Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss

Minimization: A Review
P Paam, R Berretta, M Heydar, and RH Middleton, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of
Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
R Garcı́a-Flores, CSIRO Data61, Clayton, VIC, Australia
P Juliano, CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Werribee, VIC, Australia
Ó 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction 1
Review Methodology 2
Taxonomy 2
Modeling Approach 2
Deterministic Modeling Approaches 3
Stochastic Modeling Approaches 6
Functional Area (Decision Variables) 7
Production Decision 7
Distribution Decision 7
Harvest Decision 11
Inventory Decision 12
Objective Function 13
Solution Approach 13
Product Type/Country 13
Case Study 14
Conclusion 14
Acknowledgment 14
References 15
Relevant Website 16

Introduction

Supply chain management (SCM) is critical to ensure operational efficiency of business organizations. It is also a popular topic in
academia, and a lot of research has been conducted on this field so far. Although SCM has been defined broadly from different
perspectives, it has been introduced most comprehensively as “a set of approaches utilized to efficiently integrate suppliers, manu-
facturers, warehouses, and stores, so that merchandise is produced and distributed at the right quantities, to the right locations, and
at the right time, in order to minimize system-wide costs while satisfying service level requirements” (Levi et al., 2003).
The definitions of supply chain have altered and broadened the SCM scope by the passage of time. The majority of them have
focused on product manufacturing and services, and only few have regarded agricultural products in the food supply chain (FSC).
FSC differs from other kinds of supply chains in a number of ways. “The fundamental difference between FSC and other supply
chains is the continuous and significant change in the quality of food products throughout the entire supply chain until the points
of final consumption” (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2009). Other features of FSC that lead to its complexity in comparison to other
supply chains are the products’ perishable feature, price, and demand variation, incrementing consumer awareness for food security
and weather conditions’ dependency (Salin, 1998).
Among the existing FSCs, the agri-fresh food supply chain (AFFSC), which “constitutes the processes from production to delivery
of the agri-fresh produce from the farmer to the customer” (Shukla and Jharkharia, 2013), has been paid the least attention. The
management of AFFSC plays an essential role in determining the final quality of them required by the consumer. Some factors
affecting AFFSC are globalization, technological innovations, consumer awareness, environmental concerns, and food loss which
is the most significant one (Shukla and Jharkharia, 2013). The fact that the quality of perishable food products deteriorates rapidly
along supply chain can result in severe food loss. “Food losses refer to the decrease in edible food mass throughout the part of the
supply chain that specifically leads to edible food for human consumption” (Gustavsson et al., 2011) and have an impact on food
security, profitability, and sustainability (Lemma et al., 2014).
Although in this article the terms ‘food loss’ and ‘food waste’ are used interchangeably, there are slight differences between them.
Food loss takes place at the early stages in the FSC, such as production, postharvest, and processing stages (Parfitt et al., 2010). On the
other hand, food waste happens at the final phases of the food chain, which pertains to retailers and consumer’s behavior (Parfitt
et al., 2010). Mostly, food loss and food waste occur in developing and developed countries, respectively. Factors such as infrastruc-
ture deficiency, small investment in food production technologies and low knowledge of food utilization lead to food loss, and

Reference Module in Food Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21069-X 1

2 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

usually unawareness of customers bring about food waste. “Consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million
tonnes per annum) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes)” (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In
short, food is lost or wasted all over the supply chain, but depending on a country’s conditions, the reason of food loss and the
supply chain phase in which loss happens differ all over the world (Lemma et al., 2014).
“Roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which amounts to about 1.3 billion
tons per year” (Buzby and Hyman, 2012). Therefore, food loss minimization will become of high importance over the coming
decades to help feeding the world’s growing population. This also means that a noticeable amount of financial investments and
other resources used throughout the entire life cycle of products are in vain.
So far, a wide range of approaches for reducing food loss and waste have been presented such as improving the availability of
agricultural extension services and harvesting techniques; improving infrastructures, packing, and inventory systems; and increasing
awareness of people engaging in retailer and consumption sections on the severity of the food loss issue (Lipinski et al., 2013). One
alternative to diminish food deterioration across the supply chain is by processing lower grade raw materials into coproducts, using
technologies that can not only transform foods into higher value more convenient ingredients, retail, consumer, or foodservice
products, but also provide greater stability across the FSC (Galanakis, 2012). In this case, mobile processing or the strategic location
of collection and processing sites can be considered. Food loss can also be employed for animal feed or for the production of bio-
fuels (Juliano et al., 2014). For instance, Muriana (2015) designed a supply chain model for fresh products that makes a revenue
from selling the wasted food to the livestock market.
Having said that, each solution approach is effective only when the efficiency of the entire supply chain is considered.
This article gives an assessment of the research in the field of agribusiness planning models, aiming to optimize AFFSC, with the
focus on loss reduction in the fruits and vegetables supply chains.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The next section presents a review methodology by which the reviewed
studies are organized. Section Modeling Approach discusses different approaches applied for modeling AFFSC problems, section
Functional Area (Decision Variables) classifies the studies into four different areas based on the decisions made, section Objective
Function explains the the objective functions of the models and classifies them into single and multiple objective functions, sections
Solution Approach, Product Type/Country, and Case Study categorize the reviewed studies according to their solution approach,
product type/country, and case study. Finally, section Conclusion presents conclusion and suggests some gaps for future research
about food loss minimization in AFFSC.

Review Methodology

Integrated supply chain is a substantial competitive tool for the economy of businesses in today’s globalized world. For agricultural
products, organized SCM projects diminish not only the operational costs but also the food loss/waste generated throughout the
supply chain and can add value to the product. Accordingly, in agricultural SCM, researchers’ attention has become more oriented to
perishable products recently. Previous reviewed papers on this field have investigated agricultural supply chains from different
perspectives such as applications of decision technology tools used in crop planning in the context of agribusiness (Lowe and
Preckel, 2004); production and distribution planning of agricultural supply chain (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2009); fresh produce
SCM and processes from the production to consumption of fresh produce (fruits, flowers, and vegetables) (Shukla and Jharkharia,
2013); operational research models for the fresh fruit supply chain (Soto-Silva et al., 2016); logistic models for FSC optimization
(García-Flores et al., 2015); and loss in perishable FSC from the perspective of modeling and optimization approaches (Lemma
et al., 2014). This article complements and expands previous works by investigating papers on agricultural fruits and vegetables
supply chain from food loss perspective which has not been considered before.

Taxonomy
A review of literature related to planning models for AFFSC indicates that previous research can be classified into four main research
streams, namely (1) modeling approaches; (2) functional area or decision variables; (3) objective functions; and (4) solution
approaches. Moreover, two other streams are investigated, namely product type/country and case study. Figure 1 shows the
taxonomy of more than 50 previous studies in planning models for AFFSC (fruits and vegetables).

Modeling Approach

Models for AFFSC optimization can be mainly classified as deterministic or stochastic, according to the certainty of the value of the
parameters used (Min and Zhou, 2002). In the deterministic domain, techniques such as linear programming (LP), nonlinear
programming (NLP), mixed-integer linear programing (MILP), multiobjective linear programming (MOLP), and
dynamic programming (DP) are used, and in the stochastic domain, techniques such as stochastic programming (SP), stochastic
dynamic programming (SDP), robust optimization (RO), fuzzy programming (FP), and stochastic simulation (SIM) are considered.
The classification of all papers covered in this survey according to their modeling approach and solving methodology is pre-
sented in Table 1. Loss-related papers are marked with an asterisk (*) before the authors’ name in the table.
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 3

Agri-fresh food supply chain problems

Decision Variable Modelling Approach Objective Function Solution Product Case

Approach Type and study
Country

Production Harvesting
Yes No

Distribution Inventory Multi-Objective Single Objective

Max/Min Max/Min

Deterministic Stochastic

LP NLP MILP MOLP DP

SP SDP RO FP SIM

Figure 1 The classification structure of the agri-fresh food supply chain problems. LP, linear programming; NLP, nonlinear programming; MILP,
mixed-integer linear programming; MOLP, multiobjective linear programming; DP, dynamic programming; SP, stochastic programming; SDP,
stochastic dynamic programming; RO, robust optimization; FP, fuzzy programming; SIM, stochastic simulation.

