Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Review

Operations research for environmental assessment of crop-livestock

production systems
Mohammad Davoud Heidari a, *, Ian Turner a, Amir Ardestani-Jaafari b, Nathan Pelletier a, *
a
Food Systems PRISM Lab, University of British Columbia, 3247 University Way, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
b
Faculty of Management, University of British Columbia, 1137 Alumni Avenue, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Intrinsic variability in agricultural pro­

duction systems and the high number of
decision variables call for a rigorous
DSS.
• OR methods used for optimization of
agricultural and livestock systems for
environmental goals were reviewed.
• Three most commonly considered deci­
sion types were farm benchmarking,
output prediction and resource use
management.
• A framework (decision tree) considering
methodological choices with respect to
each method was proposed.
• It helps farmers to make informed de­
cisions based on their tresources, and
environmental impacts of their produc­
tion system.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Mark Van Wijk CONTEXT: Agricultural crop and livestock production systems are complex, essential to human well-being, and
fraught with sustainability challenges. In light of intrinsic variability in agricultural production systems and the
Keywords: high number of decision variables, decision support for optimization of sustainability outcomes should be sup­
Life cycle assessment ported by rigorous operations research.
Optimization
OBJECTIVE: Several operations research (OR) methods such as evolutionary algorithms, multi-objective opti­
Statistical analysis
mization, and data envelopment analysis (DEA) have been applied to optimization in agricultural contexts,
Decision-making
Variability taking into account different objective functions and decision variables, and life cycle-based evaluation of
Agricultural systems environmental outcomes in agriculture have become widespread. The current review evaluates the methods used
for optimization of agricultural and livestock systems for life cycle-based environmental sustainability goals.
METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review
method and three complementary search strategies were used to identify relevant articles. Strengths, weaknesses,
and performance issues for each method are considered and compared.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Farm benchmarking, output prediction and resource use management are the
three most commonly considered decision types in crop-livestock production systems. To guide selection and
implementation of appropriate OR methods, a framework (decision tree) is proposed.

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: md.heidari@outlook.com (M.D. Heidari), nathan.pelletier@ubc.ca (N. Pelletier).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103208
Received 12 January 2021; Received in revised form 16 June 2021; Accepted 21 June 2021
Available online 13 July 2021
0308-521X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.D. Heidari et al.
SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed decision tree provides an indication of necessary method-specific methodological
choices. Methodological choices with respect to each method are discussed.
1. Introduction
As the human population continues to grow (Gerland et al., 2014), so
too must food production to satisfy increasing demand (Conforti, 2011).
At the same time, agri-food systems make significant contributions to a
variety of environmental problems including biodiversity loss, ecotox­
icity, water pollution, climate change and land use (Clark et al., 2020).
Consequently, attention to measuring and managing the sustainability
impacts of agri-food systems is growing.
Life cycle thinking is increasingly applied in support of
sustainability-oriented decision making. Within this context, life cycle
assessment (LCA), which is a formalized methodology for quantifying
the cumulative resource use, energy demands, and environmental im­
pacts of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle (Hauschild
et al., 2017), is now widely applied to evaluate the sustainability im­
pacts of food systems (Nemecek et al., 2015a, 2015b; Pelletier, 2015).
Studies have variously addressed comparisons between alternative
production methods (Pelletier, 2017; Pelletier et al., 2008), assessment
of management decisions (MacWilliam et al., 2014), and evaluation of
alternative technologies (Li and Mupondwa, 2014), among others.
Agricultural systems and their impacts are, however, highly het­
erogeneous (Notarnicola et al., 2017). Differences in climatic conditions
(Nemecek et al., 2015b), soil type (Fedele et al., 2014), seed type
(Nemecek et al., 2015a, 2015b), water availability (Fedele et al., 2014),
and farm practices (Fedele et al., 2014; Hokazono and Hayashi, 2015;
Knudsen et al., 2014; Nemecek et al., 2015a; Nemecek et al., 2012) may
lead to large differences in both the yields and environmental impacts
characteristic of different farms and agricultural products (Boone et al.,
2016). In light of this heterogeneity, there is considerable potential to
improve resource use efficiencies and reduce associated emissions
through identification and dissemination of sustainability best practices.
Operations research (in the US) / operational research (in the UK)
employs statistics, optimization techniques, and other analytical ap­
proaches to model and solve complex decision-making problems (Car­
ravilla and Oliveira, 2013). Techniques from this field may hence help
realize efficiency gains and impact reductions in crop-livestock pro­
duction systems when applied in concert with LCA. Possible analyses
include benchmarking the performance of farms relative to one another
using data envelopment analysis (DEA) (Cooper and Seiford, 2007), and
optimization using mathematical programming and machine learning.
Due to considerable variability in farm level inputs, yields, and
environmental impacts, optimization of agricultural systems using a
single objective function will seldom be sufficient. Instead, multi-
objective optimization based on integration of an optimization method
and a mathematical algorithm that enables simultaneous consideration
of several objective functions will typically be required (Arora, 2015).
Multi-objective optimization has been applied to a wide range of agri­
cultural production systems covering both environmental and economic
goals. Example applications include dairy (Breen et al., 2019), wheat
(Galán-Martín et al., 2017), and field crop (Klein et al., 2013; Cap­
itanescu et al., 2017) production systems. Several studies have also re­
ported integration of different optimization methods into LCA of
agricultural and livestock production systems (Ali et al., 2015; Moha­
mad et al., 2014; Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2019; Vázquez-Rowe et al.,
2012).
Recently published literature reviews have variously addressed
optimization methods (Solano et al., 2020; Kaim et al., 2018), simula­
tion modelling (Utomo et al., 2018), and machine learning methods
(Liakos et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2020) for application to agricultural
supply chain research. Nonetheless, a general understanding of how
2
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
environmental goals contribute to agricultural decision-making pro­
cesses is still lacking. More information is required to critically analyze
the necessary elements for taking environmental goals into account.
Moreover, despite increased attention to the potential utility and
importance of applying optimization methods to improving sustain­
ability outcomes for agricultural crop and livestock products, a sys­
tematic basis for selecting appropriate optimization methods has not
been advanced to date. With a focus on literature that integrates LCA
and optimization methods, the current review hence aims to:
1- Identify and characterize trends in the application of OR methods for
reducing environmental impacts in agricultural crop and livestock
production systems (Section 3);
2- Identify the strengths and limitations of existing OR methods for
addressing the environmental impacts of agricultural crop and live­
stock production systems (Section 4);
3- Provide recommendations regarding best-fit OR methods for
different applications/contexts in agricultural crop and livestock
production systems (Section 5).
2. Review methodology
This review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic re­
views and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review method (Moher
et al., 2009), which includes “search strategy”, “screening criteria,” and
“extraction and synthesis of data” stages. Fig. 1 depicts how literature
were selected and screened in order to arrive at the final subset of (86)
papers that were identified for detailed review. Relevant peer-reviewed
literature was first identified using key word searchers with the Web of
Science search engine. Web of Science citation data was selected as it is
accurate and its outcome can be easily reproduced by other researchers.
A combination of logical operators “AND” or “OR” for search keywords
were applied (see Fig. 1). Relevant articles were identified by applying
three complementary search strategies: Search I located articles that use
Environmental and Operations Research (OR) keywords in their title
and crop-livestock keywords in their title and abstract, and Search II
identified articles in the category of “Operations Research Management
Science,” which is limited to OR Journals. Additional literature was
identified through searching the reference lists of selected literature
(Search III).
Two levels of screening were applied to select a subset of relevant
literature. First, the Web of Science toolbox was used to remove pro­
ceedings articles, editorial material and duplicates, as well as papers
written in languages other than English. Second, irrelevant literature
was identified and excluded by reviewing titles and abstracts. Only
literature that integrated LCA and optimization were selected for
detailed consideration. For example, if a paper only considered opti­
mization in the discussion section, it was discarded. Publications that
were not open access or for which institutional access was unavailable
were excluded as well. This review covers publications from 2000 on­
ward because beginning in the 2000s diverging approaches to LCA were
developed (e.g., spatially differentiated LCA, dynamic LCA, conse­
quential LCA, and risk-based LCA). This was also the time that many
international organizations invested in developing standardized
methods and policy applications (i.e., UNEP/SETAC launched Life Cycle
Initiative, European Commission communicates Integrated Product
Policy). Specifically, literature published from 2000 to 2020 (July) were
considered. The initial database searches resulted in 246 hits.
Descriptive analysis of the consulted literature, including the rate of
publication of relevant literature over the last 20 years, is depicted in
M.D. Heidari et al.
Section 3 (Review Question 1). This section intends to describe the
trends in publication by providing quantitative descriptions of the dis­
tribution of articles over time, and distribution of papers by crop or
livestock type. Recently published literature reviews which analyzed the
application of different machine learning techniques and optimization
methods to agricultural supply chain research (Kaim et al., 2018; Liakos
et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2020; Solano et al., 2020; Utomo et al., 2018)
were consulted to choose a set of application types that include all
reviewed methods. Based on these literature reviews and according to
the purpose of the assessment, OR methods in each paper were cate­
gorized into three groups: benchmarking (papers that employed Data
Envelopment Analysis), resource use management (papers that
employed mathematical programming and evolutionary algorithms),
and prediction (papers that employed neural networks). Depending on
the OR method, the Methods sections of the selected literature were
Fig. 1. Selection of literature based on the PRISMA systematic review method.
3
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
screened for information on objective functions, constraints, and deci­
sion variables to answer Review Question 2 (Section 4). Specific infor­
mation required for individual methods was identified by consulting
recently published literature reviews addressing individual methods.
More precisely, for Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) papers (Section
4.1), extracted data including case study type, spatial scope of the study,
number of decision making units (DMUs), number of inputs and outputs,
orientation of analysis, return to scale, and integration approach (Thies
et al., 2019) were tabulated and discussed. Selected literature that
applied Mathematical Programming (MP) (Section 4.2) and Evolu­
tionary Algorithms (EI) (Section 4.3) were discussed on the basis of
tabulated information including scope of the study, objective functions,
formulation type (linear programming, integer programming, and non-
linear programming), decision type (operational, tactical, and strategic),
decision variables, and constraints (Liakos et al., 2018; Thies et al.,
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

