Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Z-cloud Rough Fuzzy-Based PIPRECIA and CoCoSo Integration to Assess Agriculture Decision Support Tools

  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The livestock sector has exacerbated the problems of ensuring global food safety and greenhouse gas emissions. The rapid increase in livestock production has called to shed light on decision-support tools that develop sustainable production strategies. In this context, this study aims to expand the application of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) methods to assign weights to criteria and classify decision support tools for livestock with a high degree of certainty. In order to begin serious steps to address the global sustainability problem, this study extended the PIPRECIA method with a high-certainty fuzzy environment called Z-cloud rough numbers (ZCRNs) to record the weight of 19 criteria for decision support tools in livestock farming. An innovative and advanced method called CoCoSo has been utilized to rank decision-support tools for livestock farming. The methodology included two stages. The first phase involved developing the decision matrix. The second phase encompassed developing MCDM methods by clarifying the steps of the PIvot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA) method for assigning weight to criteria, in addition to highlighting the steps of the CoCoSo method for classifying decision support tools in the livestock industry. The results of the PIPRECIA method extended to the fuzzy environment of ZCRNs confirmed that visualization and herd characteristics received the highest weight compared to the rest of the criteria of decision support tools. The CoCoSo results provided insight into ranking alternatives for livestock decision support tools. AgRECalc has the highest ranking, and FCFC has the lowest ranking. This study conducted an evaluation test to increase the chances of generalizing the results of ranking decision-support tools of the livestock industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €37.37 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Thumba, D.A., Lazarova-Molnar, S., Niloofar, P.: Comparative evaluation of data requirements and level of decision support provided by decision support tools for reducing livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 373, 133886 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McCarl, B.A., Sands, R.D.: Competitiveness of terrestrial greenhouse gas offsets: are they a bridge to the future? Clim. Change 80(1–2), 109–126 (2007)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Aziz, S., Chowdhury, S.A.: Analysis of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions using the STIRPAT model: a case study of Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 25(5), 3945–3965 (2023)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Masaeli, H., et al.: Developing a new water–energy–food-greenhouse gases nexus tool for sustainable agricultural landscape management. Sustain. Dev. 31(2), 877–892 (2023)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu, B., et al.: Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and decision support for the utilization of agricultural waste systems: a case study of Jiangxi Province, China. Energy 265, 126380 (2023)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Raihan, A., et al.: An econometric analysis of Greenhouse gas emissions from different agricultural factors in Bangladesh. Energy Nexus 9, 100179 (2023)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Arulnathan, V., et al.: Farm-level decision support tools: a review of methodological choices and their consistency with principles of sustainability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao, D., et al.: Quantifying economic-social-environmental trade-offs and synergies of water-supply constraints: an application to the capital region of China. Water Res. 195, 116986 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.116986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhai, Z., et al.: Decision support systems for agriculture 4.0: survey and challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 170, 105256 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Duan, S.X., Wibowo, S., Chong, J.: A multicriteria analysis approach for evaluating the performance of agriculture decision support systems for sustainable agribusiness. Mathematics (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9080884

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Stanujkic, D., et al.: The use of the pivot pairwise relative criteria importance assessment method for determining the weights of criteria. Infinite Study (2017)

  12. Ren, P., Xu, Z., Gou, X.: Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making. Appl. Soft Comput. 42, 246–259 (2016)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Khaw, K.W., et al.: Modelling and evaluating trust in mobile commerce: a hybrid three stage Fuzzy Delphi, structural equation modeling, and neural network approach. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 38, 1–17 (2022)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Xiao, L., Huang, G., Zhang, G.: Improved assessment model for candidate design schemes with an interval rough integrated cloud model under uncertain group environment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 104, 104352 (2021)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Lou, S., et al.: An edge-based distributed decision-making method for product design scheme evaluation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 17(2), 1375–1385 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Mi, X., Liao, H., Xiao-Jun, Z.: Investment decision analysis of international megaprojects based on cognitive linguistic cloud models. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 6, 414 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Zadeh, L.A.: A note on Z-numbers. Inf. Sci. 181(14), 2923–2932 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Yazdi, A.K., Komijan, A.R., et al.: Oil project selection in Iran: a hybrid MADM approach in an uncertain environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 88, 106066 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Alex Thumba, D., Lazarova-Molnar, S., Niloofar, P.: Comparative evaluation of data requirements and level of decision support provided by decision support tools for reducing livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 373(December 2021), 133886 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mir, S.A., Padma, T.: Generic Multiple-Criteria Framework for the development of agricultural DSS. J. Decis. Syst. 26(4), 341–367 (2017)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Duan, S.X., Wibowo, S.: A multicriteria analysis approach for evaluating the performance of agriculture decision support systems for sustainable agribusiness. 8(9), 1–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9080884

  22. Xiao, L., Huang, G., Zhang, G.: Toward an action-granularity-oriented modularization strategy for complex mechanical products using a hybrid GGA-CGA method. Neural Comput. Appl. 34(8), 6453–6487 (2022)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Li, J., Fang, H., Song, W.: Sustainable supplier selection based on SSCM practices: a rough cloud TOPSIS approach. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 606–621 (2019)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Aikhuele, D., Turan, F.: An integrated fuzzy dephi and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy M-Topsis model for design concept selection. Pak. J. Stat. Oper. Res. 13, 425–438 (2017)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Tiwari, V., Jain, P.K., Tandon, P.: An integrated Shannon entropy and TOPSIS for product design concept evaluation based on bijective soft set. J. Intell. Manuf. 30(4), 1645–1658 (2019)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Qi, J., Hu, J., Peng, Y.-H.: Integrated rough VIKOR for customer-involved design concept evaluation combining with customers’ preferences and designers’ perceptions. Adv. Eng. Inform. 46, 101138 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ahmed, A.D., Salih, M.M., Muhsen, Y.R.: Opinion weight criteria method (OWCM): a new method for weighting criteria with zero inconsistency. IEEE Access (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349472