Deterministic Modeling Approaches

As shown in Table 1, MILP and LP are the dominant modeling and optimization approaches for agricultural planning with 13 and
10 papers, respectively. The reason for that is the ability of LP to model and solve real-world problems. Two early applications of
MILP and LP models in AFFSC are presented by Maia et al. (1997) and Miller et al. (1997). Maia et al. (1997) proposed an MILP
model in order to select postharvest technology routes between harvest and market for the banana crop in Brazil with the objective
of optimizing capital investment in food preservation facilities such as sorting and storage including controlled atmosphere
ripening and fast ripening, and Miller et al. (1997) developed an LP model for production planning and packing of tomato in
the USA with the objective of minimizing total cost. Moreover, Vitoriano et al. (2003) presented two linear models for scheduling
and production planning of fruits at the farm with the objective of minimizing total cost. The former model keeps a discrete time
horizon, while the latter keeps a continuous time horizon. Catalá et al. (2013) addressed strategic planning in a pome fruit farm,
including different planting densities with a focus on farm restructuration. To this end, an MILP is presented with net present value
(NPV) maximization as the objective function. The aim was to find the optimal investment policy over a time horizon under various
financing scenarios. Varsei and Polyakovskiy (2016) presented a multiobjective mixed-integer programming model for a sustainable
supply chain of wine industry in Australia with three objective functions of minimizing the fixed and variable costs, minimizing the
total emissions of greenhouse gases due to transportation activities, and maximizing the social sustainability of the supply chain
based on a set of social criteria such as employment or regions GDP.
MILP models have been used in food loss minimization as well. Blanco et al. (2005) presented an MILP model for a packaging
factory for fresh fruits (apples and pears) with maximizing the profit as the objective. In the model, damaged fruits are eliminated
from the processing line and sold for producing concentrated fruit juice. So, the fraction of waste as a parameter and the income
from waste as a variable were considered in the proposed model. Ferrer et al. (2008) developed an MILP model for harvest sched-
uling of wine grape with the objective of total cost minimization. The model considered the quality of the grape by defining a quality
loss function in the objective function, which assigns a penalty cost to grapes harvested before or after the optimal harvest period
according to their deviation from that optimal period. Ahumada and Villalobos (2011a) developed a planning operational model
for the harvest and distribution of fresh agricultural products with the aim of maximizing the grower’s revenues. They proposed
a quality loss function accounting for the change in color of tomato and applied penalty due to the lack of freshness by passage
4 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

Table 1 Modeling and solution approaches applied by the reviewed agri-fresh food supply chain problems
Modeling approaches
Author Deterministic Stochastic Solution Approaches
LP NLP MILP MOLP DP SP SDP RO FP SIM
Hamer (1994) The Fortran GUI tool
Branch and Bound
Maia et al. (1997)
algorithm-Lindo solver
Miller et al.
Zimmerman’s approach
(1997)
Berge et al. (2000) Goal programming
Darby-Dowman et al. interior point method of
(2000) FortMP
Vitoriano et al.
CPLEX solver
(2003)
Genetic algorithm/
Hester and cacho
Dynamic simulation
(2003)
*Allen and
Risk programming
Schuster (2004)
*Blanco et al.
GAMS
(2005)
Caixeta-Filho
GAMS
(2006)
*Widodo et al.
Heuristic algorithm
(2006)
Li et al. (2006) Dynamic simulation
GAMS,
Cholette (2007)
GLPK solver
Cittadini et al. Goal programming/
(2008) GAMS-CPLEX solver
*Osvald and Stirn
Tabu search algorithm
(2008)
*Ferrer et al AMPEL-CPLEX and
(2008) GLPK solver
Lodree and
Uzochukwu Heuristic algorithm
(2008)
constrained Nelder–
Chen et al. (2009) Mead method /
Heuristic algorithm
*Blackburn and
Lower Bound Method
scudder (2009)
VanderVorst Discrete event
(2010) simulation tool
Branch and bound
*Arnaout and algorithm-Lingo
Maatouk (2010) solver/ Heuristic
algorithm
*Bohle et al Monte Carlo SIM/
(2010) AMPEL-GLPK solver
Branch and bound
* Ahumada and
algorithm-CPLEX
Villalobos (2011a)
solver
*Ahumada and
AMPEL-CPLEX solver
Villalobos (2011b)
*Rong et al.(2011) CPLEX solver
Ahumada et al. Bender’s decomposition
(2012) algorithm
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 5

Table 1 Modeling and solution approaches applied by the reviewed agri-fresh food supply chain problemsdcont'd

Banaeian et al. Data envelopment

(2012) analysis (DEA)
methodology
Risk programming/
Tan and Çömden
GAMS-CONOPT
(2012)
solver
*Paksoy et al.
Lindo solver
(2012)
*Zanoni and
_
Zavanella (2012)
*Venus et al. Integrated Data Viewer
(2013) (IDV) software
Catalá et al.
GAMS-CPLEX solver
(2013)
Teimoury et al. System
(2013) Dynamics SIM
Ampatzidis et al.
Discrete Event SIM
(2014)
Lambert et al.
Expert System
(2014)
Munhoz and
GAMS-CPLEX solver
Morabito (2014)
Govindan et al. Robust multi-objective
(2014) metaheuristic
Amorim & ε-constraint method/
Almada-Lobo multi-objective
(2014) evolutionary algorithm
Simulation experiments/
*Herbon et al.
Local search Heuristic
(2014)
algorithm
IDEF Modeling
Zhou et al. (2015) approach (MATLAB
programming software)
García-Cáceres et Branch and Bound
al. (2015) algorithm-Lingo solver
*Keizer et al Discrete Event SIM/
(2015) CPLEX solver
Microsoft Excel Solver
*Muriana (2015)
Tool
*Soysal et al.
CPLEX solver
(2015)
Benders’ decomposition
*Ghezavati et al.
algorithm/ GAMS-
(2015)
CPLEX solver
Ordinary Least Square
method (OLS)/ marginal
Ghatrehsamani et
physical productivity
al. (2016)
(MPP) method

Von Bertalanffy growth

Tijskens (2016)
model
Chen et al. (2016) System dynamic SIM
*Bortolini et al.
Expert System
(2016)
The analytic hierarchy
Varsei and
process (AHP)/Augmented
Polyakovskiy
ε-constraint method/
(2016)
CPLEX solver
6 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

