Modeling the Interactions Between Agriculture and the Environment

  • Slim Zekri
  • Houcine Boughanmi
Part of the International Series In Operations Research amp; Mana book series (ISOR, volume 99)

Modeling agricultural systems that recognize the environmental dimensions of agriculture has evolved during the two past decades. Multi-objective mathematical models encompassed the diversity of objectives inherent in agricultural activities as a result of externalities and replaced single objective models. It has been observed that recent modeling efforts at farm level combined several simulation models at a time (crop simulation, weed simulation, hydrologic model, erosion) with a multi-criteria model. Many of the studies reviewed have not thoroughly considered the policy instruments to internalize the pollution problems and some studies have not considered any policy instrument. The multicriteria techniques used range from distance based approach, utility theory, generating methods, interactive methods, fractional programming and fuzzy programming. The later method is called for to deal with the inexact information generated with geographical information systems GIS or simulation models. Most applications of coupled GIS and decision models dealt with watershed management and soil erosion. Spatial GIS/multicriteria models that involve stakeholders are considered as a form of institutional reorganization which will help change the hierarchical mode of decision making. Stakeholder involvement in decision making has brought the modeling effort to include group and multiple decision makers. It is expected that future models will integrate several simulation models, GIS, and several stakeholders and would be applied at regional and national levels. Thus, multicriteria modelers will have to deal with uncertain and inexact information as well as asymmetric information.


Soil Erosion Geographical Information System Policy Instrument Precision Agriculture Farm Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrell, P.J., Stam, A., Fisher, G.W. 2004. Interactive multiobjective agro-ecological land use planning: The Bungoma Region in Kenya. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158: 194-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annetts, J.E., Audsley, E. 2002. Multiple objective linear programming for environmental farm planning. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53: 933-943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arondel, C., Girardin, P. 2000. Sorting cropping systems on the basis of their impact on groundwater quality. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 127: 467-482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arzt, K. 2003. How to cope with agricultural-environmental problems? “Round tables” and their potentials to solve and avoid environmental problems in the field of agriculture. In Frontiers 2: European Applications in Ecological Economics. Tenerife, Spain, February 12-15, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Campus, F., Tellarini, V., Andreoli, E., Silvestri, N., Mazzoncini, M. 1999. Economic and environmental impact of input reduction in biennial rotations. In Agriculture Beyond Production. Maria Andreoli (Editor). University of Pisa. Edizioni II Borghetto, Pisa, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Castrodeza, C., Lara, P., Pena, T. 2005. Multicriteria fractional model for feed formulation: Economic, nutritional and environmental criteria. Agr. Syst. 86(1): 76-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, C., McCarl, B. 1991. Scope of ASM: The US Agricultural Sector Model. Working paper. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A'M University.Google Scholar
  8. Dillon, C.R. 1992. Economic Analysis of Edwards Aquifers Water Management. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas AM University. Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Falconer, K., Hodge, I. 2001. Pesticide taxation and multi-objective policy making: Farm modelling to evaluate profit/environment trade-offs. Ecol. Econ. 36: 263-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinerman, E.D., Bosh, D., Pease, J. 2004. Manure applications and nutrient standards. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 86(1): 14-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gandonou, J.M., Dillon, C. 2003. Precision Agriculture, Whole Field Farming and Irrigation Practices: A Financial Risk Analysis. Paper selected for the American Agricultural Eco-nomics Association, Montreal, Canada, July 27-30, 2003. www∼jgand0/Research.htm.