2019). Consulted literature that applied Neural Networks (NN) (Section
4.4) was investigated for their network architecture and performance
measures (Cabaneros et al., 2019). Selected literature were screened to
identify the strengths and limitations of each optimization modelling
method with respect to their integration approach with LCA based on
analysis of the Results, Discussion and Conclusion sections. Limitations
of the literature were classified based on the type of optimization
methods and were discussed (Review Question 2). The Results sections
of each study were screened to identify potential improvements, as
indicated by the applied optimization method, with respect to envi­
ronmental impacts (the type of improvement, reduction percentage,
etc.). Section 5 of this review summarizes and discusses the consulted
articles based on their decision types and OR methods (i.e., DEA, MP, EA
and NN). Based on the temporal scale and decision-makers, decisions
can be categorized under three types: operational, tactical and strategic
(Le Gal et al., 2011). Operational decisions refer to short-term (daily or
seasonal) decisions that are usually made by farmers and agricultural
agencies at local scales. Tactical decisions target medium-term goals and
are taken by farmers and institutions at regional scales. Strategic de­
cisions, which are also known as structural decisions, are long-term
decisions that are made by provincial, state and national agencies (Le
Gal et al., 2011; Robert et al., 2018). Each decision type can be sup­
ported by different OR methods. Based on a synthesis of results from
Review Questions 1 and 2 we hence derive a generalized decision tree,
along with method-specific methodological choices, to support practi­
tioners in identifying best-fit OR methods for optimization of environ­
mental outcomes in crop-livestock systems (Review Question 3).
eco-efficiency of individual farms. Publications from the last five years
mostly report using evolutionary algorithms in optimization of envi­
ronmental impacts and cost of production. The overall trend of publi­
cation is parallel with increasing attention to LCA since the early 2000s,
when the Life Cycle Initiative was launched by UNEP/SETAC (Hauschild
et al., 2017) and after 2009 when more attention has focused on specific
applications of LCA such as dynamic LCA, carbon footprinting and
consequential LCA (Guinée et al., 2011).
The application areas of the studies can be divided into two cate­
gories: agricultural crops and livestock products (Fig. 3). Agricultural
crop production systems were the most frequently assessed. This may be
explained by the relatively wider range and volume of agricultural crops
produced compared to livestock products. The agricultural crops
considered include a diverse range of perishable and non-perishable
crops such as cereals (Galán-Martín et al., 2017; Masuda, 2016;
Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016), vegetables and melons (Khoshnevisan
et al., 2015), fruits and nuts (Fleskens and de Graaff, 2010), oilseed
crops (Mohammadi et al., 2013; Mousavi-Avval et al., 2017), root crops
(Khoshnevisan et al., 2014; Khoshnevisan et al., 2013b), beverage and
spice crops (Gatimbu et al., 2020; Khanali et al., 2017), sugar crops (De
Oliveira Florentino and Pato, 2014; Kaab et al., 2019a, 2019b), and fiber
crops (Ullah et al., 2016; Ullah and Perret, 2014).

3. Descriptive analysis of the review database

In order to descriptively analyze trends in publication of relevant

literature (Review Question 1), article publication rate over time was
first determined (Fig. 2), and the foci of the publications were identified
via text mining. Case study types and spatial scale of the studies were
tallied as well.
As the distribution of articles published over time (Fig. 2) shows,
integration of OR methods into LCAs of agricultural and livestock pro­
duction systems has increased over the last five years (i.e., 52% of ar­
ticles). The high rate of publication in 2014 evinces a focus among
diverse researchers on using data envelopment analysis to improve the
Fig. 3. Distribution of papers by crop-livestock type.

Fig. 2. Search results by publication year.

4
M.D. Heidari et al.
The spatial scope of the reviewed articles is depicted in Fig. 4. In this
context, spatial scale refers to the area from which inventory data is
collected. Farm scale refers to articles that analyzed several variables
from a single farm, while region scale includes those studies analyzing
several farms within a specific region (e.g., a province) of a country.
Finally, country scale refers to studies that sampled data from several
regions of a country and are represented as a national average. The vast
majority of studies were performed at regional or national levels of
spatial resolution, suggesting the importance of using data from multiple
farms in most optimization modelling approaches.
Fig. 5 depicts the range and frequency of OR approaches that were
employed in the sustainability assessment of crop-livestock production
systems. The subsequent section discusses included articles on the basis
of each OR method. DEA has been most frequently applied, followed
closely be mathematical programming. Application of EIs and NNs have
been, comparatively, less frequently applied.
4. Application of operations research methods in environmental
assessment of crop-livestock systems
Subsequent sections will discuss the articles that used OR methods
including DEA (Section 4.1), Evolutionary Algorithms (SECTION 4.2),
Mathematical Programming (Section 4.3) and other methods (Section
4.4).
4.1. Data envelopment analysis
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a non-parametric method that
has been frequently applied to measure eco-efficiency at the farm-level.
Table 1 summarizes the information extracted from literature reporting
application of DEA in environmental assessment of crop-livestock
systems.
DEA is non-parametric statistical tool used to measure the relative
efficiency of similar Decision Making Units (DMU)s (Cooper and Seiford,
2007) within a homogeneous economic sector - for example, farms that
use similar inputs and product similar products or services - and to
determine a set of best performing DMUs as benchmarks from an
operational perspective. DEA employs a frontier analysis that takes all
inputs and outputs into account and converts them to a single measure
called efficiency (Cooper and Seiford, 2007).
The main objective of most DEA studies is to determine the most
efficient DMUs among those sampled based on those using the fewest
inputs or producing the most (or least) desirable (or undesirable) out­
puts. DEA models can be classified as input-oriented or output-oriented
models, where input-oriented models focus on improvement of effi­
ciency by minimizing inputs assuming constant outputs, while output-
oriented models aim to maximize outputs assuming constant input
Fig. 4. Distribution of papers by spatial scope.
5
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
Fig. 5. Distribution of papers by operational research method; DEA: Data
Envelopment Analysis; LP: Linear Programming; MIP: Mixed-Integer Program­
ming; NLP: Non-Linear Programming; EA: Evolutionary Algorithm.
levels (Cooper and Seiford, 2007). The majority of studies reviewed used
input-oriented models. This is likely the best choice for modelling crop-
livestock production systems, as farmers have more control over their
inputs to, rather than the outputs from, their farm. Only seven of the
studies considered employed output-oriented models (Berre et al., 2013;
Gerdessen and Pascucci, 2013; Gomes et al., 2015; Piot-Lepetit, 2014;
Rebolledo-Leiva et al., 2017; Reinhard et al., 2000; Rosano-Peña et al.,
2014).
DEA models may also be classified based on the returns-to-scale
model employed, which may be either Constant Returns to Scale
(CRS), or Variable Returns to Scale (VRS). CRS models, also known as
Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes or CCR models, assume that increases in
input levels lead to proportional increases in outputs. These types of
models calculate technical efficiency, and operate under the assumption
that DMUs operate in perfect competition with one another and are
operating at optimum capacity. This, however, is often not the case in
reality due to several factors including economic (Berre et al., 2013;
Hoang and Alauddin, 2012) and technical constraints (Piot-Lepetit,
2014), climatic conditions, etc.
In contrast, VRS models, also known as Banker, Charnes, and Cooper
or BCC models, assume disproportionate increases in outputs following
increases in inputs (Cooper and Seiford, 2007). These models are used to
calculate pure technical efficiency. Pure technical efficiency shows the
way that production unit resources are managed. Since increases in
input level usually do not result in proportionate increases in output
level (i.e., constant return to scale) pure technical efficiency (i.e., vari­
able return to scale) is generally better suited for modelling the realities
of DMUs (Berre et al., 2013; Gomes et al., 2015; Reinhard et al., 2000).
In order to maximize the discriminatory power of DEA to differen­
tiate between efficient and inefficient DMUs, the ratio between number
of DMUs and inputs and outputs included should not be low (Sanjuan
et al., 2011). There are several rules of thumb for determining the
minimum number of DMUs given the number of inputs and outputs
included in the analysis. Dyson et al. (2001) suggest that the number of
DMUs must be at least two times the sum of the inputs and outputs (the
consulted literature generally followed this rule, although is was not
explicitly stated that the rule informed the choice of sample size). Others
suggest that the number of DMUs be at least three times the sum of the
inputs and outputs (Bowlin, 1998). While there are arguments that
larger populations enable discerning the efficiency frontier more accu­
rately, others counter that large data sets may actually decrease con­
sistency and add the effects of unrelated impacts to the results (Sarkis,
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

Table 1
Analysis of articles employing DEA.
Reference Scope Case study DMUs Inputs Outputs Input- Output- CRS1 VRS2 Integration approach
oriented oriented

(Beltrán-Esteve et al., 2017) Country Crop 200 9 2 n.a3 n.a n.a n.a Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Berre et al., 2013) Region Livestock 51 4 3 ✓ ✓ –
(Ebrahimi and Salehi, 2015) Region Crop 22 7 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Esfahani et al., 2017) Region Crop 42 4 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Gatimbu et al., 2020) Region Crop 54 5 3 ✓ ✓ –
(Gerdessen and Pascucci, 2013) Region Crop 252 8 4 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Gomes et al., 2015) Country Livestock 21 6 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Grados and Schrevens, 2019) Region Crop 58 5 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Hoang and Alauddin, 2012) Country Crop 29 3 3 ✓ ✓ –
(Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha et al., Region Crop 120 6 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
2018)
(Houshyar et al., 2019) Region Crop 278 7 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Iribarren et al., 2010) Region Livestock 19 3 1 ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Iribarren et al., 2011) Region Livestock 72 8 3 ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Van Meensel et al., 2010) Country Livestock 117 11 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Kaab et al., 2019a) Region Crop 92 7–10 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Khoshnevisan et al., 2013a) Region Crop 260 9 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Masuda, 2016) Region Crop 36 2 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Masuda, 2019) Country Crop 36 2 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Mohammadi et al., 2013) Region Crop 94 9 1 ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Mohseni et al., 2018) Region Crop 58 11 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2016) Region Crop 39 7 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2017) Region Crop 240 7 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Paramesh et al., 2018) Region Crop 70 10 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ Three step joint DEA-
LCA
(Payandeh et al., 2017) Region Livestock 90 8–11 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ Eight step joint DEA-LCA
(Piot-Lepetit, 2014) Country Livestock 90 12 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Rebolledo-Leiva et al., 2017) Region Crop 14 6 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ Three step joint DEA-
LCA
(Reinhard et al., 2000) Country Livestock 613 6 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Rosano-Peña et al., 2014) Country Crop 33 3 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Serra et al., 2014) Region Crop 190 6 3 ✓ ✓ –
(Skevas and Serra, 2016) Country Crop 132 6 2 ✓ ✓ –
(Skevas et al., 2012) Country Livestock 188 8 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Skevas et al., 2014) Country Crop 119 7 1 ✓ ✓ –
(Soteriades et al., 2016) Region Livestock 185 5 3 ✓ –
(Syp et al., 2015) Region Crop 55 7 1 ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
(Toma et al., 2017) Country Crop 21 5 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ –
(Ullah and Perret, 2014) Region Crop 200 7 3 ✓ ✓ –
(Ullah et al., 2016) Region Crop 169 8 1 ✓ ✓ Three step joint DEA-
LCA
(Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012) Region Crop 40 10 1 ✓ ✓ Five step joint DEA-LCA
1
CRS: Constant Returns to Scale.
2
VRS: Variable Returns to Scale.