of time. Rong et al. (2011) investigated food quality deterioration in a multiperiod production and distribution planning problem
for a bell pepper supply chain using an MILP model. The aim of the study was to find optimal storage and shipment temperatures of
different batches of products with different quality levels throughout the supply chain while measuring the amount of fruit wasted
at different facilities due to quality degradation. In addition, Zanoni and Zavanella (2012) minimized the loss in products’ value by
putting into the objective function. Besides, Arnaout and Maatouk (2010) and Ghezavati et al. (2015) defined a quality loss func-
tion for quantifying quality degradation at different stages of the supply chain in an MILP model.
NLP is another modeling approach considered by researchers. Two prominent studies in this area were done by Hester and
Cacho (2003) and Tan and Çömden (2012). Hester and Cacho (2003) incorporated an NLP model into a dynamic optimization
algorithm to maximize NPV for an apple orchard system, and Tan and Çömden (2012) presented a mixed-integer nonlinear opti-
mization problem for different fruits and vegetables supply chain with uncertain supply and demand to maximize total profits in
both single period and multiperiod cases. In this category, to the best of our knowledge, only two papers paid attention to food loss
minimization: Allen and Schuster (2004) evaluated the harvest risk by developing a nonlinear mathematical model for production
of grape while minimizing loss in the amount of crop due to poor weather condition, and Blackburn and Scudder (2009) designed
a supply chain model for perishable products to minimize total cost including cost of loss in value of the product.
MOLP is another approach for modeling AFFSC used in nine studies reviewed in this literature survey. For instance, ten Berge
et al. (2000) considered the whole farm level by formulating a multiobjective linear model with two economic and environmental
objectives: maximizing gross margin and minimizing nitrogen surplus. Cittadini et al. (2008) investigated strategic and tactical deci-
sions for farm production of cherry in Argentina. They presented a multiperiod MOLP model. The objectives they considered
include maximizing the present value of the cumulative financial result and maximizing cumulative farm labor. Among these
nine papers, only three papers incorporated the food loss issue into their multiobjective models. Osvald and Stirn (2008) suggested
a multiobjective VRPTW model for the distribution of fresh vegetables with the objective of minimizing the distance and time trav-
eled, delay costs, and perishability costs. Paksoy et al. (2012) applied fuzzy sets to a production/distribution network problem and
model the supply chain of a vegetable oil production plant. The suggested fuzzy multiobjective LP model aimed to minimize the
level of dissatisfaction of the customers and to minimize transportation costs. When crude oil is transformed to refined oil through
chemical processes, some waste is produced which is sent to recycling centers. Govindan et al. (2014) developed a multiobjective
mixed-integer programming model for a sustainable perishable FSC in order to minimize CO2 emissions and logistic costs. To
model the distribution network, a two-echelon multiple-vehicle location–routing problem with time windows was used. Recently,
Bortolini et al. (2016) presented a three-objective function linear model for distribution of fresh food with different modes of trans-
port. The objectives are minimizing operating cost, carbon footprint, and delivery time. The perishability of the product was incor-
porated in the model by considering the shelf life of the product and also a quality loss function measuring the cost of wasted
products as a result of the reduction in quality during the shipment.
Research considering DP is scarce in the literature. Only three papers used DP in their model (Cittadini et al., 2008; Rong et al.,
2011; Widodo et al., 2006). Widodo et al. (2006) integrated harvest and inventory of perishable products by designing a DP model
with loss functions expressing the amount of available fresh products with satisfying quality for consumption.
In all papers reviewed, only one deterministic modeling approach is applied and it was difficult to find a paper that used more
than one approach or combination of different approaches. However, Govindan et al. (2014) and Varsei and Polyakovskiy (2016)
employed both MILP and MOLP, Cittadini et al. (2008) combined MOLP with DP, and Rong et al. (2011) integrated MILP and DP
with food loss consideration.

Stochastic Modeling Approaches

Stochastic approaches have been used for AFFSC models by some researchers, but compared with deterministic models, their appli-
cation is limited. Darby-Dowman et al. (2000) determined optimal harvesting plans for vegetables considering the risk of climate
changes by developing a two-stage stochastic programming model with the objective of profit maximization. Chen et al. (2009)
presented a stochastic mixed-integer nonlinear model for production scheduling and vehicle routing with time windows for perish-
able food products under stochastic demands and with the consideration of quality decay. Chen et al. (2016) presented an agricul-
tural supply chain problem and used a system-dynamic simulation model to discover the optimal replenishment of the supply
chain with stochastic demand.
Regarding stochastic programming, only Muriana (2015) considered the cost and quantity of food loss at the retailer stage while
developing a mathematical model with stochastic shelf life for optimizing fresh products’ supply chain with the aim of maximizing
the retailer’s profit.
Two papers applied SDP (Soysal et al., 2015; Tan and Çömden, 2012), two papers employed RO (Bohle et al., 2010; Munhoz
and Morabito, 2014), and three papers used FP (Lambert et al., 2014; Miller et al., 1997; Paksoy et al., 2012). Lambert et al. (2014)
was the only research group in the literature who designed an expert system for predicting orchard yield and quality of Persian lime
using fuzzy logic.
From food loss reduction point of view, Bohle et al. (2010) discussed the cost of delayed harvesting corresponding to the poten-
tial loss of quality in the objective function while dealing with uncertainty in a harvest scheduling problem of wine grape using RO.
Soysal et al. (2015) modeled and analyzed the inventory routing problem with multiple periods for distribution of perishable prod-
ucts, including demand uncertainty, using chance-constrained programming while simultaneously taking the amount and cost of
wasted products into consideration.
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 7

We can claim that simulation was the most common method to deal with uncertainty of AFFSC in the literature. As few exam-
ples, Hester and Cacho (2003) presented a bioeconomic dynamic simulation model for production and harvest of an apple orchard
to maximize NPV. Van Der Vorst et al. (2010) integrated food quality analysis, logistics, and sustainability in the FSC using discrete
event simulation models in order to provide a tool for redesigning FSC. Ahumada et al. (2012) developed a stochastic tactical plan-
ning model for production and distribution of agri-fresh products in order to maximize the total revenue of the producers and used
simulation to test robustness of decisions in various scenarios.
Having said that, the number of projects utilizing simulation techniques to minimize food loss is low. Venus et al. (2013) pre-
sented a spatial–temporal simulation model to determine quality decay and therefore postharvest losses for tomato in West Africa
during transportation. Besides, de Keizer et al. (2015) estimated the cost of opening a facility location with flow and process allo-
cation while considering quality deterioration and amount of waste in a logistic network for distribution of multiple fresh products
by using a hybrid optimization–simulation approach.
Integration of deterministic and stochastic modeling approaches has been done in some projects. For instance, Chen et al. (2009)
combined NLP and SP, Munhoz and Morabito (2014) integrated LP and RO, Teimoury et al. (2013) applied both MOLP and SIM in
their study. Finally, Paksoy et al. (2012) incorporated FP into the MOLP model, and Herbon et al. (2014) merged NLP and SIM methods.

Functional Area (Decision Variables)

We have identified four common types of decision variables used in the mathematical models for AFFSC: production, harvest,
inventory, and distribution. Production decision variables determine what, when, and how much to produce in which facility.
They can also determine the required resources for crop production. Some harvest decision variables could be time of harvesting,
the amount of harvested crops, and the scheduling of required labor and equipment. The third decision is inventory. Some
inventory-related decisions are the amount of order, time of order, safety stocks, and the amount of stored products in each plan-
ning period. Eventually, during distribution, some decision variables that need to be taken into consideration include mode of
transport, number of transportation vehicles, shipment size, routing, and delivering schedule. Among all reviewed papers, the
majority of them considered production as their functional area. Afterward, distribution, harvest, and inventory were the main func-
tional area, respectively.
The classification of the papers according to their functional area is stated in Table 2. Below, we review papers in each area
separately.

Production Decision
Production-related decisions are the most popular in AFFSC modeling in the literature. 24 out of 50 papers have focused on produc-
tion decisions in their models (Banaeian et al., 2012; Ghatrehsamani et al., 2016; Hamer, 1994; Zhou et al., 2015). This can be as
a result of continuous increase in the world population and therefore food demand. “It is projected that the world population will
grow by 1 billion over the next 12 years” (Lemma et al., 2014). In order to fulfill this incremental future demand, expanding food
production for sure needs a huge amount of financial investments. So, an alternative approach such as food loss minimization is
more economically viable and has the potential to improve the performance of the whole food chain as well. So, any step toward
food loss minimization will increase food availability.
Traditional decisions to minimize food losses or waste at the production stage were taken based on the knowledge and experi-
ence of expertise. Nevertheless, today’s operation research techniques or mathematical models play an important role in the FSC
optimization (Ferrer et al., 2008). Ahumada and Villalobos (2011b) addressed a production and distribution problem by present-
ing a tactical planning model for fresh products with the objective of producer’s revenues maximization. The perishability of the
products was considered in both the objective function (as a loss function) and the constraints (as a product storage constraint).
Value and amount of lost or wasted fruit in production stage is also investigated in the work of Allen and Schuster (2004), Blanco
et al. (2005), and Widodo et al. (2006). Moreover, quality degradation modeling with a little attention to quantity of generated
waste for bell pepper is discussed in Rong et al. (2011).
Production planning under uncertainty was analyzed by Chen et al. (2009) with respect to stochastic demands and quality decay
by means of NLP and a heuristic approach. Teimoury et al. (2013) also used a simulation model based on system-dynamic
approach to investigate the effect of supply and demand on the price of fresh vegetables.
It is evident from the review that the majority of the papers have used deterministic modeling approaches such as MILP, MOLP,
NLP, and DP as optimization techniques at production level (Allen and Schuster, 2004; Blanco et al., 2005; Cittadini et al., 2008;
Paksoy et al., 2012; Rong et al., 2011), few of them paid attention to loss/waste. From a stochastic modeling perspective only Paksoy
et al. (2012) applied FP with consideration of food loss minimization in production planning stage. Consequently, researchers need
to focus more on food loss reduction in the agricultural crop production stage especially from the stochastic point of view.