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Ali, J., et al.: Benchmarking methodology of banks based on financial sustainability using CRITIC and RAFSI techniques. Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng. 7(1), 315–341 (2024)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Puška, A., et al.: Selection of EVs as tourist and logistic means of transportation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s nature protected areas using Z-number and rough set modeling. Disc. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2023(1), 1–17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5977551

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Đalić, I., et al.: A novel integrated fuzzy PIPRECIA–interval rough SAW model: green supplier selection. Decis. Mak.: Appl. Manag. Eng. 3(1), 126–145 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jauković-Jocić, K., Karabašević, D., Jocić, G.: The use of the PIPRECIA method for assessing the quality of e-learning materials. Ekonomika 66(3), 37–45 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Bakır, M., Akan, Ş, Özdemir, E.: Regional aircraft selection with fuzzy PIPRECIA and fuzzy MARCOS: a case study of the Turkish airline industry. Facta Univ. Ser.: Mech. Eng. 19(3), 423–445 (2021)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Yazdani, M., et al.: A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag. Decis. 57(9), 2501–2519 (2019)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Turskis, Z., et al.: M-generalised q-neutrosophic extension of CoCoSo method. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control (2022). https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2022.1.4646

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Peng, X., Garg, H., Luo, Z.: Hesitant fuzzy soft combined compromise solution method for IoE companies’ evaluation. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01147-1

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Mandal, S., Khan, D.A.: Cloud-CoCoSo: cloud model-based combined compromised solution model for trusted cloud service provider selection. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 47(8), 10307–10332 (2022)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Mihaela, B., et al.: Decision support platform for intelligent and sustainable farming. In: 2020 IEEE 26th international symposium for design and technology in electronic packaging (SIITME), pp. 89–93. IEEE (2020)

  38. Yazdani, M., et al.: A group decision making support system in logistics and supply chain management. Expert Syst. Appl. 88, 376–392 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.07.014

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Kadoic, N., Katarina, T.: IEEE decision making on digital platforms in agriculture. Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO), pp. 1457–1462. IEEE. (2020). https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO48935.2020.9245236

  40. Huang, G., et al.: Design alternative assessment and selection: a novel Z-cloud rough number-based BWM-MABAC model. Inf. Sci. 603, 149–189 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.04.040

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Yazdi, A.K., et al.: Supplier selection in the oil & gas industry: a comprehensive approach for multi-criteria decision analysis. Socioecon. Plan. Sci. 79, 101142 (2022)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang, G., Xiao, L., Zhang, G.: Assessment and prioritization method of key engineering characteristics for complex products based on cloud rough numbers. Adv. Eng. Inform. 49, 101309 (2021)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Al-Humairi, S., et al.: Towards sustainable transportation: a pavement strategy selection based on the extension of dual-hesitant fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2022.3168050

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Al-Samarraay, M.S., et al.: A new extension of FDOSM based on Pythagorean fuzzy environment for evaluating and benchmarking sign language recognition systems. Neural Comput. Appl. 34(6), 4937–4955 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06683-3

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Albahri, O.S., et al.: Novel dynamic fuzzy decision-making framework for COVID-19 vaccine dose recipients. J. Adv. Res. 37, 147–168 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Krishnan, E., et al.: Interval type 2 trapezoidal-fuzzy weighted with zero inconsistency combined with VIKOR for evaluating smart e-tourism applications. Int. J. Intell. Syst. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22489

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Salih, M.M., Zaidan, B.B., Zaidan, A.A.: Fuzzy decision by opinion score method. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 96, 106595 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106595

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Muhsen, Y.R., et al.: Evaluation of the routing algorithms for NoC-based MPSoC: a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. IEEE Access (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3310246

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Yazdi, A.K., Wanke, P.F., et al.: A decision-support approach under uncertainty for evaluating reverse logistics capabilities of healthcare providers in Iran. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 33(5), 991–1022 (2020)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Gelugor, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

    Alhamzah Alnoor & XinYing Chew

  2. Technical Engineering College, Al-Ayen University, Nasiriyah, Thi-Qar, 64001, Iraq

    Yousif Raad Muhsen

  3. Civil Department, College of Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq

    Yousif Raad Muhsen

  4. Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia

    Nor Azura Husin, Maslina Binti Zolkepli & Noridayu Manshor

  5. Management Technical College, Southern Technical University, Basrah, Iraq

    Alhamzah Alnoor

Authors
  1. Alhamzah Alnoor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yousif Raad Muhsen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nor Azura Husin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. XinYing Chew
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maslina Binti Zolkepli
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Noridayu Manshor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yousif Raad Muhsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors of this paper declare the existence of no mutual conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

All the procedures adopted by the study, involving human participants, were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its latter amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants of the study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alnoor, A., Muhsen, Y.R., Husin, N.A. et al. Z-cloud Rough Fuzzy-Based PIPRECIA and CoCoSo Integration to Assess Agriculture Decision Support Tools. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 27, 190–203 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-024-01771-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-024-01771-7

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Alhamzah Alnoor View author profile
  2. Yousif Raad Muhsen View author profile
  3. XinYing Chew View author profile