2002). Determining which position is more correct is, however, beyond
the scope of the current review.
Benchmarking is one of the main applications of joint LCA and DEA
studies. It is used to improve the efficiency of inefficient DMUs by
providing target efficiencies and identifying strategies to realize them.
This can subsequently lead to reductions in environmental impacts, as
quantified by LCA, as inefficient DMUs become more efficient. Addi­
tionally, DEA provides users the ability to prioritize specific inputs and
outputs by assigning weights to them (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2010). Joint
DEA and LCA application can be conducted in a five-step approach
(Iribarren et al., 2011; Iribarren et al., 2010; Mohammadi et al., 2013;
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2010) that includes:
1) Data collection and creating life cycle inventories for individual
DMUs;
2) Analyzing environmental impacts (LCIA stage) of individual DMUs;
3) Applying DEA, considering the most relevant inputs and outputs
(choice of user). This stage results in measurements of the eco-
efficiency of individual DMUs and the determination of the most
efficient DMUs as benchmarks. Target DMUs, virtual DMUs that uses
fewer resources and produce more outputs, will be formulated at this
stage.
4) Analyzing the environmental impacts of the target virtual DMUs
using the associated, hypothetical LCIs. This stage results in esti­
mation of the potential reductions in environmental impacts asso­
ciated with the target DMUs.
5) This final step aims to verify calculated eco-efficiency by comparing
the environmental impacts of the existing DMUs with the potential
environmental impacts of the target DMUs.
There is an alternative approach for joint DEA and LCA application
that entails three steps only (Lozano et al., 2010; Paramesh et al., 2018).
This approach employs the same first two steps as the five-step
approach); however, the third step differentiates it from the five-step
approach. The third step involves use of the LCI from the first step and
the characterization factors from the second step to create a DEA matrix
in order to calculate the eco-efficiency of individual DMUs. This, in turn,
provides an estimation of potential environmental impacts and LCIs for
target DMUs.
DEA is the most widely used benchmarking approach (Galindro
et al., 2019). Joint DEA-LCA application at regional scale has been
promoted in Europe (European Union, 2013), in particular when there is
a large number of farms with similar sets of inputs and outputs. There
are, however, several drawbacks associated with DEA modelling. The
quality of results in DEA largely relies on the modelling choices that the

6
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

researcher makes (i.e., return to scale, and efficiency type) (Wojcik et al.,
2019). In some studies, CCR models are frequently applied but result in
high variances in the efficiency results, while the choice of return to
scale has not been well explored (Wojcik et al., 2019).
4.1.1. Linear/non-linear/mixed integer programming
Linear programming (LP), non-linear programming (NLP) and
mixed-integer programming (MIP) are three powerful mathematical
programming (MP) techniques. They are also known as mathematical
optimization techniques. These three techniques can be combined with
LCA to optimize objective function(s) with respect to a set of specific
constraints, and hence to identify a set of optimum solutions for
improving the environmental performance of a product system. MP
approaches can be integrated with LCA at both the life cycle inventory
and life cycle impact assessment phases. Depending on the goal of the
study, objective functions are defined by an aggregated single environ­
mental impact or by multi-objective mathematical programming. Con­
straints are defined on the basis of all activities from extraction of raw
materials to their end of life stage (Caldeira et al., 2019); (Tascione et al.,
2014). Mathematical modelling using LP, MIP and NLP techniques often
include several constraints (i.e., economic, environmental, and tech­
nical). Table 2 summarizes the information extracted from literature
reporting application of linear/non-linear/mixed integer programming
in environmental assessment of crop-livestock systems.
LP is the most prevalent technique used for optimization of envi­
ronmental goals in crop-livestock production systems (13 of 27 studies),
followed by NLP (8 of 27 studies) and MIP (6 of 27 studies). While there
is a high level of uncertainty (arising from uncertain data points such as

Table 2
Analysis of articles employing mathematical programming.
Authors Scope Case Objectives Formulation Decision Constraint
study

(Annetts and Audsley, Country Crop Minimize the environmental outcome; maximize the profit LP1 Strategic Nutritional;
2002) economic
(Behera et al., 2015) Region Livestock Maximize net profit; minimize capital requirements minimize labor LP2 Operational; Economic
employment tactical
2
(Capitanescu et al., Country Crop Maximize farmer profit MIP Strategic Economic;
2017) environment
3
(Cobuloglu and Region Crop Maximize total benefit maximize environmental benefits NLP Tactical; Economic;
Büyüktahtakin, strategic environment;
2015) technical
(Cobuloglu and Region Crop Maximize total economic value MIP Operational; Economic; technical
Büyüktahtakin, tactical
2014)
(Cortignani and Region Crop Maximize land allocation maximize profit minimize water use LP Tactical; Economic
Severini, 2012) strategic
(Dowson et al., 2019) Region Livestock Maximize total profit NLP Tactical Nutritional
(Fasakhodi et al., Region Crop Maximize net return/water consumption maximize labor NLP Tactical Economic
2010) employment/water consumption
(Fleskens and de Region Crop Maximize gross margin maximize total labour input maximize LP Tactical Economic
Graaff, 2010) landscape value minimize water use minimize soil erosion minimize
burnt area maximize biodiversity value minimize pollution
(Galán-Martín et al., Region Crop Maximize crop production minimize environmental impacts LP Tactical Economic;
2017) environment
(Gebrezgabher et al., Country Livestock Maximize gross margin minimize GHG emissions, ammonia MIP Tactical Economic;
2014) emissions and land use change environment
(Giasson et al., 2002) Farm Livestock Minimize phosphorous index minimize cost NLP Operational Nutritional;
economic; technical
(Hassani et al., 2019) Region Livestock Maximize resilience maximize sustainability NLP Tactical Economic
(Huang et al., 2012) Region Crop Maximize long-term economic benefits minimize environmental NLP Tactical Economic
disbenefits
(Kang et al., 2020) Region Crop Maximize crop production LP Tactical; Economic
strategic
(Li et al., 2020) Region Crop Maximize net benefit minimize environmental impacts minimize MIP Tactical Economic;
social impacts environment;
technical
(Ma et al., 2018) Farm Crop Minimize quality degradation minimize cost MIP Tactical; Environment;
strategic technical
(Mansoori et al., 2009) Farm Crop Maximize farmer’s welfare minimize environmental burden LP Operational Economic
(Montazar, 2013) Region Crop Maximize net annual benefits NLP Tactical Economic
(von Ow et al., 2020) Country Crop Minimize aggregated environmental impacts LP Tactical Nutritional;
economic
(Rǎdulescu et al., Region Crop Minimize environmental risk maximize expected return minimize MIP Tactical Economic;
2014) financial risk environment
(Rohmer et al., 2019) Country Livestock Minimize environmental impacts minimize total cost LP Strategic Economic;
environment
(Viaggi et al., 2009) Region Crop Maximize profit LP Operational Economic; technical
(Xavier and Freitas, Region Crop Optimize 12 sustainability (social, economic and environmental) LP Operational –
2018) indicators
(Yuan et al., 2018) Region Crop Minimize environmental impacts LP Strategic Economic; technical
(Yuanyuan, 2020) Region Crop Maximize gross domestic product minimize environmental impacts NLP Tactical; Economic
strategic
(Zimmermann, 2008) Farm Livestock Maximize income maximize sustainability index LP Tactical; Economic
strategic
1
LP: Linear Programming.
2
MIP: Mixed-integer Linear Programming.
3
NLP: Non-Linear Programming.

