Processing, Please wait...

  • Publisher Home
  • Home
  • 🔙 Back
  • 📚 Journals
    • ⚙️ IJIEC - Industrial Engineering Computations
    • 🌐 IJDNS - Data and Network Science
    • 🧪 CCL - Current Chemistry Letters
    • 💹 AC - Accounting
    • 🎯 DSL - Decision Science Letters
    • 🚛 USCM - Uncertain Supply Chain Management
    • 🏗️ JPM - Journal of Project Management
    • 🏥 HE - Healthcare Engineering
    • 📈 SCI - Scientometrica
    • 🔩 ESM - Engineering Solid Mechanics
    • 🌿 JFS - Journal of Future Sustainability
    • 💼 MSL - Management Science Letters
  • 📝 Submit Article
  • 📊 Statistics
  • 📋 About
    • 📄 About Us
    • 📰 Blog
    • 📢 News
    • 📧 Contact
  • 📺 Tutorial
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Decision Science Letters » A comparative study for the agricultural tractor selection problem

⭐ Highly Cited Articles

  • Jaya Algorithm
  • Rao Algorithm
  • TLBO Algorithm
  • ChatGPT and Blended Learning

Journals

  • IJIEC (840)
  • IJDS (1032)
  • DSL (759)
  • ESM (434)
  • CCL (563)
  • JPM (350)
  • AC (572)
  • JFS (101)
  • MSL (2658)
  • USCM (1104)
  • HE (51)
  • SCI (52)

DSL Volumes

    • ▼ Volume 15 (110)
      • Issue 1 (19)
      • Issue 2 (22)
      • Issue 3 (32)
      • Issue 4 (37)
    • ▼ Volume 14 (87)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (23)
      • Issue 3 (25)
      • Issue 4 (18)
    • ▼ Volume 13 (78)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (18)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (20)
    • ▼ Volume 12 (64)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (24)
      • Issue 3 (13)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • ▼ Volume 11 (49)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 10 (43)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 9 (39)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 8 (38)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 7 (41)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 6 (30)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • ▼ Volume 5 (39)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 4 (48)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (12)
    • ▼ Volume 3 (53)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 2 (30)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 1 (10)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)

🔑 Keywords

Jordan(175)
Supply chain management(172)
Vietnam(154)
Customer satisfaction(124)
Performance(117)
Supply chain(115)
Artificial intelligence(108)
Service quality(101)
Competitive advantage(100)
SMEs(95)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
Sustainability(93)
optimization(88)
Financial performance(86)
Trust(85)
TOPSIS(85)
Job satisfaction(81)
Genetic Algorithm(81)
Organizational performance(81)
Social media(80)


» Show all keywords

✍️ Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(70)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(65)
Endri Endri(45)
Hotlan Siagian(43)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Dmaithan Almajali(39)
Jumadil Saputra(37)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Sautma Ronni Basana(33)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(30)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(30)
Hassan Ghodrati(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Mahmoud Allahham(28)


» Show all authors

🌍 Countries

1. Algeria (52)
2. Angola (2)
3. Argentina (22)
4. Armenia (2)
5. Australia (52)
6. Austria (2)
7. Bahrain (26)
8. Bangladesh (58)
9. Belarus (4)
10. Belgium (3)
11. Benin (2)
12. Benin Republic (1)
13. Bhutan (1)
14. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
15. Botswana (8)
16. Brazil (40)
17. Brunei (1)
18. Bulgaria (1)
19. Burkina Faso (1)
20. Cameroon (1)
Total: 121 countries

Show all countries
Decision Science Letters
ISSN 1929-5812 (Online) - ISSN 1929-5804 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 5 Issue 4 pp. 569-580, 2016

A comparative study for the agricultural tractor selection problem Pages 569-580 PDF Download PDF

Authors: Ayşegül Tuş Işık, Esra Aytaç Adalı

📋 Author Affiliations:
A.T. Işık, E.A. Adalı
¹ Department of Business Administration, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20070, Turkey
doi 10.5267/j.dsl.2016.3.002
13 Source: Scopus
Crossref 6 Source: CrossRef

🔑 Keywords: COPRAS, EVAMIX, Borda, Copeland

Abstract: Agricultural tractor selection is vital for farms, farmers or other agricultural companies in terms
of success and competitiveness in the global market. This selection may be assumed as a
MCDM (Multi Criteria Decision Making) problem involving qualitative and quantitative
factors that must be simultaneously integrated into the selection process. At the same time there
are many agricultural tractor alternatives in the market when purchasing an agricultural tractor.
This paper deals with the agricultural tractor selection problem using TOPSIS method. This
problem is also solved with two other MCDM methods; COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional
ASsessment) and EVAMIX (EVAluation of MIXed Data) to rank the tractors alternatives.
Lastly Borda and Copeland methods are used to aggregate all three ranking results.

