xu, 2012. "An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 163-187, May.
    12. Mehrabi, Zia & Delzeit, Ruth & Ignaciuk, Adriana & Levers, Christian & Braich, Ginni & Bajaj, Kushank & Amo-Aidoo, Araba & Anderson, Weston & Balgah, Roland A. & Benton, Tim G. & Chari, Martin M. & El, 2022. "Research priorities for global food security under extreme events," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(7), pages 756-766.
    13. Manoj Dora & Joshua Wesana & Xavier Gellynck & Nitin Seth & Bidit Dey & Hans Steur, 2020. "Importance of sustainable operations in food loss: evidence from the Belgian food processing industry," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 47-72, July.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    15. Retsef Levi & Somya Singhvi & Yanchong Zheng, 2020. "Economically Motivated Adulteration in Farming Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 209-226, January.
    16. Sanga, Udita & Sidibé, Amadou & Olabisi, Laura Schmitt, 2021. "Dynamic pathways of barriers and opportunities for food security and climate adaptation in Southern Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    17. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    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. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Elżbieta Goryńska-Goldmann & Michał Gazdecki & Krystyna Rejman & Joanna Kobus-Cisowska & Sylwia Łaba & Robert Łaba, 2020. "How to Prevent Bread Losses in the Baking and Confectionery Industry?—Measurement, Causes, Management and Prevention," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    4. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    5. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    6. Wen-Tao Guo & Van-Nam Huynh & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2017. "A proportional linguistic distribution based model for multiple attribute decision making under linguistic uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(2), pages 305-328, September.
    7. Guilan Kong & Lili Jiang & Xiaofeng Yin & Tianbing Wang & Dong-Ling Xu & Jian-Bo Yang & Yonghua Hu, 2018. "Combining principal component analysis and the evidential reasoning approach for healthcare quality assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 679-699, December.
    8. Pei-Ju Wu & Yu-Shan Lin, 2023. "Reducing waste and achieving sustainable food security through optimizing surplus-food collection and meal distribution," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(2), pages 1537-1555, September.
    9. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    10. Fu, Chao & Yang, Jian-Bo & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2015. "A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 886-893.
    11. Shahryar Monghasemi & Mohammad Reza Nikoo & Mohammad Ali Khaksar Fasaee & Jan Adamowski, 2017. "A Hybrid of Genetic Algorithm and Evidential Reasoning for Optimal Design of Project Scheduling: A Systematic Negotiation Framework for Multiple Decision-Makers," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(02), pages 389-420, March.
    12. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    13. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020. "A Resilience‐Based Approach to Risk Assessments—Building Resilient Organizations under Arctic Conditions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2399-2412, November.
    14. Wei-dong Zhu & Fang Liu & Yu-wang Chen & Jian-bo Yang & Dong-ling Xu & Dong-peng Wang, 2015. "Research project evaluation and selection: an evidential reasoning rule-based method for aggregating peer review information with reliabilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1469-1490, December.
    15. Yao, Jia & Yu, Lan & An, Shi, 2024. "Agricultural product harvest equilibrium with transportation bottleneck and random disasters," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    16. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Yang, Jian-bo, 2015. "A group decision-making approach based on evidential reasoning for multiple criteria sorting problem with uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 858-873.
    17. Fang Liu & Wei-dong Zhu & Yu-wang Chen & Dong-ling Xu & Jian-bo Yang, 2017. "Evaluation, ranking and selection of R&D projects by multiple experts: an evidential reasoning rule based approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1501-1519, June.
    18. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Divya Choudhary & Ravi Shankar & Alok Choudhary, 2020. "An Integrated Approach for Modeling Sustainability Risks in Freight Transportation Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 858-883, April.
    20. Isadora Antoniano‐Villalobos & Emanuele Borgonovo & Sumeda Siriwardena, 2018. "Which Parameters Are Important? Differential Importance Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2459-2477, November.

    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:spr:annopr:v:348:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-05148-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.