Distribution Decision
Perishability management of fresh foods such as fruits and vegetables has always been an arduous task in distribution planning.
Each distribution channel has its own features according to the product’s nature, the product’s source, the rival interaction between
8 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

Table 2 Decision variables applied by the reviewed agri-fresh food supply chain problems
Objective Function Product Type/ Case
Author P H D I
Single objective Multi-objective Country Study
Hamer
maximize profit Brussels sprout/ - N
(1994)
maximize the expected
difference between
Maia et al.
maximum Banana/Brazil Y
(1997)
and actual processing
costs
minimize total
costs (for LP model),
Miller et al.
maximize overall Tomato/USA Y
(1997)
satisfaction (for fuzzy
model)
maximize gross
margin, minimize
Berge et al. nitrogen (N) surplus Flower bulbs/
Y
(2000) (N-input minus N- Netherland
output in the form of
products)
Darby-
Dowman et maximize profit Vegetables/- N
al. (2000)
Vitoriano
et al. minimize total costs Grape/Spain Y
(2003)
Hester and
maximising the
cacho Apple/Australia Y
net present value (NPV)
(2003)
*Allen and minimize costs (cost of
Schuster harvesting too slowly Grape/USA Y
(2004) and too quickly)
*Blanco et Pome( apples and
maximize profit Y
al. (2005) pears)/Argentina
Caixeta-
maximize total margin
Filho Orange/Brazil Y
towards profit
(2006)
*Widodo et maximize the satisfied
Flower/- N
al (2006) demand level
Li et al.
maximize profit perishable Y
(2006)
Cholette maximize the weighted
Wine/USA N
(2007) volume of all wine
maximize the
present value of
cumulative financial
Cittadini et Cherry/
result, Y
al. (2008) Argentina
maximize
cumulative farm
labor
minimize distance,
*Osvald
time travelled, delay Vegetable/
and Stirn N
costs and Slovenia
(2008)
perishability costs
minimize distance and
*Ferrer et time travelled, the delay
Grape/Chile Y
al (2008) costs and perishability
costs
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 9

Table 2 Decision variables applied by the reviewed agri-fresh food supply chain problemsdcont'd
Lodree and
Uzochukwu maximize profit Vegetables/USA N
(2008)
maximize the expected
Chen et al.
total profit of the Perishable/- N
(2009)
supplier
*Blackburn
and
minimize total costs Melon/French Y
scudder
(2009)
VanderVor Pineapple/
_ Y
st (2010) Netherlands
*Arnaout
minimize the
and
operational costs and Grape/Lebanon Y
Maatouk
the loss of quality
(2010)
*Bohle et
maximize profit Grape/Chile Y
al (2010)
*Ahumada
and maximize the revenues
Tomato/USA Y
Villalobos of the grower
(2011a)
*Ahumada
and maximize the revenues
of the Tomato/USA Y
Villalobos
(2011b) producer
*Rong et Bell-
minimize total costs Y
al.(2011) pepper/Denmark
Ahumada maximize the total
Tomato and
et al. revenue of the Y
pepper/USA
(2012) producers
maximize the technical
Banaeian et
efficiency of decision Strawberries/Iran Y
al. (2012)
making units
Tan and
maximize the total
Çömden Tomato/Turkey Y
expected profit
(2012)
minimize
transportation costs
between suppliers
*Paksoy et and silos and Vegetable
Y
al. (2012) minimize oil/Turkey
transportation cost
between suppliers
and warehouses
*Zanoni
and Frozen French
minimize total costs N
Zavanella fried potato/-
(2012)
*Venus et Tomato/West
_ Y
al. (2013) Africa
Catalá et maximize the net Pome (pear &
Y
al. (2013) present value apple)/Argentina
minimizing the price
variation, minimizes
Teimoury the mean of price,
et al. maximizing the Cherry/Iran Y
(2013) mean of the
wholesaler’s
markup
(Continued)
10 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

Table 2 Decision variables applied by the reviewed agri-fresh food supply chain problemsdcont'd

Ampatzidis
Grape, Cherry/
et al. _ Y
Greece, USA
(2014)
Lambert et maximize production
Lime/Mexico Y
al. (2014) output and fruit quality
Munhoz
and Orange juice
minimize total costs Y
Morabito /Brazil
(2014)
minimize logistic
Govindan costs and minimize
et al. environmental Perishable/- N
(2014) impacts of CO2
emissions
minimize the
Amorim & distribution costs
Almada- and
_ N
Lobo maximize the
(2014) freshness state of the
delivered products
*Herbon et maximize the retailer’s
Perishable/- N
al. (2014) profit
Zhou et al. _ Potato/Finland Y
(2015)
García-
minimize the operation Oil
Cáceres et Y
costs palm/Colombia
al. (2015)
*Keizer et
minimize total cost Flower/Netherland Y
al (2015)
*Muriana maximize the retailer’s Fresh
N
(2015) profit products/Italy
*Soysal et
minimize total costs Tomato/Turkey Y
al. (2015)
*Ghezavati
maximize the profit of a
et al. Tomato/Iran Y
distributor
(2015)
Ghatrehsa
mani et al _ Peach/Iran Y
(2016)
Tomata, Apple,
Tijskens Pepper/
_ Y
(2016) Netherlands,
Slovenia
Chen et al.
minimize total costs Perishable/- N
(2016)
minimize the
operating cost,
*Bortolini minimize the carbon Fruits and
Y
et al (2016) footprint and vegetables/Italy
minimize the
delivery time
minimize the fixed
and variable costs,
minimize the total
Varsei and emissions of
Wine grapes
Polyakovsk greenhouse gases Y
/Australia
iy (2016) due to transportation
activities, maximize
the social
sustainability
P: production, H: harvesting, D: distribution, I: inventory
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 11

the supply chain and market, and the ownership of distribution vehicles (Spencer and Kneebone, 2007). Among all food categories,
rapidly deteriorating perishable goods, especially agricultural fruits and vegetables, have got more delicacy and importance for
distribution planning due to limited shelf life (Amorim et al., 2012).
The time period between production and trading of these products is of major concern for both producers and traders since inef-
ficiency in the distribution process may lead to several consequences such as delayed delivery of products to customers resulting in
quality decline and food loss, the increase in inventory costs, and decrease in demand (Tarantilis and Kiranoudis, 2001). Hence,
optimizing distribution in the fresh food supply chain is crucial for food safety.
Corporations always want to diminish basic distribution costs by reducing the number of transportation vehicles, travel distance,
and duration. However, the wise view is that they also need to minimize the loss of quality when addressing transportation issues.
Allen and Schuster (2004) and Ghezavati et al. (2015) incorporated loss of quality in their model. Osvald and Stirn (2008) consid-
ered quality loss as part of the overall distribution costs. Moreover, loss in value is considered in Ahumada and Villalobos (2011b),
Bortolini et al. (2016), and Osvald and Stirn (2008).
Temperature definitely is one of the most effective environmental conditions for assessing quality and shelf life of agri-fresh
products (Labuza, 1982). Ahumada and Villalobos (2011a) assumed that after harvest, fruits were preserved at a constant temper-
ature throughout the distribution channels. Rong et al. (2011) and Zanoni and Zavanella (2012) defined product quality as a func-
tion of time and temperature as fresh products flow through different facilities of supply chain and transportation modes. Zanoni
and Zavanella (2012) also discussed required energy and energy consumption for preserving quality of fresh products during
transportation.
From the literature surveyed, we can come to the conclusion that most popular modeling approaches for the optimization of
distribution in AFFSC have been MILP (de Keizer et al., 2015; Ghezavati et al., 2015; Osvald and Stirn, 2008), followed by
MOLP (Govindan et al., 2014; Paksoy et al., 2012) in deterministic modeling, and SIM (de Keizer et al., 2015; Soysal et al.,
2015; Venus et al., 2013) and SP (Ahumada et al., 2012; Soysal et al., 2015) in stochastic modeling.
By reviewing the above studies, we can conclude that most of them are not focused on food loss minimization due to deterio-
ration during shipment. Generally, food loss needs to be considered during transportation in modeling and optimization of AFFSC.
Besides, it is discovered that quality and temperature are crucial factors in modeling the supply chain of agri-fresh products and
researchers ought to take them into consideration if they want to minimize the loss of these products efficiently.