How to cite this paper
APA: Işık, A & Adalı, E. (2016). A comparative study for the agricultural tractor selection problem. Decision Science Letters, 5(4), 569-580.
Chicago/Turabian: Işık, A & Adalı, E. 2016. "A comparative study for the agricultural tractor selection problem." Decision Science Letters 5, no. 4 (2016): 569-580.
AMA: Işık, A & Adalı, E. A comparative study for the agricultural tractor selection problem. Decision Science Letters. 2016;5(4):569-580.

References
Akdemir, B. (2013). Agricultural Mechanization in Turkey. IERI Procedia, 5, 41-44.
Andruškevicius, A. (2005). Evaluation of contractors by using COPRAS - the multiple criteria method.
Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 11(3), 158–169.
Banaitiene, N., Banaitis, A., Kaklauskas, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2008). Evaluating the life cycle of a
building: A multivariant and multiple criteria approach. Omega, 36(3), 429-441.
Benjamin Bol, M.B. & Mohammed, H.I. (2005). A mathematical algorithm for farm machinery selection.
Journal of Science and Technology, 6 (2).
Bindu Madhuri, Ch., Chandulal. J, Padmaja. M. (2010). Selection of best web site by applying COPRASG
method. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 1(2), 138-146.
Cerreta, M., & Malangone, V. (2013). Context aware strategies for the Valle dei Mulini of Amalfi. Sbetti
F., Rossi F., Talia M., Trillo C.(a cura di), Il governo della città nella contemporaneità. La città come
motore di sviluppo. Tema, 2, 57-58.
Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional
assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851-860.
A. T. Işık and E.A. Adalı / Decision Science Letters 5 (2016) 579
Chatterjee, P. & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials
and Design, 35, 384–393.
Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2013). Nontraditional machining processes selection using evaluation of
mixed data method. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 68, 1613–1626.
Chatterjee, P. & Chakraborty, S. (2014). Flexible manufacturing system selection using preference ranking
methods: A comparative study. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 5, 315–
338.
Cheng, S. K. (2000). Development of a fuzzy multi-criteria decision support system for municipal solid
waste management. Regina: a thesis in graduate studies and research university of Regina.
Chung, E.S. & Lee, K.S. (2009). Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability using multicriteria
decision making techniques: case study of Korea. Water Resour Manage, 23, 2395–2416.
Darji, V.P. & Rao, R.V. (2013). Application of AHP/EVAMIX method for decision making in the industrial
environment. American Journal of Operations Research, 3, 542-569.
Das, M.C., Sarkar, B. & Ray, S. (2012). A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical
institutions using integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology. Socio-Economic Planning
Sciences, 46, 230-241.
Dosal, E., Coronado, M., Muñoz, I., Viguri, J.R. & Andrés, A. (2012). Application of multi-criteria
decision-making tool to locate construction and demolition waste (C&DW) recycling facilities in a
Northern Spanish Region. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 11(3), 545-556.
Ebrahim, B.M., & Abolfazl, L.A. (2014). Flood management options using analytical hierarchy process and
evaluation and mixed criteria. Iranian of Irrigation & Water Engineering, 4(14) , 72-82.
García-Alcaraz, J.L., Maldonado-Macías, A.A., Hernández-Arellano, J.L., Blanco-Fernández, J., JiménezMacías,
E. & Sáenz-DíezMuro, J.C. (2016). Agricultural tractor selection: a hybrid and multi-attribute
approach. Sustainability, 8(2), 157.
Grisso, R.B., Perumpral, J.V., Roberson, G.T. & Pitman, R. (2014). Using tractor test data for selecting
farm tractors. Virginia Cooperative Extension, https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-072/442-072_pdf.pdf
Hajkowicz, S., & Higgins, A. (2008). A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water
resource management. European journal of operational research, 184(1), 255-265.
Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2004). Integration of ordinal and cardinal information in multicriteria
ranking with imperfect compensation.European Journal of Operational Research, 158(2), 317-
338.
Hwang, C.L. & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg.
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K. & Raslanas, S. (2005). Multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis
of building refurbishments. Energy and Buildings, 37(4), 361–372.
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Raslanas, S., Ginevicius, R., Komka, A., & Malinauskas, P. (2006).
Selection of low e-windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method
COPRAS: A Lithuanian case. Energy and Buildings, 38(5), 454-462.
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., & Trinkunas, V. (2007a). A multiple criteria decision support on-line
system for construction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(2), 163-175.
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Banaitis, A. & Satkauskas. G. (2007b). Defining the utility and market
value of a real estate: a multiple criteria approach. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, 11(2), 107–20.
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Naimavicienė, J., Krutinis, M., Plakys, V., & Venskus, D. (2010). Model
for a complex analysis of intelligent built environment. Automation in Construction, 19(3), 326-340.
Kanapeckiene, L., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., & Seniut, M. (2010). Integrated knowledge
management model and system for construction projects. Engineering applications of artificial
intelligence, 23(7), 1200-1215.
Maimone, M. (2001). Multi-criteria evaluation techniques in water resource planning. Universities Council
