4.7 Article

Integration of environmental sustainability and product quality criteria in the decision-making process for feeding strategies in seabream aquaculture companies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 691-701

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.248

关键词

Clean production; Environmental management; Multiple-criteria; Decision-making; Feeding strategies; Aquaculture

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme [727315]
  2. Ibero-American Program for the Development of Science and Technology (CYTED)
  3. Red Iberoamericana BigDSSAgro [P515RT0123]
  4. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [727315] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Economic criteria have traditionally been taken into account as the most important factor for the selection of the most suitable feed in aquaculture. However, currently, management decisions have become increasingly complex, taking into account issues such as environmental sustainability and product quality. In this regard, there is growing recognition that the quality of the environment in which an organization operates has a direct effect on its financial results. Unfortunately, the complex integration of all these factors, which are sometimes opposing, limits the ability of aquaculture producers to adapt their production strategy to cleaner production systems. In this context, the aim of this work is to address this problem with the development of a novel, multiple-criteria decision-making optimization methodology that allows producers to include different preferences in the design of feeding strategies. Here, this methodology is applied to gilthead seabream production. The results obtained show the utility of this methodology for integrating numerous criteria in the evaluation of various alternatives and for carrying out an efficient sensitivity analysis which test the impact of different hypotheses on stakeholders' preferences. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据