Harvest Decision
The harvest is the initial asset for running agribusiness and illustrates the base raw material and main substantial link in the
supply chain for agricultural cooperatives. Fruit and vegetable crops are highly perishable, and inefficient harvesting and process-
ing can affect their quality negatively. So, appropriate managerial decisions to optimize harvest operations, minimize cost, and
preserve fruit quality are vital. As pointed out by Ampatzidis et al. (2014) “the window for harvesting fruit crops at optimum
maturity varies by species but is generally considered to be a matter of days.” Thus, the use of quality control devices during
harvest allows fruit to be harvested at the correct point of maturation. Caixeta-Filho (2006) proposed an LP model to schedule
orange harvest integrating chemical, biologic, and logistic features to assess the quality of harvested fruits with the aim of total
profit maximization.
For agri-fresh products, the loss process starts immediately after harvest, and it is dependent on how the products are dealt with
throughout the supply chain processes. Unfortunately, the loss of these products accounts for one-third of the total quantity of har-
vested products globally (Widodo et al., 2006). This noticeable quantity of food loss can be attributed to the lack of coordination
between harvesting and delivering activities in timing and quantity. The integration of quality loss and harvest scheduling can be
seen in the work of Arnaout and Maatouk (2010) in which the objective function, which includes a quality loss function, calculates
incurred costs as a result of harvesting the grapes with undesirable quality. In addition, some other papers considered food loss
issues in terms of quality, value, or quantity in their models (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011a; Allen and Schuster, 2004; Blackburn
and Scudder, 2009; Bohle et al., 2010; Ferrer et al., 2008; Widodo et al., 2006).
Generally, the most significant decision variables in harvest planning are the amount of product to harvest per period, the
management of the number and cost of labor, preserving the value of perishable crops, the shipment of harvested products to
the packing process, and the packing scheduling (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011a). The area (block) to be harvested is also
a common decision variable. The value of this decision defines whether that block should be harvested during a specific period
or not (Caixeta-Filho, 2006). Darby-Dowman et al. (2000) defined a land constraint in his model which states the area of each
crop planted equals the area harvested. Ahumada and Villalobos (2011a) determined each plot area harvested using different
harvest patterns. García-Cáceres et al. (2015) determined the number of land plots prior to each production cycle. Catalá et al.
(2013) suggested a dynamic model in farm scale optimally allocates production activities to the different land blocks.
As mentioned above, some other major decision variables in harvest correspond to the number and cost of workers to
assign at different blocks and at different time periods. Cittadini et al. (2008) maximized the cumulative farm labor as an
objective function in the model with the aim of creating employment opportunities and also investigated the impact of labor
costs and labor availability on farm production. Bohle et al. (2010) estimated the labor requirement assigned to each block in
each harvesting period with consideration of labor hiring and firing costs. Besides, some researchers took labor-related decision
variables into account (Ampatzidis et al., 2014; Arnaout and Maatouk, 2010; Blackburn and Scudder, 2009; García-Cáceres
et al., 2015; Hester and Cacho, 2003).
12 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

The number of machines for harvesting is also considered as another decision variable by some researchers. For instance, Ferrer
et al. (2008) planned the number of both machines and workers required for harvesting, and Ampatzidis et al. (2014) presented
a machine repair model to estimate the performance of the harvest process.
A few papers considered routing (Bohle et al., 2010; Ferrer et al., 2008), which is a harvesting operation pertaining to transpor-
tation costs incurred in moving equipment and labor between different harvesting blocks. Thus, some decision variables need to be
defined to determine the sequence of harvest operations to reduce transportation costs. This part leads to a kind of traveling
salesman problem represented by the Miller–Tucker–Zemlin formulation (Miller et al., 1960).
From the mathematical programming perspective, the NLP approach has been the most used in harvesting scheduling problems
(Allen and Schuster, 2004; Blackburn and Scudder, 2009; García-Cáceres et al., 2015; Hester and Cacho, 2003; Tan and Çömden,
2012; Tijskens et al., 2016), for different kinds of agri-fresh products, followed by LP (Arnaout and Maatouk, 2010; Caixeta-Filho,
2006; Munhoz and Morabito, 2014) and MILP (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011a; Catalá et al., 2013; Ferrer et al., 2008). Only
Widodo et al. (2006) applied DP and Cittadini et al. (2008) used DP and MOLP. Under stochastic modeling methods, SIM has
been utilized the most (Ampatzidis et al., 2014; Bohle et al., 2010; Hester and Cacho, 2003). RO was used by Bohle et al.
(2010) and Munhoz and Morabito (2014). Darby-Dowman et al. (2000) and Tan and Çömden (2012) applied SP and combina-
tion of NLP and DSP, respectively.
Moreover, two papers considered risk management in harvesting. Allen and Schuster (2004) balanced the risk of overinvestment
with the risk of underproduction. He developed a mathematical model that represents risks of crop loss due to poor weather condi-
tions, and Tan and Çömden (2012) presented an agricultural planning model with consideration of supply and demand and
weather condition risks due to the uncertainty of the maturation time and harvest time.
Finally, Tijskens et al. (2016) measured the size, volume, and the increase in the size of fruits at harvest by developing a modified
von Bertalanffy growth model that considers the variation in size between individual fruits and the effect of temperature on growing
using a stochastic variable.
In a nutshell, only 7 out of 17 papers on harvesting planning paid any attention to the food loss minimization
issue in their models. Thus, more research needs to be conducted integrating food loss reduction and harvest planning
problems.