  12. Giasson, E., Bryant, R.B., Bills, N.L. 2002. Environmental and economic optimization of dairy manure management: A mathematical programming approach. Agron. J. 94: 757-766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giupponi, C., Cogan, V., La Jeunesse, I. 2002. EU Water Policy: Research Developments and New Management Tools. Working paper WP02-13. Center for International Food and Agriculture Policy, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  14. Gomez-Limon, J.A., Riesgo, L. Arriaza, M. 2003. Multicriteria analysis of factors use level: The case of water for irrigation. Paper presented for the 25th International Conference of Agricutural Economists, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  15. Hajkowicz, S. Prato, T. 1998. Multiple Objective Decision Analysis of Farming Systems in Goodwater Creek Watershed. University of Missouri, Columbia. CARES Research Report #24.Google Scholar
  16. Hayashi, K. 2000. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 122: 486-500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayashi, K. 2003. A multi-objective programming approach for evaluating agri-environ-mental policy. In Multi-Objective Programming and Goal Programming: Theory and Applications. Tanino, T., Tanaka, T., and Inuiguchi, M. (Editors). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 333-338.Google Scholar
  18. Hazell, P., Norton, R. 1986. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in Agriculture. The Johns Hopkins University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Heckelei, T., Britz, W. 2001. Concept and Explorative Application of an EU-wide, Regional Agricultural Sector Model (Capri-Project). Institute of Agricultural Policy, University of Bonn, Bonn.Google Scholar
  20. Hoag, D., Page, S., Ascough, II, J. 1999. Using the analytical hierarchy process to determine economic and environmental tradeoffs on farms. Paper presented to the 2nd International Conference on Multiple Objective Decision Support Systems for Land, Water and Environmental Management, MODSS’99.Google Scholar
  21. Horan, R.D., Ribaudo, M., Abler, D.G. 2001. Voluntary and indirect approaches for reducing externalities and satisfying multiple objectives, Chapter 3. In Environmental Policies for Agricultural Pollution Control. Shortle, J.S. and Abler, D. (Editors). CAB International, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Janssen, R., Goosen, H., Verhoeven, M.L., Verhoeven, J.T.A., Omtzigt, A.Q.A., Maltby, E. 2005. Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ. Modell. Softw. 20(2): 215-229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen, A.L., Thysen, I., Boll, P.S., Hansen, J.G., Secher, B.J.M., Juhl, O. 1997. Pl@nteInfo - Using the Internet for Custom Tailored Crop Information. publikationer/efita97.
  24. Jean dit Balleul, P., Rivest, J., Dubeau, C., Pomar, C. 2001. Reducing nitrogen excretion in pigs by modifying the traditional least-cost formulation algorithm. Livest. Prod. Sci. 72: 199-211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, A.C., El-Swaify, S.A., Graham, R., Stonehouse, D.P., Whitehouse, I. 1998. A synthesis of the state-of-the-art on multiple objective decision making for managing land, water and the environment. In Multiple Objective Decision Making for Land, Water, and Environmental Management. El-Swaify, S.A. and Yakowitz, D.S. (Editors). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 719-729.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, D., Barnes, E.M. 2000. Fuzzy composite programming to combine remote sensing and crop models for decision support in precision crop management. Agr. Syst. 65: 137-158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latacz-Lohmann, U. 2004. Dealing with limited information in designing and evaluating agri-environmental policy. Paper presented in 90th Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economists. Rennes, France, October 28-29, 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Lauwers, L., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Martens, L. 1998. A systems approach to analyse the effects of flemish manure policy on structural changes and cost abatement in pig farming. Agr. Syst. 56(2): 167-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Linares, P., Romero, C. 2002. Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: A goal programming approach. Omega 30: 89-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loyce, C., Rellier, J.P., Meynard, J.M. 2002. Management planning for winter wheat with multiple objectives (2); ethanol-wheat production. Agr. Syst. 72: 33-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacKenzie, D. 2004. WTO Ruling may Spell End of Farmer's Subsidies. New Scientist.Com
  32. McCarl, B.A., Spreen, T.H. 1980. Price endogenous mathematical programming as a tool for sector analysis. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 62: 87-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCarl, B.A. 1992. Mathematical Programming for Resource Policy Appraisal under Multiple Objectives. Working paper #6. Texas A'M University, USA.Google Scholar
  34. McMaster, G.S., Ascough, J.C., Shaffer, M.J., Byrne, P.F., Haley, S.D., Neilsen, D.C., Andales, A.A., Dunn, G.H., Weltz, M.A., Ahuja, L.R. 2002. Parameterizing GPFARM: An Agricultural Decision Support System for Integrating Science, Economics, Resource Use and Environment.