on Water Resources in American Water Resources Association Technical Publication Series, pp. 227-
232;
Maity, S. R., Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Cutting tool material selection using grey complex
proportional assessment method. Materials & Design, 36, 372-378.
580
Martel, J.M. & Matarazzo, B. (2005). Other outranking approaches. in: Figueira J, Salvatore G, Ehrgott M.
(Eds), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp. 197–262.
Mehta, C. R., Singh, K., & Selvan, M. M. (2011). A decision support system for selection of tractor–
implement system used on Indian farms. Journal of Terramechanics, 48(1), 65-73.
Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing affordability
using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega, 41(2), 270-279.
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. & Voogd, H. (1990). Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning. North
Holland, Amsterdam.
Osman, N. O. A. (2011). A Model for Farm Machinery Selection. Master Thesis, University of Khartoum,
Faculty of Agriculture.
Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D. & Stojanovic, S. (2012). Investment project selection by applying Copras method
and imprecise data. Serbian Journal of Management, 7(2), 257-269.
Pourjavad, E. & Shirouyehzad, H. (2011). A MCDM approach for prioritizing production lines: a case
study. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 221–229
Qureshi, M. E., Harrison, S. R., & Wegener, M. K. (1999). Validation of multicriteria analysis
models. Agricultural Systems, 62(2), 105-116.
Saari, D. (1995). Basic Geometry of Voting, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer Verlag.
Sohrabi, R. & Nemati, H. (2015). Ranking approaches to struggle corruption by using evaluation and mixed
criteria (evamix). Teknologi Tanaman, 12, 370-375.
Sumner, P.E. & Williams, E. J. (2007). What Size Farm Tractor Do I Need? Mis. Pub. No. ENG07-003,
http://www.caes.uga.edu/departments/bae/extension/pubs/documents/farm%20tractor.pdf
Vilutienė. T. & Zavadskas, E.K. (2003). The application of multi-criteria analysis to decision support for
the facility management of a residential district. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 9(4),
241-252.
Viteikiene, M. & Zavadskas, E.K. (2007). Evaluating the sustainability of Vilnius city residential areas.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 8(2), 149-155.
Voogd, H. (1982). Multicriteria evaluation with mixed qualitative and quantitative data. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 9(2), 221-236.
Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. London: Pion.
Zagorskas, J., Burinskienė, M., Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2007a). Urbanistic assessment of city
compactness on the basis of GIS applying the COPRAS method. Ekologija, 53(2), 55-63.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A. & Kvederytė, N. (2001). Multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis
of building life cycle. Informatica, 12(1), 169–188.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Banaitis, A. & Kvederytė, N. (2004). Housing credit access model: The
case for Lithuania. European Journal of Operational Research, 155(2), 335–352.
Zavadskas, E. K. & Vilutienė T. (2004). Multi-criteria analysis of multi-family apartment blocks
maintenance service packages. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 10(2), 143–152.
Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Peldschus, F. & Turskis Z. (2007b). Multi-attribute assessment of road
design solution by using the COPRAS method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering,
2(4), 195-203.
Zavadskas , E.K., Kaklauskas , A., Turskis, Z. & Tamošaitiene, J. (2008a). Selection of the effective
dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, 14(2), 85-93.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Tamosaitiene, J. & Marina, V. (2008b). Selection of construction project
managers by applying Copras-G method. The 8th International Conference “Reliability and Statistics in
Transportation and Communication-2008”, 15-18 October, Riga.
Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z. & Tamosaitiene, J. (2008c). Contractor selection multiattribute
model applying Copras method with grey interval numbers. 20th EURO Mini Conference
“Continuous Optimization and Knowledge-Based Technologies”, 20–23 May, 2008, Neringa.
Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A. & Vilutiene, T. (2009). Multicriteria evaluation of apartment blocks
maintenance contractors: Lithuanian case study. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, 13(4), 319-338.
Zhou, Q., Lou, J., Xie, F. & Liu, Q. (2011). The method research on optimum selection of agricultural
machinery. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications, 5(6), 337-334.
  • 34
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

📚 Journal: Decision Science Letters | 📅 Year: 2016 | 📖 Volume: 5 | 📄 Issue: 4 | 👁️ Views: 2908 | 📊 Crossref: 6

Related Articles:
  • Agricultural labor productivity and sustainable development impacts and indicators
  • Barriers to international supply chain management in Iranian flower industry
  • Ranking provinces based on development scale in agriculture sector using taxonomy technique
  • A survey on critical factors influencing agricultural insurance
  • An empirical method to measure the relative efficiency of irrigation methods in agricultural industry

📝 Ready to share your research?

Decision Science Letters is accepting new submissions for upcoming issues. Join our community of authors and publish your work with us.

✓ Open access
✓ Rigorous peer review
✓ Fast publication
📤 Submit Your Manuscript →

📖 Author Guidelines

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com