7
M.D. Heidari et al.
revenue of farms and crop yields) with LP models when they are inte­
grated with LCA models, the simplicity of modelling and flexibility in
working with different decision variables make it the most popular
choice among MP models. LP models have been used to address diverse
decisions such as crop rotation, farm technology selection, economic
decisions, optimization of cropping patterns and resource use manage­
ment between crop and livestock farms, resource allocation, and
simultaneously maximizing crop productivity while minimizing envi­
ronmental impacts (Galán-Martín et al., 2017).
The majority of the articles reviewed performed optimization across
at least two objectives, however the optimization of several objectives
was not applied simultaneously. Generally, they looked to maximize
economic benefits for farms while minimizing environmental impacts.
Objective functions related to environmental impacts were mostly
emissions-based, focusing in particular on reducing GHG emissions
(Gebrezgabher et al., 2014). Economic objective functions usually seek
to maximize the difference between farm revenues and input costs.
With respect to parameter uncertainty, deterministic, stochastic or
robust modelling approaches may be used (Jornada and Leon, 2016).
Deterministic modelling refers to the use of classical optimization al­
gorithms that are mainly dependent on linear algebra. When model
parameters are deterministic, LP and MIP models are typically used
(Kong et al., 2019). When parameters are stochastic (Huang et al.,
2012), stochastic programming approaches are used.
Stochastic optimization including genetic algorithm, particle swarm
optimization and other evolutionary algorithms refers to optimization
modelling approaches where their objective functions (i.e., maximizing/
minimizing) deal with random variables (i.e., probability space) (Huang
et al., 2012). Robust optimizations are newer approaches that assume
the parameters belong to deterministic variables (Maggioni et al., 2015).
Depending on the type of products, several decision variables may be
used to formulate the objective functions. These variables may be
management-based (i.e. land allocation, time of seed sowing, types of
crop protection products and fertilizers, irrigation etc.), or resource-
based (i.e. seed, water, fertilizer, crop protection, and energy input
amounts, yield, etc.).
The decisions supported by these analyses may address short-, me­
dium-, or long-term issues. They may also be classified as operational,
tactical, or strategic decisions. According to (Risbey et al., 1999), short-
term decisions (i.e., operational) address seasonal decisions (< one
year), medium-term decisions (i.e., tactical) cover multiple year (1–5
years) decisions, and strategic decisions address long-term (> five years)
decisions. However, distinguishing between decisions on the basis of
temporal scale is not always clear.
Strategic decisions typically refer to long-term issues such as de­
cisions on crop rotations, selection of optimum crop mix in multi-crop
systems, selection of farm equipment, selection of mechanization level
of farms, monetary planning, reservoir management, and planning lo­
gistics for harvested products. Objective functions for these models are
traditionally presented as economic goals such as maximizing farm
utility, revenue, net present value, and profit, or minimizing input cost.
They may also be environmental goals such as minimizing land use,
water use, GHG emissions or other environmental impacts.
Tactical decisions address issues in short to medium term planning
on farms such as water allocation, required labor, harvesting schedule
(He et al., 2018), or post-harvesting activities (Chandrasekaran and
Ranganathan, 2017). Objective functions associated with tactical
models are traditionally accompanied by an economic goal such as
minimizing cost of inputs or maximizing farm profits, as well. Opera­
tional decisions, which have been less frequently addressed than tactical
decisions, deal with short term (day-to-day) issues and farm-scale
planning, such as scheduling of land preparation, mix and amount of
farm inputs, harvest scheduling (Xie et al., 2018), and storage planning.
From the modelling point of view, some studies address both strategic
and tactical decisions, such as analyzing the performance of alternative
farming practices (Yuanyuan, 2020), or combine operational and
8
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
tactical decisions.
Similar to the OR methods considered, mathematical programming
has been mostly employed for crop production (20 of 27 studies). This
may be due to the high importance of cereal crops such as corn, wheat
and rice. Mathematical programming has been mostly employed for
regional-scale issues (18 of 27 studies), where objective functions target
a sample of farms in a specific region.
One of the limitations of LP models is high uncertainty in its pa­
rameters (Huang et al., 2012). In contrast, Stochastic Programming (SP)
models can deal with uncertainty in objective functions - normally as
probability distribution functions known as random (stochastic) pa­
rameters (Huang et al., 2012). Application of mathematical program­
ming models is also sometimes criticized for limited stakeholder
involvement in the modelling process, and for considering single aspects
in defining objective functions such as land use, irrigation, or farm
technology (Udias et al., 2018). In order to overcome the drawbacks of
single objective LP models, multi-objective optimization models using
LP, MIP and NLP models take several management aspects of a farm into
account.
4.2. Evolutionary algorithms
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are potentially powerful tools for
multi-objective optimization. Generally, the solution finding methods
used by EAs may be classified as elitist, or non-elitist. Both Pareto’s
frontier, and non-dominate sorting genetic algorithms (NSGA-II) are
examples of elitist solution finding methods, in which multi-objective
problems are solved such that no solution for any single objective
function dominates (i.e. is preferred) over the solution for any other
objective function. In contrast, non-elitist methods allow for potential
dominance of solutions over one another (Yusoff et al., 2011).
EAs can be easily customized depending on the studied problem. The
two main approaches used for searching for solutions are genetic algo­
rithms (GAs), and particle swarm optimization (PSOs). GAs are a type of
search algorithm that work according to the principles of natural se­
lection and evolution. These algorithms use probabilistic rules for pa­
rameters, meaning it is a stochastic search algorithm. PSOs are another
type of evolutionary algorithm that imitate swarm behavior of birds to
search among solution spaces. Table 3 summarizes the information
extracted from literature reporting application of evolutionary algo­
rithms in environmental assessment of crop-livestock systems.
Multi-objective EAs using GAs and PSOs have been applied to opti­
mization of many objectives in crop-livestock research, including
maximizing farm profits, energy outputs, benefit/cost ratios, crop pro­
ductivity, and minimizing environmental impacts, farm costs, and en­
ergy surplus (Groot et al., 2012; Maiyar and Thakkar, 2019; Pastori,
2017; Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2019). The majority of the consulted works,
however, used elitist methods – in particular, genetic algorithms.
EA-based studies cover a wide range of decision contexts, including
resource use management (Barak et al., 2016; López-Andrés et al., 2018;
Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2019; Shamshirband et al., 2015; Villalba et al.,
2019), farm management practices (Breen et al., 2019), transportation
and logistics (Maiyar and Thakkar, 2019; Wang et al., 2018), and crop
selection (De Oliveira Florentino and Pato, 2014). Economic constraints
are the most common constraint utilized; however, some studies
employed environmental (Chandrasekaran and Ranganathan, 2017;
Pastori, 2017; Shamshirband et al., 2015) and nutritional constraints
(De Oliveira Florentino and Pato, 2014) as well.
Integration of EAs with LCA usually proceeds obtaining the results of
an LCA study. The decision variables of joint LCA-EA models are typi­
cally the farm inputs (e.g., fuel consumption, seed, feed for livestock,
energy consumption), while environmental impacts are entered as out­
puts. Objective functions of joint LCA-EA models are minimizing indi­
vidual environmental impacts or aggregated impacts. Evolutionary
algorithms (i.e., GA and PSO in this review) are then used to generate
optimal alternatives (López-Andrés et al., 2018; Maiyar and Thakkar,
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

Table 3
Analysis of articles employing evolutionary algorithms.
Authors Scope Case Objectives Formulation name Decision variables Decision Constraint
study

(Pishgar-Komleh Region Crop Maximize economic output; MOGA NSGA-II Resource use management Operational; Economic
et al., 2019) minimize environmental using Pareto front; tactical
impacts PSO; ANN
(Breen et al., 2019) Farm Livestock Maximize annual net profit; MOGA with Eleven decision variables Operational; Economic
minimize annual farm CO2 weighting factors related to farm equipment; tactical
emissions management practices;
electricity tariffs
(Maiyar and Thakkar, Region Crop Minimize total cost PSO using Pareto Shipment quantity; route Tactical; Economic
2019) plots selection; hub location strategic
(Villalba et al., 2019) Farm Livestock Maximize financial margin, MOGA; NSGA-II Resource use management; Operational; Economic
minimize nitrogen; minimize feeding management; tactical
energy surplus reproduction management
(López-Andrés et al., Farm Livestock Maximize economic benefits; MOGA; Pareto front Resource use management Operational; Economic
2018) minimize environmental tactical
impacts
(Pastori, 2017) Country Crop Maximize farmer’s income; MOGA; Pareto front Fertilization and irrigation Tactical; Economic;
minimize nitrogen leaching practices strategic environment
(Mousavi-Avval et al., Region Crop Maximize output energy; MOGA; NSGA-II Resource use management Operational; Economic
2017) minimize environmental tactical
emissions; maximize benefit to
cost ratio
(Chandrasekaran and Country Crop Minimize total cost; maximize GA; constraint- Carbon dioxide loss at each Tactical Economic;
Ranganathan, total supply; minimize total dependent crossover stage of supply chain environment
2017) CO2 emission and mutation
(Barak et al., 2016) Region Crop Minimize GHG emissions; MOPSO; MOGA Energy use management Operational; Economic
maximize output energy; NSGA-II; NRGA; tactical
maximize benefit cost ratio Pareto front
(Shamshirband et al., Region Crop Minimize GHG emissions; MOGA; Pareto front Energy use management Operational; Environment
2015) maximize output energy; tactical
maximize benefit cost ratio
(Khoshnevisan et al., Region Crop Minimize environmental MOGA; Pareto front Resource use management Operational; Economic
2015) impacts tactical
(De Oliveira Region Crop Minimize collection and Bi-objective GA; Selection of crop varieties Tactical; Nutritional;
Florentino and transport costs; maximize Pareto front strategic economic
Pato, 2014) energy balance

MOGA: Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm; NSGA-II: Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II; PSO: Particle Swarm Optimization.

2019). Advantages of EAs include that they are conceptually easy to layer (input layer), one hidden layer with eight neurons and two outputs
understand and flexible in application, support multi-objective optimi­ (for example, two environmental impacts) in the output layer.
zation, and use stochastic optimization. The principle drawback of joint Feedforward NNs are the simplest types of NNs. They have no cyclic
EA-LCA is, however, the lack of a standardized integration method. How node connections, and they work in one direction. Inputs are supplied
to determine the stop point (i.e. where the global optimum is achieved) into the input layer and delivered from the output layer. The only in­
is also unclear in GAs (Sahoo et al., 2017; Sarker and Ray, 2009). ternal links in feedforward NNs are the links between weights.
Depending on the outputs of the analyzed data, the learning algo­
rithms of NNs can be supervised or unsupervised. If the desired output is
4.3. Neural network
known in the model, the learning algorithm is supervised. NN models
that are used for prediction and regression problems are supervised
An NN is a computing system consisting of a set of connected nodes
(Liakos et al., 2018). Unsupervised networks have no target outputs and
that are associated with a set of determinant weights. NNs are intended
their learning algorithm is different from supervised networks. The main
to simulate the action of human brain and train nodes. The nodes of an
application of unsupervised networks is clustering (i.e., looking for
NN are independent of each other, and thus act individually based on
natural groupings of data). Therefore, they are not further discussed in
their particular inputs and associated weights (Russell and Norvig,
this paper, but interested readers can refer to (Längkvist et al., 2014). In
2002). Weights determine the impact of connection among nodes. Initial
order to develop algorithms in supervised networks, it is necessary to
weights are determined by the NN, and these weights are subsequently
assign a set of samples (i.e., each individual farm is a sample) to train the
updated by learning algorithms.
NN.
There are at least three layers in each NN: the input layer, hidden
Table 4 summarizes the information extracted from literature
layer, and output layer. The input layer consists of the initial data fed
reporting application of NNs in environmental assessment of crop-
into the system, while the output layer consists of the prediction results.
livestock systems.
Hidden layers located between the input and output layer consist of a set
Modelling and prediction of farm inputs and outputs are the main
of neurons that have the responsibility for all computation tasks. Larger
application of NNs in crop-livestock production systems. In contrast with
numbers of hidden layers will result in more complex networks and
linear regression modelling, NNs can predict several outputs at a time.
longer modelling processes. Weights are parameters that are applied
They have been variously applied to modelling energy output (Elahi
within the nodes (i.e., neurons) of the hidden layers.
et al., 2019; Kaab et al., 2019b; Khoshnevisan et al., 2014; Khoshnevisan
The architecture of an NN is described by the number of hidden
et al., 2013c; Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2018), farm yields (Khanali et al.,
layers and number of neurons in each layer. The first and last numbers
2017), GHG emissions (Khoshnevisan et al., 2014; Khoshnevisan et al.,
show input and output layers, respectively. Middle values show the
2013c), and other environmental impacts (Bonfiglio, 2011; Kaab et al.,
number of neurons in the hidden layers. An NN with these features:
2019b; Khanali et al., 2017; Khoshnevisan et al., 2013b; Nabavi-
8–8–2 (Bonfiglio, 2011), for example, comprises eight inputs in the first