Inventory Decision
Inventory management of perishable products is more complex and delicate compared to other types of products. “Perishable items
are those items, which have a fixed or specified life time after which they are considered unsuitable for utilization” (Kurniawan et al.,
2015). Since agricultural fruits and vegetables are perishable, managing their inventories poses a challenging job to inventory
managers. Traditional inventory management, in general, does not consider perishability of these items. Nevertheless, for these
products the analysis of perishable inventory systems is vital because, in real world, products such as fruits and vegetables do
have fixed lifetimes after which they will perish. As an example for inventory control, Lodree and Uzochukwu (2008) presented
a two-period nonlinear inventory model for vegetables with stochastic demand and nonzero lead time with profit maximization
objective.
Perishable products have some special features that make their inventory different from other types of products such as fluctu-
ation in demand, limited lifetime, and customer behavior toward the safety of these products. For sure, suitable inventory manage-
ment for perishable products can result in loss reductions (Kurniawan et al., 2015).
Few papers integrated inventory management and food loss issues (Herbon et al., 2014; Muriana, 2015; Venus et al., 2013;
Widodo et al., 2006). For example, Herbon et al. (2014) managed inventory by tracking the age and quality of perishable products
using RFID and time–temperature indicator technology. They estimated the expected loss incurred from selling a damaged product
to customers in a specific period t by defining a time-dependent parameter in their model.
NLP is the most popular deterministic modeling method in inventory (Herbon et al., 2014; Lodree and Uzochukwu, 2008; Tan
and Çömden, 2012). Only Widodo et al. (2006) applied DP for inventory planning. In stochastic modeling, SIM and SP are the
most common approaches used by Chen et al. (2016), Herbon et al. (2014), Muriana (2015), and Venus et al. (2013). For instance,
Chen et al. (2016) applied a system-dynamic simulation model to deal with an economic order quantity and economic production
quantity models for the agricultural supply chain.
Based on the characteristics of perishable products, inventory models are classified into two groups: (1) inventory models
with a fixed lifetime and (2) inventory models with a random lifetime (Kouki et al., 2013). “The products whose lifetime
cannot be determined in advance while in stock are known as random lifetime products” (Goyal and Giri, 2001). We can
refer to fresh products such as fruits, vegetables, and meat as examples whose decay time is not certain and is considered
to be a random variable. Muriana (2015) investigated the impact of time–temperature indicators on food quality changes
throughout inventory and assumed a known random distribution for shelf life of products, and Herbon et al. (2014)
controlled inventory with dynamic pricing using time–temperature indicators while assigning each item a random shelf
life with the uniform distribution.
Generally speaking, it is observed from the reviewed inventory models that in the majority of these studies, inventory deci-
sions are decisions such as storage capacity, lead time, demand, the quantity of stored products, and order volume. However,
food loss–related decisions are not addressed in order to directly optimize food loss in inventory and are considered as a gap
for future studies.
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 13

Objective Function

We have categorized the objective function of the reviewed papers into two groups of single objective and multiobjectives, and also
determined the type of objective functions (maximization/minimization of profit, cost, or other functions), which are listed in
Table 2. The majority of the reviewed models had a single objective function, and merely nine models included multiobjective func-
tions. For example, Teimoury et al. (2013) proposed a multiobjective model for fruits and vegetables supply chain to obtain the best
import quota policy for the government with three objective functions of minimizing the price variation, minimizing the mean of
price, and maximizing the mean of wholesaler’s markup. Amorim and Almada-Lobo (2014) investigated the relevance between
distribution scenarios and the cost–freshness trade-off in a vehicle routing problem for perishable products by presenting a multi-
objective model with the dual aim of minimizing distribution costs and maximizing the freshness state of delivered products.
The main objective in most papers is minimization of cost followed by maximization of profit. However, just few models
considered loss of value of products as an element of their total cost minimization objective function (Ahumada and Villalo-
bos, 2011b; Arnaout and Maatouk, 2010; Li et al., 2006; Osvald and Stirn, 2008). The rest of the papers have other types of
objective functions, for instance, maximization of NPV (Catalá et al., 2013; Hester and Cacho, 2003), minimization of green-
house gas emission (Bortolini et al., 2016; Govindan et al., 2014; Varsei and Polyakovskiy, 2016), maximization of satisfied
demand level (Widodo et al., 2006), maximization of present value of financial results and cumulative farm labor (Cittadini
et al., 2008), minimization of customer dissatisfaction (Paksoy et al., 2012), and maximization of production output (Lambert
et al., 2014).
The literature shows the orientation of the studies toward the main objective function of cost minimization or profit maximi-
zation and not toward the food loss/waste minimization. Accordingly, a gap for future studies in AFFSC planning models could be
developing a model with the primary objective of food loss minimization.

Solution Approach

There exist different methodologies and solution approaches to solve models on AFFSC, namely heuristics and metaheuristics
algorithms, decomposition algorithms, simulation tools, hybrid approaches, goal programming, risk programming, among
others. Moreover, some models are solved using an optimization software package such as CPLEX (Brooke et al., 1992),
GLPK (see Relevant Website) or an optimization modeling language such as Lindo (Schrage, 1984) and GAMS (Rosenthal
and Guide, 2008). The classification of the revised papers according to their solution approaches is presented in Table 1. Among
all of those using optimization software packages, CPLEX is the most common one, used by de Keizer et al. (2015), Rong et al.
(2011), Soysal et al. (2015), and Varsei and Polyakovskiy (2016). Some models were implemented in the modeling language
GAMS and solved with the CPLEX solver (Catalá et al., 2013; Cittadini et al., 2008; Ghezavati et al., 2015; Munhoz and Morabito,
2014) or in the modeling language GAMS and solved with the GLPK solver (Cholette, 2007). Some others implemented their
models in the modeling language AMPL and optimization software CPLEX or GLPK (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011b; Bohle
et al., 2010; Ferrer et al., 2008). Besides, heuristic algorithms were another frequent solution approach applied by a great number
of studies, namely Arnaout and Maatouk (2010), Chen et al. (2009), Govindan et al. (2014), Herbon et al. (2014), Lodree and
Uzochukwu (2008), and Osvald and Stirn (2008). Only few researchers utilized metaheuristic algorithms, for example, Hester
and Cacho (2003) used genetic algorithm (GA), Osvald and Stirn (2008) solved their model by tabu search, and Govindan et al.
(2014) applied a hybrid metaheuristic algorithm, including multiobjective particle swarm optimization and adapted multiob-
jective variable neighborhood search. Other approaches are goal programming used by Cittadini et al. (2008) and ten Berge et al.
(2000), Bender’s decomposition algorithm applied by Ahumada et al. (2012) and Ghezavati et al. (2015), branch and bound
algorithm with CPLEX or Lingo solver (Ahumada and Villalobos, 2011a; Arnaout and Maatouk, 2010; Maia et al.,
1997), ε-constraint method by Amorim and Almada-Lobo (2014) and Varsei and Polyakovskiy (2016), and discrete simulation
tool by (Van Der Vorst et al., 2010).
From the above, it is discovered that GAMS modeling language and CPLEX optimization software beside heuristic algorithms are
popular methodologies to solve and optimize AFFSC planning models. However, metaheuristics algorithms are scarcely used.
Furthermore, new solution approaches such as multicriteria decision-making methods and other optimization solvers are suggested
for optimizing agricultural supply chain problems.

Product Type/Country

Researchers have modeled and optimized the supply chain of different variety of agri-fresh products in the literature. We have stated
the product type and also the countries, where the projects are done, in Table 2.
It is notable that we have focused our review on papers modeling supply chain for specific fruits or vegetables. However, there are
few cases presenting an operation research model for perishable agricultural products or fruits and vegetables in general and did not
mention any exclusive agricultural crop. The reason is that the focus of these papers was mainly on estimating the impact of a factor
on supply chain of agri-fresh products and not on any particular agri-product.
14 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

From the review, we can draw the conclusion that studies focused more on tomato, pepper, and potato as vegetable and on
grape, cherry, pome (apple and pear), and orange as fruit. Among them, food loss reduction consideration is mostly paid to tomato
and grape.
The literature is also categorized based on the countries, and we discovered that the majority of the studies were done in Europe
and South America accounting for 11 and 10 studies, respectively. The same number of studies are done in the USA and Asia. Never-
theless, most of the studies in Asia are in Turkey. Surprisingly, only two studies were conducted in Australia for apple (Hester and
Cacho, 2003) and wine grape (Varsei and Polyakovskiy, 2016). Only one project was carried out in Africa for tomato (Venus et al.,
2013), and one in North America for lime (Lambert et al., 2014). It should be noted that Europe was the most concerned with food
loss. Therefore, we conclude that food loss problem has been mostly addressed in developed countries, and there is a need for devel-
oping countries to focus more on this issue in the coming years. Additionally, Australia ought to incorporate food loss reduction
issue more into its agricultural supply chain.

Case Study

The existence of a case study is important for the models proposed in the context of AFFSC, since it shows the applicability and
efficiency of them. We have investigated the papers from the case study perspective by putting ‘Yes’ for papers with a case study,
and ‘No’ for ones without a case study in Table 2. A large number of papers in the table tested their agricultural planning models
using actual case studies. A few papers tested their models by numerical examples (Lodree and Uzochukwu, 2008; Widodo et al.,
2006).