  35. Meyer-Aurich, A., Matthes, U., Osinki, E. 2001. Integrating sustainability in agriculture: Trade-offs and economic consequences demonstrated with a farm model. Paper presented to the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting 2001.Google Scholar
  36. Morari, F., Lugato, E., Borin, M. 2004. An integrated non-point source model-GIS system for selecting criteria of best management practices in the Po Valley, North Italy. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 1002: 247-262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munda, G. 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158: 662-667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD. 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 3. Methods and Results. Paris.Google Scholar
  39. O’Connor, M. 2000. Pathways for environmental evaluation: A walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon. Ecol. Econ. 34: 175-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pacini, C., Giesen, G., Wossink, A., Omodei-Zorini, L., Huirne, R. 2004. The EU's Agenda 2000 reform and the sustainability of organic farming in Tuscany: Ecological-economic modelling at field and farm level. Agr. Syst. 80: 171-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Psychoudakis, A., Aggelopoulos, S., Dimitriadou, E. 2002. Agricultural land use in an environmentally sensitive area: An assessment of an agri-environmental policy measure. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 45(4): 481-491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ridier, A., Jacquet, F. 2002. Decoupling direct payments and the dynamics of decisions under price risk in cattle farms. J. Agr. Econ. 53(3), 549-565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rinner, C. 2003. Web-based spatial decision support: Status and research directions. J. Geogr. Inf. Decision Anal. 7(1), 14-31.Google Scholar
  44. Romero, C., Rehman, T. 1987. Natural resource management and the use of multiple criteria decision-making techniques. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 14(1), 76-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romero, C. 2001. Extended lexicographic goal programming: A unifying approach. Omega 29: 63-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Romero, C., Rehman, T. 2003. Multiple Criteria Analysis for Agricultural Decisions, Second Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  47. Romero, C. 2004. A general structure of achievement function for a goal programming model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 153: 675-686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider, U., McCarl, B. 2000. The Agricultural Sector and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Model (ASMGHG). Unpublished paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A'M University.Google Scholar
  49. Stagl, S. 2003. Multicriteria evaluation and public participation: In search for theoretical foundations. Paper presented in Frontiers 2: European Applications in Ecological Economics. Tenerife, Spain, February 12-15, 2003.Google Scholar
  50. Stokes, J.R., Tozer, P.R. 2002. Cost minimization and managing soil nutrient loading: Conflict or compromise? Can. J. Agr. Econ. 50, 151-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stonehouse, D.P., de Vos, G.W., Weersink, A. 2002. Livestock manure systems for swine finishing enterprises. Agr. Syst. 73: 279-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tulloch, D.L., Myers, J.R., Hasse, J.E., Parks, J.P., Lathrop, R.G. 2003. Integrating GIS into Farmland Preservation Policy and decision making. Landscape Urban Plan. 63: 33-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Jacobs, G., Vanrolleghem, P. 2000. A simulation model to evaluate the impact of environmental programmes on dairy farms. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 7: 171-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Veith, T.L. 2002. Agricultural BMP Placement for Cost-Effective Pollution Control at the Watershed Level. Ph.D. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
  55. Vickner, S., Hoag, D. 1998. Advances in ration formulation for beef cattle through multiple objective decision support systems. In Multiple Objective Decision Making for Land, Water, and Environmental Management. El-Swaify, S.A. and Yakowitz, D.S. (Editors). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 291-298.Google Scholar
  56. Wang, X., Yu, S., Huang, G.H. 2004. Land allocation based on integrated GIS-optimization modeling at watershed level. Landscape Urban Plan. 66: 61-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Westra, J.V., Easter, K.W, Olson, K.D. 2002. Targeting Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: Phosphorus in the Minnesota River Basin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38(2): 493-505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woodward, R. 2003. Lessons about effluent trading from a single trade. Rev. Agric. Econ. 25 (1): 235-245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yaldir, A.K., Rehman, T. 2002. A methodology for constructing multicriteria decision support systems for agricultural land consolidation using GIS and API: An illustration from Turkey. Comput. Electron. Agr. 36:55-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zeng, G., Duan, S., Hu, H. 2004. On precision agriculture and the construction of agriculture sustainable-developing ability in China. Paper presented in the AFITA/WCCA Joint Congress on Information Technology in Agriculture.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Slim Zekri
    • 1
  • Houcine Boughanmi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural StudiesSultan Qaboos UniversitySultanate of Oman

Personalised recommendations