9
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

Table 4
Analysis of articles employing NN.
Authors Scope Case Functionality Decision variables Decision Network architecture Performance
study measures

(Kaab et al., 2019b) Region Crop Prediction of energy Output energy; Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; MAPE; RMSE
and environmental environmental strategic layers 9–10 - 5 - 11; 7–9 - 6 - 11; 70%
impacts impacts training 15% test 15% validation
(Elahi et al., 2019) Region Livestock Prediction of renewable Energy use on farms Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; MSE
and non-renewable strategic layers 1–10 - 9
energy
(Nabavi-Pelesaraei Region Crop Prediction of energy Output energy; Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R; RMSE; MAPE
et al., 2018) and environmental environmental strategic layers 12–6 - 8 - 1; 70% training 15%
impacts impacts test 15% validation
(Khanali et al., 2017) Region Crop Modelling of yield and Yield; environmental Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; RMSE; MAPE
environmental impacts impacts strategic layers 8–10 - 11 -11; 8–8 - 10 -11;
8–12 - 7 - 11; 70% training 15% test
15% validation
(Khoshnevisan et al., Region Crop Prediction of output Output energy; GHG Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; RMSE; MAE
2014) energy and GHG emissions strategic layers 12–8 - 2; 60% training 15% test
emissions 25% validation
(Khoshnevisan et al., Region Crop Prediction of energy use Energy use; GHG Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; MSE; MRE
2013a, 2013b, and GHG emissions emissions strategic layers 11–3 - 2; 80% training 20% test
2013c)
(Khoshnevisan et al., Region Crop Prediction of Environmental Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; RMSE; MAE
2013a, 2013b, environmental impacts impacts strategic layers 11–10 - 6; 60% training 25%
2013c) test 15% validation
(Bonfiglio, 2011) Region Crop Prediction of Environmental Tactical; Back-propagation feed-forward; R2; percentage of
environmental impacts impacts strategic layers 8–8 - 2; 70% training 30% predicted negative
validation values

MAPE: Mean Absolute Percentage Error; RMSE: Root Mean Square Error; MSE: Mean Squared Error; MAE: Mean Absolute Error; MRE: Mean Relative Error

Pelesaraei et al., 2018) in crop-livestock systems.
Modelling with an NN requires first defining the set of inputs and
output(s). In the case of integrating an NN with LCA, the amounts of
farm inputs are usually modelled as the input layer whereas life cycle
environmental impacts are the output layer of the NN. Data collected
data from farms must be broken down into three datasets including
training, validation and test groups. Around 70–80% of data are used to
train the network, and the rest of the data are used for validation and
testing (Khoshnevisan et al., 2013c).
In order to train an NN, data from multiple farms should be utilized,
as was the case in all studies considered (i.e. regional scale). The per­
formance of an NN may be assessed using statistical measures such as the
R and R2 values, and error indicators such as MAPE, RMSE, MSE, MAE
and MRE. These methods compare the outputs of the NN to the correct
outputs, as labelled in the test data. NNs have proven to be reliable in
dealing with large sets of variables. The capacity to analyze several
outputs at a time is another advantage of NNs, as is the relatively modest
simulation time requirement (Sharif and Hammad, 2019). Similar to
EAs, the validity of the results from NNs is strongly conditioned by the
choices that users make during modelling, but there is currently no
consensus as to best practice for determining the appropriate structure
for NNs (Elahi et al., 2019; Kaab et al., 2019b). Rather, users rely on
experimentation and checking the error indicators.
5. Best-fit OR methods for optimizing environmental outcomes
in crop-livestock systems
This section summarizes the key features of OR methods with respect
to their main applications for different decision types aimed at opti­
mizing environmental outcomes in crop-livestock systems. Best-fit OR
approaches for specific decision types are identified. On this basis, a
general framework in the format of a decision tree for selecting among
OR methods is proposed.
Application of the reviewed OR methods to decision support in crop-
livestock systems can be broadly categorized based on three decision
types: strategic, tactical and operational. Strategic decisions are usually
made by governments and other national or global decision makers,
while other stakeholders including farmers and local farm managers are
primarily responsible for operational and tactical decisions (Carravilla
and Oliveira, 2013). Table 5 summarizes the three decision types (i.e.,
strategic, tactical, and operational) represented in the reviewed studies,
and the OR methods applied (i.e., DEA, MP, EA, and NN).
Decisions using strategic models in the reviewed studies variously
covered the whole supply chain of products, including production,
processing and transportation aspects. Examples of such decisions
include selection of crops, farm, infrastructure, and farm machinery
size/level of mechanization (He et al., 2018). Benchmarking refers to
identifying the most efficient farms, so that best practices may be
adapted and applied to other farms that are operating inefficiently
(Kahan, 2013). This is mainly implemented using DEA. Benchmarking
using DEA is typically used to support mid-to-short term decisions (i.e.,
tactical and operational decisions) such as timing of farm operations like
sowing, irrigation and harvesting. Prediction of farm outputs or envi­
ronmental impacts are the typical application of NNs. NNs support both
strategic and tactical decision making. Operational models (i.e.,
temporal-scale less than one year) are more important for decisions
impacting logistics for fresh and perishable products with a short shelf
life. Mathematical programming can be used with all decision types, but
was mainly applied for tactical and operational decisions in the studies
considered. Resource use management was the main application of MP
and EA approaches and was used to support all three decision types
(operational, tactical and strategic) including type and amount of seed,
fertilizers, crop protection products, water, fuel, and electricity
consumption.
Considering the main applications of OR methods and the method­
ological choices characteristic of each method a generalized decision
tree along with method-specific methodological choices is described in
Fig. 6 to help users select best fit OR methods for optimization of envi­
ronmental outcomes in crop-livestock production.
Based on the nature of the methods and frequency of application as
observed in the reviewed studies, the best-fit OR methods to support
optimization efforts in crop-livestock systems will generally be DEA for
benchmarking, NNs for prediction, and mathematical programming or
evolutionary algorithms for resource management decision types.
Selecting inputs and outputs and choosing performance measures are
common methodological choices that are required for each OR method.

10
M.D. Heidari et al. Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208

Table 5
Analysis of different OR methods in benchmarking, prediction, and resource use management decision support applications for crop-livestock
systems.

Fig. 6. A generalized decision tree for selecting best fit OR methods for optimizing environmental outcomes in crop-livestock production.

11
M.D. Heidari et al.
Error metrics such as MSE and MAE, and statistical measures such as the
R and R2 values are typically used to measure the performance of NN
and EI methods. These measures generally work under the concept of
similarity and distance (Deza and Deza, 2016). In NNs, for example,
these performance measures are used to compare the outputs of trained
models with the actual outputs. For more on performance measures in
OR methods, interested readers can refer to (Botchkarev, 2018). The
compilation of decision variables is performed using selected inputs and
outputs. Decision variables are then presented as objective functions for
mathematical programming and evolutionary algorithm approaches and
as eco-efficiency objectives in the case of using benchmarking tech­
niques (e.g., DEA).
Prior to implementing selected OR methods, a number of key con­
siderations must be resolved including identifying the spatial scale and
uncertainty aspects of the OR methods. The objectives of the study will
generally determine the spatial scale. As per Section 3 (Fig. 4), OR
methods may be implemented at three spatial scales: farm, region and
country. Farm-level studies do not need to address the heterogeneity
among decision variables across different farms, as is required in
regional scale studies. The main advantages of farm-level models are the
ease of data collection, as data needs only to be collected from a single
farm. However, the outputs of a farm-level model cannot be applied at a
greater spatial scale due to potentially poor representativeness.
Regional-scale studies are grounded in the assumption that the studied
sample is representative of the studied population. At a larger scale,
some studies randomly selected a sample of farms from several regions
of a country to represent a national-average. These are known as
national-scale/country-level models. Macro-level models can reflect
national and global trends but are unable to show differences between
farm-level decision variables.
As another key consideration, uncertainty and risk assessment are
essential elements in optimization modelling of agricultural systems, but
have been traditionally ignored in most model developments, in
particular when LP models are employed (Dury et al., 2012). Agricul­
tural decisions are mainly affected by climate conditions and market
prices (Han et al., 2019). Differences in these parameters result in
additional model uncertainty (Nuthall, 2018). Stochastic modelling
methods present promising approaches for addressing uncertainty in
agricultural decision-making contexts. Such approaches consider the
possibility of measures over time, climate conditions, and market vari­
abilities, and sample values for decision variables accordingly. Some
optimization models, such as those developed by Dowson et al. (2019),
do take into account uncertainty in input parameters and analyze its
impact on the model outputs. Objective functions of stochastic optimi­
zation models employ scenario uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty due to
choices of probability distribution types) in their formulation. Integra­
tion of uncertainty into these models provides solutions that are more
relevant to real world situations (Aien et al., 2014); however, doing so
introduces a significant additional computational burden. Several
studies have addressed techniques to lessen computational pressure
rising from stochastic optimizations (Reddy et al., 2017). Compared to
other OR methods, using stochastic optimization models in crop-
livestock production systems is still relatively uncommon.
6. Conclusions
To ensure net-positive outcomes from sustainability decision making
in crop-livestock production systems, it is important that stakeholders
are able to make informed decisions based on the totality of the resource
burdens and environmental impacts of the systems they manage. The
aim of this study was to review and synthesize information regarding
operations research methods as applied to optimization or prediction of
environmental outcomes in crop-livestock systems.
A variety of models were found to support optimization efforts in
crop-livestock systems, which were categorized on the basis of their
application: DEA for benchmarking; NNs for prediction; and
12
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
mathematical programming or evolutionary algorithms for resource
management. The generalized decision tree proposed in Section 5 aims
to help users to select the best-fit OR method for specific environmental
optimization decision types in crop-livestock production, and to provide
an indication of necessary method-specific methodological choices.
Benchmarking problems are mostly addressed using DEA. Method­
ological choices for this approach include identifying the return to scale
(i.e., CRS, VRS) and modelling orientation (i.e., input-oriented, output-
oriented). A challenging issue, however, is choosing the right sample
size (number of DMUs). Since there is no current consensus as to how to
best determine the number of DMUs, further research in this area is
recommended.
Evolutionary algorithms (GA and PSO) and mathematical program­
ming (LP, MIP, and NLP) are more suitable for resource use management
(i.e., optimization) issues. The common methodological choices for
these two methods are defining decision variables and building objec­
tive functions. Farm inputs such as energy and seed consumptions are
defined as decision variables, while environmental impacts are used as
the outputs of objective functions.
Supervised feedforward NNs are typically implemented to predict
output (i.e., yield and environmental impacts) of farms. Determining the
appropriate structure for networks (i.e., number of hidden layers and
number of neurons in each layer) is a key methodological consideration
in this approach. Statistical measures such as the R and R2 values and
error indicators such as MSE and MAE are mainly applied to measure the
performance of NN and EI methods.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This project is funded by the NSERC/Egg Farmers of Canada Indus­
trial Research Chair in Sustainability, with infrastructure funding from
the Canada Foundation for Innovation John Evans Leaders Fund.
References
Aien, M., Rashidinejad, M., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., 2014. On possibilistic and probabilistic
uncertainty assessment of power flow problem: a review and a new approach.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.063.
Ali, S.A., Tedone, L., De Mastro, G., 2015. Optimization of the environmental
performance of rainfed durum wheat by adjusting the management practices.
J. Clean. Prod. 87, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.029.
Annetts, J.E., Audsley, E., 2002. Multiple objective linear programming for
environmental farm planning. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53, 933–943. https://doi.org/
10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601404.
Arora, R.K., 2015. Optimization : Algorithms and Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Barak, S., Yousefi, M., Maghsoudlou, H., Jahangiri, S., 2016. Energy and GHG emissions
management of agricultural systems using multi objective particle swarm
optimization algorithm: a case study. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A. 30, 1167–1187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1098-1.
Behera, U.K., Kaechele, H., France, J., 2015. Integrated animal and cropping systems in
single and multi-objective frameworks for enhancing the livelihood security of
farmers and agricultural sustainability in northern India. Anim. Prod. Sci. 55, 1338.
https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14526.
Beltrán-Esteve, M., Reig-Martínez, E., Estruch-Guitart, V., 2017. Assessing eco-efficiency:
a metafrontier directional distance function approach using life cycle analysis.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 63, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eiar.2017.01.001.
Berre, D., Boussemart, J.P., Leleu, H., Tillard, E., 2013. Economic value of greenhouse
gases and nitrogen surpluses: society vs farmers’ valuation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 226,
325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.017.
Bonfiglio, A., 2011. A neural network for evaluating environmental impact of decoupling
in rural systems. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 35, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compenvurbsys.2010.06.004.
Boone, L., Van Linden, V., De Meester, S., Vandecasteele, B., Muylle, H., Roldán-Ruiz, I.,
Nemecek, T., Dewulf, J., 2016. Environmental life cycle assessment of grain maize
production: an analysis of factors causing variability. Sci. Total Environ. 553,
551–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.089.
Botchkarev, A., 2018. Performance Metrics (Error Measures) in Machine Learning
Regression, Forecasting and Prognostics: Properties and Typology. Interdisciplinary
M.D. Heidari et al.
Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 14, 45–76. https://doi.org/
10.28945/4184.
Bowlin, W.F., 1998. Measuring performance: an introduction to data envelopment
analysis (DEA). The Journal of Cost Analysis 15, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08823871.1998.10462318.
Breen, M., Murphy, M.D., Upton, J., 2019. Development of a dairy multi-objective
optimization (DAIRYMOO) method for economic and environmental optimization of
dairy farms. Appl. Energy 242, 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2019.03.059.
Cabaneros, S.M., Calautit, J.K., Hughes, B.R., 2019. A review of artificial neural network
models for ambient air pollution prediction. Environ. Model. Softw. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.06.014.
Caldeira, C., Freire, F., Olivetti, E.A., Kirchain, R., Dias, L.C., 2019. Analysis of cost-
environmental trade-offs in biodiesel production incorporating waste feedstocks: A
multi-objective programming approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 216, 64–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.126.
Capitanescu, F., Marvuglia, A., Navarrete Gutiérrez, T., Benetto, E., 2017. Multi-stage
farm management optimization under environmental and crop rotation constraints.
J. Clean. Prod. 147, 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.076.
Carravilla, M.A., Oliveira, J.F., 2013. Operations research in agriculture: better decisions
for a scarce and uncertain world. Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics
2, 37–46.
Chandrasekaran, M., Ranganathan, R., 2017. Modelling and optimisation of Indian
traditional agriculture supply chain to reduce post-harvest loss and CO2 emission.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 117, 1817–1841. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2016-
0383.
Clark, M.A., Domingo, N.G.G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S.K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J.,
Azevedo, I.L., Hill, J.D., 2020. Global food system emissions could preclude
achieving the 1.5◦ and 2◦ C climate change targets. Science (New York, N.Y.) 370,
705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357.
Cobuloglu, H.I., Büyüktahtakin, I.E., 2014. A mixed-integer optimization model for the
economic and environmental analysis of biomass production. Biomass Bioenergy 67,
8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.025.
Cobuloglu, H.I., Büyüktahtakin, I.E., 2015. Food vs. biofuel: an optimization approach to
the spatio-temporal analysis of land-use competition and environmental impacts.
Appl. Energy 140, 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.080.
Conforti, P., 2011. Looking Ahead in worLd Food and agricuLture: Perspectives to 2050
Agricultural Development Economics Division Economic and Social Development
Department.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., 2007. Data Envelopment Analysis a Comprehensive Text
with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software Second Edition.
Springer.
Cortignani, R., Severini, S., 2012. A constrained optimization model based on
generalized maximum entropy to assess the impact of reforming agricultural policy
on the sustainability of irrigated areas. Agric. Econ. 43, 621–633. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00608.x.
De Oliveira Florentino, H., Pato, M.V., 2014. A bi-objective genetic approach for the
selection of sugarcane varieties to comply with environmental and economic
requirements. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65, 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1057/
jors.2013.21.
Deza, M.M., Deza, E., 2016. Encyclopedia of Distances, Encyclopedia of Distances.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-52844-0
Dowson, O., Philpott, A., Mason, A., Downward, A., 2019. A multi-stage stochastic
optimization model of a pastoral dairy farm. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 274, 1077–1089.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.033.
Dury, J., Schaller, N., Garcia, F., Reynaud, A., Bergez, J.E., 2012. Models to support
cropping plan and crop rotation decisions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development. doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0037-x.
Dyson, R.G., Allen, R., Camanho, A.S., Podinovski, V.V., Sarrico, C.S., Shale, E.A., 2001.
Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 132, 245–259. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00149-1.
Ebrahimi, R., Salehi, M., 2015. Investigation of CO2 emission reduction and improving
energy use efficiency of button mushroom production using data envelopment
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.02.032.
Elahi, E., Weijun, C., Jha, S.K., Zhang, H., 2019. Estimation of realistic renewable and
non-renewable energy use targets for livestock production systems utilising an
artificial neural network method: a step towards livestock sustainability. Energy 183,
191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.084.
Esfahani, S.M.J., Naderi, K.M., Saadi, H., Dourandish, A., 2017. Efficiency and
Sustainability of Silage Corn Production by Data Envelopment Analysis and Multi-
Functional Ecological Footprint: Evidence from Sarayan County, Iran. J. Agr. Sci.
Tech. 19, 1453–1468. In this issue.
European Union, 2013. European Commission recommendations n. 2013/19/EU of 9
april 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life
cycle environmental performance of products and organizations.
Fasakhodi, A.A., Nouri, S.H., Amini, M., 2010. Water resources sustainability and
optimal cropping pattern in farming systems; a multi-objective fractional goal
programming approach. Water Resour. Manag. 24, 4639–4657. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-010-9683-z.
Fedele, A., Mazzi, A., Niero, M., Zuliani, F., Scipioni, A., 2014. Can the life cycle
assessment methodology be adopted to support a single farm on its environmental
impacts forecast evaluation between conventional and. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 49–59.
Fleskens, L., de Graaff, J., 2010. Conserving natural resources in olive orchards on
sloping land: alternative goal programming approaches towards effective design of
13
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
cross-compliance and Agri-environmental measures. Agric. Syst. 103, 521–534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.05.005.
Galán-Martín, Á., Vaskan, P., Antón, A., Esteller, L.J., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., 2017. Multi-
objective optimization of rainfed and irrigated agricultural areas considering
production and environmental criteria: a case study of wheat production in Spain.
J. Clean. Prod. 140, 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.099.
Galindro, B.M., Zanghelini, G.M., Soares, S.R., 2019. Use of benchmarking techniques to
improve communication in life cycle assessment: a general review. J. Clean. Prod.
213, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.147.
Gatimbu, K.K., Ogada, M.J., Budambula, N.L.M., 2020. Environmental efficiency of
small-scale tea processors in Kenya: an inverse data envelopment analysis (DEA)
approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 3333–3345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
019-00348-x.
Gebrezgabher, S.A., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2014. A multiple
criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the
Netherlands. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 232, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2013.08.006.
Gerdessen, J.C., Pascucci, S., 2013. Data envelopment analysis of sustainability
indicators of european agricultural systems at regional level. Agric. Syst. 118, 78–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.03.004.
Gerland, P., Raftery, A.E., Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., Alkema, L.,
Fosdick, B.K., Chunn, J., Lalic, N., Bay, G., Buettner, T., Heilig, G.K., Wilmoth, J.,
2014. World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 346, 234–237.
https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1257469.
Giasson, E., Bryant, R.B., Bills, N.L., 2002. Environmental and economic optimization of
dairy manure management. Agron. J. 94, 757–766. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2002.7570.
Gomes, E.G., De Abreu, U.G.P., De Mello, J.C.C.B.S., De Carvalho, T.B., De Zen, S., 2015.
Economic and socio-environmental performance assessment of beef cattle
production systems: a data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach with weight
restrictions. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 44, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-
92902015000600004.
Grados, D., Schrevens, E., 2019. Multidimensional analysis of environmental impacts
from potato agricultural production in the Peruvian Central Andes. Sci. Total
Environ. 663, 927–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.414.
Groot, J.C.J., Oomen, G.J.M., Rossing, W.A.H., 2012. Multi-objective optimization and
design of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 110, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2012.03.012.
Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T.,
Rydberg, T., 2011. Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 45, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v.
Han, E., Baethgen, W.E., Ines, A.V.M., Mer, F., Souza, J.S., Berterretche, M., Atunez, G.,
Barreira, C., 2019. SIMAGRI: An agro-climate decision support tool. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 161, 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.06.034.
Hassani, L., Daneshvar Kakhki, M., Sabouhi Sabouni, M., Ghanbari, R., 2019. The
optimization of resilience and sustainability using mathematical programming
models and metaheuristic algorithms. J. Clean. Prod. 228, 1062–1072. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.324.
Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and
Practice, Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3.
He, P., Li, J., Wang, X., 2018. Wheat harvest schedule model for agricultural machinery
cooperatives considering fragmental farmlands. Comput. Electron. Agric. 145,
226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.12.042.
Hoang, V.N., Alauddin, M., 2012. Input-orientated data envelopment analysis framework
for measuring and decomposing economic, environmental and ecological efficiency:
an application to OECD agriculture. Environ. Resour. Econ. 51, 431–452. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9506-6.
Hokazono, S., Hayashi, K., 2015. Life cycle assessment of organic paddy rotation systems
using land- and product-based indicators: a case study in Japan. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 20, 1061–1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0906-7.
Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Khanali, M., Ghahderijani, M.,
Chau, K. Wing, 2018. Application of data envelopment analysis approach for
optimization of energy use and reduction of greenhouse gas emission in peanut
production of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1327–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.10.282.
Houshyar, E., Chen, B., Chen, G.Q., 2019. Environmental impacts of rice production
analyzed via social capital development: an Iranian case study with a life cycle
assessment/data envelopment analysis approach. Ecol. Indic. 105, 675–687. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.040.
Huang, Y., Li, Y.P., Chen, X., Ma, Y.G., 2012. Optimization of the irrigation water
resources for agricultural sustainability in Tarim River basin, China. Agric. Water
Manag. 107, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.01.012.
Iribarren, D., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Further potentials in the
joint implementation of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Sci.
Total Environ. 408, 5265–5272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.078.
Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Benchmarking environmental
and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. Sci. Total
Environ. 409, 1786–1798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.02.013.
Jornada, D., Leon, V.J., 2016. Biobjective robust optimization over the efficient set for
Pareto set reduction. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 252, 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2016.01.017.
Kaab, A., Sharifi, M., Mobli, H., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Chau, K. Wing, 2019a. Use of
optimization techniques for energy use efficiency and environmental life cycle
assessment modification in sugarcane production. Energy 181, 1298–1320. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.002.
M.D. Heidari et al.
Kaab, A., Sharifi, M., Mobli, H., Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Chau, K. Wing, 2019b. Combined
life cycle assessment and artificial intelligence for prediction of output energy and
environmental impacts of sugarcane production. Sci. Total Environ. 664,
1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.004.
Kahan, D., 2013. FARM Management Extension Guide FARM BUSINESS ANALYSIS Using
Benchmarking. FAO.
Kaim, A., Cord, A.F., Volk, M., 2018. A review of multi-criteria optimization techniques
for agricultural land use allocation. Environ. Model. Softw. 105, 79–93. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.031.
Kang, Y., Ozdogan, M., Zhu, X., Ye, Z., Hain, C., Anderson, M., 2020. Comparative
assessment of environmental variables and machine learning algorithms for maize
yield prediction in the US Midwest. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 064005 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/ab7df9.
Khanali, M., Mobli, H., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., 2017. Modeling of yield and
environmental impact categories in tea processing units based on artificial neural
networks. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 26324–26340. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11356-017-0234-5.
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., 2013a. Applying data
envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG
(greenhouse gas) emission of wheat production. Energy 58, 588–593. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.030.
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., Sefeedpari, P., 2013b.
Prognostication of environmental indices in potato production using artificial neural
networks. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.03.028.
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Yousefi, M., Movahedi, M., 2013c. Modeling of
energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in
Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks. Energy 52, 333–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.028.
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., Rajaeifar, M.A., 2014.
Application of artificial neural networks for prediction of output energy and GHG
emissions in potato production in Iran. Agric. Syst. 123, 120–127. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agsy.2013.10.003.
Khoshnevisan, B., Bolandnazar, E., Shamshirband, S., Shariati, H.M., Anuar, N.B., Mat
Kiah, M.L., 2015. Decreasing environmental impacts of cropping systems using life
cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-objective genetic algorithm. J. Clean. Prod. 86,
67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.062.
Klein, T., Holzkämper, A., Calanca, P., Seppelt, R., Fuhrer, J., 2013. Adapting
agricultural land management to climate change: a regional multi-objective
optimization approach. Landsc. Ecol. 28, 2029–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10980-013-9939-0.
Knudsen, M.T., Meyer-Aurich, A., Olesen, J.E., Chirinda, N., Hermansen, J.E., 2014.
Carbon footprints of crops from organic and conventional arable crop rotations -
using a life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 609–618. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.009.
Kong, Q., Kuriyan, K., Shah, N., Guo, M., 2019. Development of a responsive
optimisation framework for decision-making in precision agriculture. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 131, 106585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2019.106585.
Längkvist, M., Karlsson, L., Loutfi, A., 2014. A review of unsupervised feature learning
and deep learning for time-series modeling. Pattern Recognition Letters 42, 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2014.01.008.
Le Gal, P.Y., Dugué, P., Faure, G., Novak, S., 2011. How does research address the design
of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review.
Agricultural Systems. doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.07.007.
Li, M., Fu, Q., Singh, V.P., Liu, D., Li, T., Zhou, Y., 2020. Managing agricultural water and
land resources with tradeoff between economic, environmental, and social
considerations: a multi-objective non-linear optimization model under uncertainty.
Agric. Syst. 178, 102685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102685.
Li, X., Mupondwa, E., 2014. Life cycle assessment of camelina oil derived biodiesel and
jet fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Science of The Total Environment 481, 17–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2014.02.003.
Liakos, K., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., Bochtis, D., 2018. Machine learning in
agriculture: a review. Sensors 18, 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674.
López-Andrés, J.J., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., Morales-Mendoza, L.F., Azzaro-Pantel, C.,
Pérez-Gallardo, J.R., Rico-Contreras, J.O., 2018. Environmental impact assessment
of chicken meat production via an integrated methodology based on LCA, simulation
and genetic algorithms. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.10.307.
Lozano, S., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Environmental impact
efficiency in mussel cultivation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1269–1277. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.004.
Ma, Q., Wang, W., Peng, Y., Song, X., 2018. An optimization approach to the intermodal
transportation network in fruit cold chain, considering cost, quality degradation and
carbon dioxide footprint. Polish Maritime Research 25, 61–69. https://doi.org/
10.2478/pomr-2018-0007.
MacWilliam, S., Wismer, M., Kulshreshtha, S., 2014. Life cycle and economic assessment
of Western Canadian pulse systems: the inclusion of pulses in crop rotations. Agric.
Syst. 123, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.08.009.
Maggioni, F., Potra, F.A., Bertocchi, M., 2015. Stochastic versus robust optimization for a
transportation problem. Odysseus 215–218.
Maiyar, L.M., Thakkar, J.J., 2019. Modelling and analysis of intermodal food grain
transportation under hub disruption towards sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 217,
281–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.021.
Mansoori, H., Kohansal, M.R., Ghousi, M.F.K., 2009. Introducing a lexicographic goal
programming for environmental conservation program in farm activities: a case
14
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
study in Iran. China Agricultural Economic Review 1, 478–484. https://doi.org/
10.1108/17561370910989284.
Masuda, K., 2016. Measuring eco-efficiency of wheat production in Japan: a combined
application of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. J. Clean. Prod.
126, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.090.
Masuda, K., 2019. Eco-efficiency assessment of intensive Rice production in Japan: joint
application of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Sustainability 11,
5368. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195368.
Mohamad, R.S., Verrastro, V., Cardone, G., Bteich, M.R., Favia, M., Moretti, M.,
Roma, R., 2014. Optimization of organic and conventional olive agricultural
practices from a life cycle assessment and life cycle costing perspectives. J. Clean.
Prod. 70, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.033.
Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Dalgaard, T., Knudsen, M.T., Keyhani, A., Mousavi-
Avval, S.H., Hermansen, J.E., 2013. Potential greenhouse gas emission reductions in
soybean farming: a combined use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.019.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Mohseni, P., Borghei, A.M., Khanali, M., 2018. Coupled life cycle assessment and data
envelopment analysis for mitigation of environmental impacts and enhancement of
energy efficiency in grape production. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 937–947. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.243.
Montazar, A., 2013. A decision tool for optimal irrigated crop planning and water
resources sustainability. J. Glob. Optim. 55, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10898-011-9803-1.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Sharifi, M., Hosseinpour, S., Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G.,
Renzulli, P.A., 2017. Application of multi-objective genetic algorithms for
optimization of energy, economics and environmental life cycle assessment in
oilseed production. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 804–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.03.075.
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Qasemi-Kordkheili, P., Kouchaki-
Penchah, H., Riahi-Dorcheh, F., 2016. Applying optimization techniques to improve
of energy efficiency and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions of wheat production.
Energy 103, 672–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.003.
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S.S., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Chau, K.
Wing, 2017. Energy consumption enhancement and environmental life cycle
assessment in paddy production using optimization techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 162,
571–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.071.
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S.S., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Chau, K.
Wing, 2018. Integration of artificial intelligence methods and life cycle assessment to
predict energy output and environmental impacts of paddy production. Sci. Total
Environ. 631–632, 1279–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.088.
Nemecek, T., Weiler, K., Plassmann, K., Schnetzer, J., Gaillard, G., Jefferies, D., García-
Suárez, T., King, H., Milà, I., Canals, L., 2012. Estimation of the variability in global
warming potential of worldwide crop production using a modular extrapolation
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.03.005.
Nemecek, T., Bengoa, X., Lansche, J., Mouron, P., Rossi, V., 2015a. Methodological
Guidelines for the Life Cycle Inventory of Agricultural Products. World Food LCA
Database.
Nemecek, T., Hayer, F., Bonnin, E., Carrouée, B., 2015b. Designing eco-efficient crop
rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. Eur. J. Agron. 65, 40–51.
Notarnicola, B., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S.J., Saouter, E., Sonesson, U., 2017. The
role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable Agri-food systems: a review of
the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.06.071.
Nuthall, P. (Ed.), 2018. Farm Business Management, the Human Factor, 2nd, Edition. ed.
Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Paramesh, V., Arunachalam, V., Nikkhah, A., Das, B., Ghnimi, S., 2018. Optimization of
energy consumption and environmental impacts of arecanut production through
coupled data envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 203,
674–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.263.
Pastori, M., 2017. A multi-objective approach to evaluate the economic and
environmental impacts of alternative water and nutrient management strategies in
Africa. J. Environ. Inf. 29, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201500313.
Payandeh, Z., Kheiralipour, K., Karimi, M., Khoshnevisan, B., 2017. Joint data
envelopment analysis and life cycle assessment for environmental impact reduction
in broiler production systems. Energy 127, 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.03.112.
Pelletier, N., 2015. Life cycle thinking, measurement and Management for Food System
Sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7515–7519. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b00441.
Pelletier, N., 2017. Life cycle assessment of Canadian egg products, with differentiation
by hen housing system type. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.03.050.
Pelletier, N., Arsenault, N., Tyedmers, P., 2008. Scenario modeling potential eco-
efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on
Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ. Manag. 42, 989–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9155-x.
Piot-Lepetit, I., 2014. Technological externalities and environmental policy: how to
simulate manure management regulation within a DEA framework. Ann. Oper. Res.
214, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-010-0744-8.
Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Akram, A., Keyhani, A., Sefeedpari, P., Shine, P., Brandao, M.,
2019. Integration of life cycle assessment, artificial neural networks, and
metaheuristic optimization algorithms for optimization of tomato-based cropping
M.D. Heidari et al.
systems in Iran. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-
01707-6.
Rǎdulescu, M., Rǎdulescu, C.Z., Zbǎganu, G., 2014. A portfolio theory approach to crop
planning under environmental constraints. Ann. Oper. Res. 219, 243–264. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10479-011-0902-7.
Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Angulo-Meza, L., Iriarte, A., González-Araya, M.C., 2017. Joint
carbon footprint assessment and data envelopment analysis for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture production. Sci. Total Environ. 593–594,
36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.147.
Reddy, S.S., Sandeep, V., Jung, C.-M., 2017. Review of stochastic optimization methods
for smart grid. Frontiers in Energy 11, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-
017-0457-7.
Reinhard, S., Knox Lovell, C.A., Thijssen, G.J., 2000. Environmental efficiency with
multiple environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 121, 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00218-0.
Risbey, J., Kandlikar, M., Dowlatabadi, H., Graetz, D., 1999. Scale, context, and decision
making in agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Mitig. Adapt.
Strateg. Glob. Chang. 4, 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009636607038.
Robert, M., Thomas, A., Sekhar, M., Raynal, H., Casellas, É., Casel, P., Chabrier, P.,
Joannon, A., Bergez, J.É., 2018. A dynamic model for water management at the farm
level integrating strategic, tactical and operational decisions. Environ. Model. Softw.
100, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.11.013.
Rohmer, S.U.K., Gerdessen, J.C., Claassen, G.D.H., 2019. Sustainable supply chain design
in the food system with dietary considerations: a multi-objective analysis. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 273, 1149–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.09.006.
Rosano-Peña, C., Guarnieri, P., Sobreiro, V.A., Serrano, A.L.M., Kimura, H., 2014.
A measure of sustainability of Brazilian agribusiness using directional distance
functions and data envelopment analysis. Int J Sust Dev World 21, 210–222. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.901992.
Russell, S., Norvig, P., 2002. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Third edition.
Pearson.
Sahoo, S., Russo, T.A., Elliott, J., Foster, I., 2017. Machine learning algorithms for
modeling groundwater level changes in agricultural regions of the U.S. Water
Resour. Res. 53, 3878–3895. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019933.
Sanjuan, N., Ribal, J., Clemente, G., Fenollosa, M.L., 2011. Measuring and improving
eco-efficiency using data envelopment analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 614–628. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00347.x.
Sarker, R., Ray, T., 2009. An improved evolutionary algorithm for solving multi-
objective crop planning models. Comput. Electron. Agric. 68, 191–199. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.06.002.
Sarkis, J., 2002. Preparing your Data for DEA, in: Productivity Analysis in the Service
Sector with Data Envelopment Analysis.
Serra, T., Chambers, R.G., Oude Lansink, A., 2014. Measuring technical and
environmental efficiency in a state-contingent technology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236,
706–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.12.037.
Shamshirband, S., Khoshnevisan, B., Yousefi, M., Bolandnazar, E., Anuar, N.B.,
Wahab, A.W.A., Khan, S.U.R., 2015. A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for
energy management of agricultural systems - a case study in Iran. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.038.
Sharif, S.A., Hammad, A., 2019. Developing surrogate ANN for selecting near-optimal
building energy renovation methods considering energy consumption, LCC and LCA.
Journal of Building Engineering 25, 100790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2019.100790.
Sharma, R., Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Kumar, V., Kumar, A., 2020. A systematic
literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply
chain performance. Comput. Oper. Res. 119, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2020.104926.
Skevas, T., Serra, T., 2016. The role of pest pressure in technical and environmental
inefficiency analysis of Dutch arable farms: an event-specific data envelopment
approach. J. Prod. Anal. 46, 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-016-0476-0.
Skevas, T., Lansink, A.O., Stefanou, S.E., 2012. Measuring technical efficiency in the
presence of pesticide spillovers and production uncertainty: the case of Dutch arable
farms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 223, 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.06.034.
Skevas, T., Stefanou, S.E., Oude Lansink, A., 2014. Pesticide use, environmental
spillovers and efficiency: a DEA risk-adjusted efficiency approach applied to Dutch
arable farming. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237, 658–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2014.01.046.
Solano, N.E.C., García Llinás, G.A., Montoya-Torres, J.R., 2020. Towards the integration
of lean principles and optimization for agricultural production systems: a conceptual
review proposition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 100, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jsfa.10018.
Soteriades, A.D., Stott, A.W., Moreau, S., Charroin, T., Blanchard, M., Liu, J.,
Faverdin, P., 2016. The relationship of dairy farm eco-efficiency with intensification
and self-sufficiency. Evidence from the French dairy sector using life cycle analysis,
data envelopment analysis and partial least squares structural equation modelling.
PLoS One 11, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166445.
15
Agricultural Systems 193 (2021) 103208
Syp, A., Faber, A., Borzecka-Walker, M., Osuch, D., 2015. Assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions in winter wheat farms using data envelopment analysis approach. Polish
Journal of Environmental Studies 24, 2197–2203. https://doi.org/10.15244/
PJOES/39682.
Tascione, V., Mosca, R., Raggi, A., 2014. LCA and linear programming for the
environmental optimization of waste management systems: A simulation, in:
Pathways to Environmental Sustainability: Methodologies and Experiences. Springer
International Publishing, pp. 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03826-1_2.
Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T.S., Sodhi, M.S., 2019. Operations research for
sustainability assessment of products: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.039.
Toma, P., Miglietta, P.P., Zurlini, G., Valente, D., Petrosillo, I., 2017. A non-parametric
bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning
and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries. Ecol. Indic. 83, 132–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.049.
Udias, A., Pastori, M., Dondeynaz, C., Carmona Moreno, C., Ali, A., Cattaneo, L., Cano, J.,
2018. A decision support tool to enhance agricultural growth in the Mékrou river
basin (West Africa). Comput. Electron. Agric. 154, 467–481. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compag.2018.09.037.
Ullah, A., Perret, S.R., 2014. Technical- and environmental-efficiency analysis of
irrigated cotton-cropping systems in Punjab, Pakistan using data envelopment
analysis. Environ. Manag. 54, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0300-
4.
Ullah, A., Perret, S.R., Gheewala, S.H., Soni, P., 2016. Eco-efficiency of cotton-cropping
systems in Pakistan: an integrated approach of life cycle assessment and data
envelopment analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.10.112.
Utomo, D.S., Onggo, B.S., Eldridge, S., 2018. Applications of agent-based modelling and
simulation in the Agri-food supply chains. Eur. J. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.041.
Van Meensel, J., Lauwers, L., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Van Passel, S., 2010. Comparing
frontier methods for economic-environmental trade-off analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
207, 1027–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.026.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Combined application of
life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodological approach
for the assessment of fisheries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 272–283. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-010-0154-9.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Teresa Moreira, M., Feijoo, G., 2012.
Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for
vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 27, 92–102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.039.
Viaggi, D., Bartolini, F., Raggi, M., 2009. Combining linear programming and principal-
agent models: an example from environmental regulation in agriculture. Environ.
Model. Softw. 24, 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.014.
Villalba, D., Díez-Unquera, B., Carrascal, A., Bernués, A., Ruiz, R., 2019. Multi-objective
simulation and optimisation of dairy sheep farms: exploring trade-offs between
economic and environmental outcomes. Agric. Syst. 173, 107–118. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.011.
von Ow, A., Waldvogel, T., Nemecek, T., 2020. Environmental optimization of the Swiss
population’s diet using domestic production resources. J. Clean. Prod. 248, 119241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119241.
Wang, S., Tao, F., Shi, Y., 2018. Optimization of location–routing problem for cold chain
logistics considering carbon footprint. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 86.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010086.
Wojcik, V., Dyckhoff, H., Clermont, M., 2019. Is data envelopment analysis a suitable
tool for performance measurement and benchmarking in non-production contexts?
Bus. Res. 12, 559–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-018-0077-z.
Xavier, A., Freitas, Costa, Fragoso, R., Rosário, M., 2018. A regional composite indicator
for analysing agricultural sustainability in Portugal: a goal programming approach.
Ecol. Indic. 89, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.048.
Xie, Y.L., Xia, D.X., Ji, L., Huang, G.H., 2018. An inexact stochastic-fuzzy optimization
model for agricultural water allocation and land resources utilization management
under considering effective rainfall. Ecol. Indic. 92, 301–311. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.026.
Yuan, K.Y., Lin, Y.C., Te Chiueh, P., Lo, S.L., 2018. Spatial optimization of the food,
energy, and water nexus: a life cycle assessment-based approach. Energy Policy 119,
502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.009.
Yuanyuan, Z., 2020. Research on multi-objective planning model for agricultural
pollution, environmental regulation and economic development. Arch. Latinoam.
Nutr. 70, 423–433.
Yusoff, Y., Ngadiman, M.S., Zain, A.M., 2011. Overview of NSGA-II for optimizing
machining process parameters. In: Procedia Engineering, 15. Elsevier,
pp. 3978–3983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.74.
Zimmermann, A., 2008. Optimization of sustainable dairy-cow feeding systems with an
economic-ecological LP farm model using various optimization processes. J. Sustain.
Agric. 32, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040802121411.