Conclusion

This article provides a structured overview of more than 50 papers in the framework of planning models aiming to optimize AFFSC
(fruits and vegetables) with the focus on food loss reduction. We classified the reviewed papers based on four main research streams,
namely modeling approaches, functional area or decision variables, objective functions, and solution approaches. Moreover, two
other streams are investigated: product type/country and case study.
From the literature, it is evident that the number of papers published since 2014 has been growing. It shows the importance of
the topic is increasing and the researchers’ attention is drawing toward the area.
First and foremost, it is discovered that, in the majority of the reviewed papers, food loss minimization is considered as
a secondary scope with the main scope of cost decrease or profit increase. That being said, food loss consideration must be a priority
in developing FSC management due to population growth, climate change, and food safety. Therefore, this is an opportunity for
researchers to utilize optimization techniques to minimize food loss in quantity, quality, or value in their agricultural planning
models as the primary objective throughout the whole AFFSC.
It is also observed that deterministic modeling methods are more often used for food loss minimization in AFFSC compared
to stochastic methods, and LP and MILP are the most prevailing deterministic techniques. It can be attributed to the ability of
integer linear programming (ILP) to solve real industry problems and the availability of ILP solvers. Moreover, among stochastic
techniques, simulation has the lion share of the approaches. Regarding the functional area, the reviewed papers are oriented
around production and distribution decisions with harvest and inventory falling behind, and it is notable that the distribution
decision accounts for the majority of food loss–related papers. We can also derive the fact that very few models integrate more
than one decision to present for example production-distribution or distribution-inventory problems. The importance of agri-
fresh products is explicit where the limited shelf life of the product requires a very precise planning of more than just one func-
tional area to reduce the deterioration of the products and preserve their value. Hence, focusing on food loss reduction in inte-
grated decisions for AFFSC problems is a gap in the literature.
Moreover, the study illustrates that developing countries need to concentrate more on reducing food loss in their AFFSCs. It is the
responsibility of governments and corporations to increase customers’ awareness and to take urgent measures to alleviate food loss.
As future directions, we suggest the researchers to cluster their research around developing food loss minimization AFFSC
models including uncertainty, integrated decisions, risk analysis, climate change assessment, and sustainability considerations.
Furthermore, value addition to second- or third-grade fruits and vegetables using food processing technologies and the location
of collection centers or use of mobile processing would be very useful to diminish food deterioration and loss, and it does not
seem to be addressed in AFFSC problems before.
This article gives a comprehensive overview to researchers and practitioners trying to identify the existing state of the art, gaps in
current research, and future directions on the topic.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Industrial Transformation Training Centre funding scheme (project number
IC140100032).
 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review 15

References

Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2009. Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 196 (1), 1–20.
Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2011a. Operational model for planning the harvest and distribution of perishable agricultural products. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 133 (2), 677–687.
Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2011b. A tactical model for planning the production and distribution of fresh produce. Ann. Oper. Res. 190 (1), 339–358.
Ahumada, O., Rene Villalobos, J., Nicholas Mason, A., 2012. Tactical planning of the production and distribution of fresh agricultural products under uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 112,
17–26.
Allen, S.J., Schuster, E.W., 2004. Controlling the risk for an agricultural harvest. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 6 (3), 225–236.
Amorim, P., Almada-Lobo, B., 2014. The impact of food perishability issues in the vehicle routing problem. Comput. Ind. Eng. 67, 223–233.
Amorim, P., Günther, H.O., Almada-Lobo, B., 2012. Multi-objective integrated production and distribution planning of perishable products. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138 (1), 89–101.
Ampatzidis, Y.G., Vougioukas, S.G., Whiting, M.D., Zhang, Q., 2014. Applying the machine repair model to improve efficiency of harvesting fruit. Biosyst. Eng. 120, 25–33.
Arnaout, J.-P.M., Maatouk, M., 2010. Optimization of quality and operational costs through improved scheduling of harvest operations. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 17 (5), 595–605.
Banaeian, N., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H., 2012. Greenhouse strawberry production in Iran, efficient or inefficient in energy. Energy Effic. 5 (2), 201–209.
Blackburn, J., Scudder, G., 2009. Supply chain strategies for perishable products: the case of fresh produce. Prod. Oper. Manag. 18 (2), 129–137.
Blanco, A.M., Masini, G., Petracci, N., Bandoni, J.A., 2005. Operations management of a packaging plant in the fruit industry. J. Food Eng. 70 (3), 299–307.
Bohle, C., Maturana, S., Vera, J., 2010. A robust optimization approach to wine grape harvesting scheduling. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200 (1), 245–252.
Bortolini, M., Faccio, M., Ferrari, E., Gamberi, M., Pilati, F., 2016. Fresh food sustainable distribution: cost, delivery time and carbon footprint three-objective optimization. J. Food
Eng. 174, 56–67.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., Meeraus, A., 1992. GAMSdA User’s Guide (Release 2.25). The Scientific Press, San Francisco, CA.
ten Berge, H.F.M., van Ittersum, M.K., Rossing, W.A.H., van de Ven, G.W.J., Schans, J., 2000. Farming options for The Netherlands explored by multi-objective modelling. Eur. J.
Agron. 13 (2–3), 263–277.
Buzby, J.C., Hyman, J., 2012. Total and per capita value of food loss in the United States. Food Policy 37 (5), 561–570.
Caixeta-Filho, V.J., 2006. Orange harvesting scheduling management: a case study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57 (6), 637–642.
Catalá, L.P., Durand, G.A., Blanco, A.M., Alberto, B.J., 2013. Mathematical model for strategic planning optimization in the pome fruit industry. Agric. Syst. 115, 63–71.
Chen, H.-K., Hsueh, C.-F., Chang, M.-S., 2009. Production scheduling and vehicle routing with time windows for perishable food products. Comput. Oper. Res. 36 (7), 2311–2319.
Chen, W., Li, J., Jin, X., 2016. The replenishment policy of agri-products with stochastic demand in integrated agricultural supply chains. Expert Syst. Appl. 48, 55–66.
Cholette, S., 2007. A novel problem for a vintage technique: using mixed-integer programming to match wineries and distributors. Interfaces 37 (3), 231–239.
Cittadini, E.D., Lubbers, M.T.M.H., de Ridder, N., van Keulen, H., Claassen, G.D.H., 2008. Exploring options for farm-level strategic and tactical decision-making in fruit production
systems of South Patagonia, Argentina. Agric. Syst. 98 (3), 189–198.
Darby-Dowman, K., Barker, S., Audsley, E., Parsons, D., 2000. A two-stage stochastic programming with recourse model for determining robust planting plans in horticulture.
J. Oper. Res. Soc. 51 (1), 83–89.
Ferrer, J.-C., Mac Cawley, A., Maturana, S., Toloza, S., Vera, J., 2008. An optimization approach for scheduling wine grape harvest operations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 112 (2),
985–999.
Galanakis, C.M., 2012. Recovery of high added-value components from food wastes: conventional, emerging technologies and commercialized applications. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 26 (2), 68–87.
García-Cáceres, R.G., Martínez-Avella, M.E., Palacios-Gómez, F., 2015. Tactical optimization of the oil palm agribusiness supply chain. Appl. Math. Model. 39 (20), 6375–6395.
García-Flores, R., de Souza Filho, O.V., Martins, R.S., Martins, C.V.B., Juliano, P., 2015. 11-Using logistic models to optimize the food supply chain A2-Bakalis, Serafim. In:
Knoerzer, K., Fryer, P.J. (Eds.), Modeling Food Processing Operations. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 307–330.
Ghatrehsamani, S., Ebrahimi, R., Kazi, S.N., Badarudin Badry, A., Sadeghinezhad, E., 2016. Optimization model of peach production relevant to input energies – yield function in
Chaharmahal va Bakhtiari province. Iran. Energy 99, 315–321.
Ghezavati, V.R., Hooshyar, S., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., 2015. A Benders’ decomposition algorithm for optimizing distribution of perishable products considering postharvest
biological behavior in agri-food supply chain: a case study of tomato. Central Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1–26.
Govindan, K., Jafarian, A., Khodaverdi, R., Devika, K., 2014. Two-echelon multiple-vehicle location–routing problem with time windows for optimization of sustainable supply chain
network of perishable food. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 152, 9–28.
Goyal, S.K., Giri, B.C., 2001. Recent trends in modeling of deteriorating inventory. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 134 (1), 1–16.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Hamer, P.J.C., 1994. A decision support system for the provision of planting plans for Brussels sprouts. Comput. Electron. Agric. 11 (2), 97–115.
Herbon, A., Levner, E., Cheng, T.C.E., 2014. Perishable inventory management with dynamic pricing using time–temperature indicators linked to automatic detecting devices. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 147 (Part C), 605–613.
Hester, S.M., Cacho, O., 2003. Modelling apple orchard systems. Agric. Syst. 77 (2), 137–154. https://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/.
Juliano, P., Flores, R.G., Higgins, A., Gamage, T., McPhail, N., Warner, R., 2014. Tools for Maximising Economic Value through Decentralised Food Processing (internal CSIRO
report, Victoria, Australia).
de Keizer, M., Haijema, R., Bloemhof, J.M., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., 2015. Hybrid optimization and simulation to design a logistics network for distributing perishable products.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 88, 26–38.
Kouki, C., Sahin, E., Jemaï, Z., Dallery, Y., 2013. Assessing the impact of perishability and the use of time temperature technologies on inventory management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
143 (1), 72–85.
Kurniawan, D., Nor, F.M., Duong, L.N.K., Wood, L.C., Wang, W.Y.C., 2015. 2nd International Materials, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering Conference, MIMEC2015, 4–6
February 2015, Bali, Indonesia A Multi-criteria Inventory Management System for Perishable & Substitutable Products. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 2, pp. 66–76.
Labuza, T.P., 1982. Shelf-life Dating of Foods. Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.
Lambert, G.F., Lasserre, A.A.A., Ackerman, M.M., Sánchez, C.G.M., Rivera, B.O.I., Azzaro-Pantel, C., 2014. An expert system for predicting orchard yield and fruit quality and its
impact on the Persian lime supply chain. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 33, 21–30.
Lemma, Y., Kitaw, D., Gatew, G., 2014. Loss in perishable food supply chain: an optimization approach literature review. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 5 (5), 301–311.
Levi, D.S., Kaminsky, P., Levi, E.S., 2003. Designing and Managing the Supply Chain: Concepts, Strategies, and Case Studies. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Li, D., Kehoe, D., Drake, P., 2006. Dynamic planning with a wireless product identification technology in food supply chains. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 30 (9), 938–944.
Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., Searchinger, T., 2013. Reducing Food Loss and Waste. World Resources Institute. Working Paper.
Lodree Jr., E.J., Uzochukwu, B.M., 2008. Production planning for a deteriorating item with stochastic demand and consumer choice. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 116 (2), 219–232.
Lowe, T.J., Preckel, P.V., 2004. Decision technologies for agribusiness problems: a brief review of selected literature and a call for research. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 6 (3),
201–208.
Maia, L.O.A., Lago, R.A., Qassim, R.Y., 1997. Selection of postharvest technology routes by mixed-integer linear programming. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 49 (2), 85–90.
Miller, C.E., Tucker, A.W., Zemlin, R.A., 1960. Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman problems. J. ACM 7 (4), 326–329.
Miller, W.A., Leung, L.C., Azhar, T.M., Sargent, S., 1997. Fuzzy production planning model for fresh tomato packing. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 53 (3), 227–238.
16 Planning Models to Optimize the Agri-Fresh Food Supply Chain for Loss Minimization: A Review

Min, H., Zhou, G., 2002. Supply chain modeling: past, present and future. Comput. Ind. Eng. 43, 231–249.
Munhoz, J.R., Morabito, R., 2014. Optimization approaches to support decision making in the production planning of a citrus company: a Brazilian case study. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 107, 45–57.
Muriana, C., 2015. Effectiveness of the food recovery at the retailing stage under shelf life uncertainty: an application to Italian food chains. Waste Manag. 41, 159–168.
Osvald, A., Stirn, L.Z., 2008. A vehicle routing algorithm for the distribution of fresh vegetables and similar perishable food. J. Food Eng. 85 (2), 285–295.
Paksoy, T., Pehlivan, N.Y., Özceylan, E., 2012. Application of fuzzy optimization to a supply chain network design: a case study of an edible vegetable oils manufacturer. Appl. Math.
Model. 36 (6), 2762–2776.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365
(1554), 3065–3081.
Rong, A., Akkerman, R., Grunow, M., 2011. An optimization approach for managing fresh food quality throughout the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 131 (1), 421–429.
Rosenthal, R.E., Guide, G.A.U.S., 2008. GAMS Development Corporation. Washington, DC, USA.
Salin, V., 1998. Infromation technology in agri-food supply chains. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 1 (3), 329–334.
Schrage, L.E., 1984. Linear, Integer, and Quadratic Programming with LINDO. Scientific Press. Incorporated, the.
Shukla, M., Jharkharia, S., 2013. Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (2), 114–158.
Soto-Silva, W.E., Nadal-Roig, E., González-Araya, M.C., Pla-Aragones, L.M., 2016. Operational research models applied to the fresh fruit supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 251,
345–355.
Soysal, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Haijema, R., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., 2015. Modeling an inventory routing problem for perishable products with environmental considerations
and demand uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 164, 118–133.
Spencer, S., Kneebone, M., 2007. Foodmap: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Food Distribution Channels. Australian Government Department of Agriculture FaF, Editor,
Canberra.
Tan, B., Çömden, N., 2012. Agricultural planning of annual plants under demand, maturation, harvest, and yield risk. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 220 (2), 539–549.
Tarantilis, C.D., Kiranoudis, C.T., 2001. A meta-heuristic algorithm for the efficient distribution of perishable foods. J. Food Eng. 50 (1), 1–9.
Teimoury, E., Nedaei, H., Ansari, S., Sabbaghi, M., 2013. A multi-objective analysis for import quota policy making in a perishable fruit and vegetable supply chain: a system
dynamics approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 93, 37–45.
Tijskens, L.M.M., Unuk, T., Okello, R.C.O., Wubs, A.M., Sustar, V., Sumak, D., Schouten, R.E., 2016. From fruitlet to harvest: modelling and predicting size and its distributions for
tomato, apple and pepper fruit. Sci. Hortic. 204, 54–64.
Van Der Vorst, J.G., Tromp, S.O., Zee, D.J.V.D., 2010. Simulation modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on product quality, sustainability and
logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (23).
Varsei, M., Polyakovskiy, S., 2016. Sustainable Supply Chain Network Design: A Case of the Wine Industry in Australia. Omega.
Venus, V., Asare-Kyei, D.K., Tijskens, L.M.M., Weir, M.J.C., de Bie, C.A.J.M., Ouedraogo, S., Smaling, E.M.A., 2013. Development and validation of a model to estimate postharvest
losses during transport of tomatoes in West Africa. Comput. Electron. Agric. 92, 32–47.
Vitoriano, B., Ortuño, M.T., Recio, B., Rubio, F., Alonso-Ayuso, A., 2003. Two alternative models for farm management: discrete versus continuous time horizon. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
144 (3), 613–628.
Widodo, K.H., Nagasawa, H., Morizawa, K., Ota, M., 2006. A periodical flowering–harvesting model for delivering agricultural fresh products. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 170 (1), 24–43.
Zanoni, S., Zavanella, L., 2012. Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (2), 731–736.
Zhou, K., Leck Jensen, A., Bochtis, D.D., Sørensen, C.G., 2015. Simulation model for the sequential in-field machinery operations in a potato production system. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 116, 173–186.

Relevant Website

https://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/ – Software (last accessed 10.10.16.).