Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLavik, Ming Su
dc.contributor.authorHardaker, J. Brian
dc.contributor.authorLien, Gudbrand
dc.contributor.authorBerge, Therese W.
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-09T08:31:05Z
dc.date.available2023-06-09T08:31:05Z
dc.date.created2019-12-16T15:56:54Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationAgricultural Systems. 2020, 178 .en_US
dc.identifier.issn0308-521X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3070674
dc.description© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Dette er den aksepterte versjonen av en artikkel publisert i Agricultural Systems. Du finner den publiserte artikkelen her: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102741 // This is the postprint version of the article published in Agricultural Systems. You can find the published article here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102741en_US
dc.description.abstractThis study provides a multi-attribute approach to support decisions by Norwegian crop farmers considering adopting innovative crop protection measures. In modelling choice among pest management strategies, we have accounted for both economic risks, risks to human health and risks to the environment. We used the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) to evaluate the results of a field trial comparing four different pest management strategies. In the trial, various pre-crops in year one were followed by two consecutive years of winter wheat. Two treatments had different levels of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM1 was the most innovative treatment and used less pesticides (i.e. herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) than IPM2. The third treatment (‘Worst Case’, WC) used pesticides routinely. The fourth treatment (‘No Plant Protection’, NPP) used no plant protection measures except one reduced dose of herbicide per year on winter wheat. Two main attributes were included in the SMART analysis, an economic indicator and a pesticide load indicator, each of which comprised a number of attributes at a subsidiary level. The results showed that the IPM1 and NPP strategies performed better than IPM2 and the WC strategies. However, the ranking of the pest management practices depended on the weighting of the two main attributes. Although the SMART analysis gave ordinal utility values, permitting only ranking of the alternatives, we were able to transform the results to measure financial differences between the alternatives.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectintegrated pest managementen_US
dc.subjectmulti-attribute utility theoryen_US
dc.subjectpesticidesen_US
dc.subjectsimple multi-attribute rating techniqueen_US
dc.subjectwinter wheaten_US
dc.subjectplant diseasesen_US
dc.titleA multi-attribute decision analysis of pest management strategies for Norwegian crop farmersen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Landbruks- og Fiskerifag: 900::Landbruksfag: 910en_US
dc.source.pagenumber11en_US
dc.source.volume178en_US
dc.source.journalAgricultural Systemsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102741
dc.identifier.cristin1761439
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 244526en_US
dc.source.articlenumber102741en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal