Just Accepted Manuscripts
Research Articles

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to prioritise criteria to enhance AquaCrop from the user perspective

Just Accepted
  • Itzel Inti Maria Donati,
  • Andrea Martelli,
  • Anna Dalla Marta,
  • Pasquale Garofalo,
  • Antonella Petrillo,
  • Filiberto Altobelli
Itzel Inti Maria Donati
Sapienza University of Rome
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-16859

Published 2026-03-23

Keywords

  • decision making process,
  • strategic planning,
  • irrigation,
  • crop production models,
  • water management

How to Cite

Donati, I. I. M., Martelli, A., Dalla Marta, A., Garofalo, P., Petrillo, A., & Altobelli, F. (2026). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to prioritise criteria to enhance AquaCrop from the user perspective. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/rea-16859

Copyright (c) 2026 Itzel Inti Maria Donati, Andrea Martelli, Anna Dalla Marta, Pasquale Garofalo, Antonella Petrillo, Filiberto Altobelli

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The successful advancement of precision agriculture depends on the availability of agrometeorological and agroclimatic data with high spatiotemporal resolution. However, such data must also be high quality, consistent, and nationally valid, allowing for long-term model calibration and short-term decision support systems. This study explores potential improvements to AquaCrop, a widely used crop water productivity model developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization, by incorporating feedback from interviewees to enhance its applicability and to promote more sustainable water resource use. Interviewees (farmers, researchers, and information technology experts) were surveyed using structured questionnaires, and responses were analysed through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) using the Super Decisions software. A three-level hierarchical model was developed to assess and prioritise desirable model features. The results demonstrate that the AHP effectively captures user needs and identifies concrete areas for model improvement. Notably, the criterion related to data management (C3) emerged as a key priority, particularly the capability for automatic communication with external Internet of Things platforms. This study emphasises the importance of involving both users (farmers and researchers) and information technology experts in evaluating the technical feasibility of proposed upgrades. The significant preference weights expressed by farmers (0.15) and researchers (0.18) further underscore the importance of aligning model development with real-world operational needs.

Just Accepted

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. AbdelRahman M.A.E., Yossif T.M.H., Metwaly M.M. (2025). Enhancing land suitability assessment through integration of AHP and GIS-based for efficient agricultural planning in arid regions. Scientific Reports, 15(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14051-7.
  2. Ahmed M. (2020). Systems Modeling. In Systems Modeling. Springer Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4728-7.
  3. Ali A., Ahmad M., Nawaz M., Sattar F. (2025). Identifying and Prioritizing Spatial Data Required for Effective Agriculture Policymaking: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Data Intelligence, 7(1): 185-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3724/2096-7004.di.2024.0054.
  4. Altobelli F., Del Giudice T., Dalla Marta A. (2019). Adopting irrigation advisory services for water footprint estimation to improving biodiversity conservation: a European survey. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 74(3): 23-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/rea-11209.
  5. Altobelli F., Henke R. (2024). Economic strategies and policy suggestions of agricultural sustainable food production. Agriculture, 14(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030504.
  6. Altobelli F., Dalla Marta A., Heinen M., Jacobs C., Giampietri E., Mancini M., Cimino O., Trestini S., Kranendonk R., Chanzy A. (2021). Irrigation Advisory Services: Farmers preferences and willingness to pay for innovation. Outlook on Agriculture, 50(3): 277-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211002848.
  7. Beiderbeck D., Frevel N., von der Gracht H., Schmidt S., Schweitzer V. (2021). Preparing, Conducting, and Analyzing Delphi Surveys: Cross-disciplinary Practices, New Directions, and Advancements. MethodsX, 8, 101401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101401.
  8. Benítez J., Delgado-Galván X., Izquierdo J., Pérez-García R. (2012). Improving consistency in AHP decision-making processes. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(5): 2432-2441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.08.079.
  9. Cay T., Uyan M. (2013). Evaluation of reallocation criteria in land consolidation studies using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Land Use Policy, 30(1): 541-548. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.023.
  10. Chapagain R., Remenyi T.A., Harris R.M.B., Mohammed C.L., Huth N., Wallach D., Rezaei E.E., Ojeda J.J. (2022). Decomposing crop model uncertainty: A systematic review. Field Crops Research, 279, 108448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2022.108448.
  11. De Castro P., Miglietta P.P., Vecchio Y. (2020). The Common Agricultural Policy 2021-2027: a new history for European agriculture. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 75(3): 5-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/rea-12703.
  12. De Felice F., Petrillo A. (2013). Absolute measurement with analytic hierarchy process: a case study for Italian racecourse. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 6(3): 209-227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJADS.2013.054931.
  13. Donati I.I.M., Viaggi D., Srdjevic Z., Srdjevic B., Di Fonzo A., Del Giudice T., Cimino O., Martelli A., Dalla Marta A., Henke R., Altobelli F. (2023). An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Agriculture (Switzerland), 13(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081545.
  14. Elolu S., Förster N., Opiyo A.M., Huyskens-Keil S. (2025). Evaporative cold storage for African indigenous vegetables: A SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions and its impact on the quality of Amaranth and African nightshade. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101949.
  15. Forman E.H. (1993). Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5): 19-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90172-U.
  16. Foster T., Brozović N., Butler A.P., Neale C.M.U., Raes D., Steduto P., Fereres E., Hsiao T.C. (2017). AquaCrop-OS: An open source version of FAO’s crop water productivity model. Agricultural Water Management, 181, 18-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.11.015.
  17. García-Vila M., Fereres E., Mateos L., Orgaz F., Steduto P. (2009). Deficit irrigation optimization of cotton with aquacrop. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 477-487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0179s.
  18. Giardini L. (2012). L’agronomia per conservare il futuro (Pàtron, Ed.; 6th ed.).
  19. Ishizaka A., Balkenborg D., Kaplan T. (2011). Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(10): 1801-1812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.158.
  20. Ishizaka A., Labib A. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4): 201-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2009.10.
  21. Ishizaka A., Labib A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336-14345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2011.04.143.
  22. Ishizaka A., Lusti M. (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14(4): 387-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-006-0012-9.
  23. Ishizaka A., Pearman C., Nemery P. (2012). AHPSort: An AHP-based method for sorting problems. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17): 4767-4784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.657966.
  24. Ishizaka A., Nemery P. (n.d.). Multi-criteria decision analysis : methods and software.
  25. Kasampalis D.A., Alexandridis T.K., Deva C., Challinor A., Moshou D., Zalidis G. (2018). Contribution of remote sensing on crop models: A review. In Journal of Imaging (Vol. 4, Number 4). MDPI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging4040052
  26. Knierim A., Birke F.M. (2023). Visualised AKIS Diagnosis – an Instrumental Approach to Support AKIS Appraisal. EuroChoices, 22(2): 59-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12397.
  27. Labarthe P., European Seminar on Extension & Education (26 : 2023 : Toulouse). (2023). Sustainability transitions of agriculture and the transformation of education and advisory services: convergence or divergence? book of abstracts : 26th European Seminar on Extension & Education, Toulouse, 10-13 July 2023. UMR AGIR.
  28. Lane E., Verdini W. (2007). A Consistency Test for AHP Decision Makers. Decision Sciences, 20: 575-590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01568.x.
  29. O. Rauff K., Bello R. (2015). A Review of Crop Growth Simulation Models as Tools for Agricultural Meteorology. Agricultural Sciences, 06(09): 1098-1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2015.69105.
  30. Proietti P., Cristiano S. (2023). Innovation support services: an evidence-based exploration of their strategic roles in the Italian AKIS. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 29(3): 351-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2069828.
  31. Raes D., Steduto P., Hsiao T.C., Fereres E. (2009). Aquacrop-The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 438-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0140s.
  32. Release Note AquaCrop Version 7.1 FAO. (n.d.).
  33. Roja M., Gumma M.K., Reddy M.D. (2023). Crop modelling in agricultural crops. Review Articles Current Science, 124(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v124/i8/910-920.
  34. Saaty R.W. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process — What it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modeling, 9(3-5): 161-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
  35. Saaty T.L. (2004). Decision making — The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(1): 1-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-0151-5.
  36. Saaty T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSci.2008.01759.
  37. Saaty T.L., Ozdemir M. (2003). Negative priorities in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 37(9-10): 1063-1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)00118-3.
  38. Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6.
  39. Seidel S.J., Palosuo T., Thorburn P., Wallach D. (2018). Towards improved calibration of crop models – Where are we now and where should we go? European Journal of Agronomy, 94, 25-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.01.006.
  40. Steduto P., Hsiao T.C., Raes D., Fereres E. (2009). Aquacrop-the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 426-437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0139s.
  41. Steduto P., Raes D., Hsiao T.C., Fereres E., Heng L.K., Howell T.A., Evett S.R., Rojas-Lara B.A., Farahani H.J., Izzi G., Oweis T.Y., Wani S.P., Hoogeveen J., Geerts S. (n.d.). Concepts and Applications of AquaCrop: The FAO Crop Water Productivity Model.
  42. Sutherland L.A., Adamsone-Fiskovica A., Elzen B., Koutsouris A., Laurent C., Stræte E.P., Labarthe P. (2023). Advancing AKIS with assemblage thinking. Journal of Rural Studies, 97: 57-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.11.005.
  43. Van Oost I., Vagnozzi A. (2020). Knowledge and innovation, privileged tools of the agro-food system transition towards full sustainability. Italian Review of Agricultural Economics, 75(3): 33-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13128/rea-12707.
  44. Vanuytrecht E., Raes D., Steduto P., Hsiao T.C., Fereres E., Heng L.K., Garcia Vila M., Mejias Moreno P. (2014). AquaCrop: FAO’s crop water productivity and yield response model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 62: 351-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.08.005.
  45. Vrolijk H., Poppe K. (2021). Article cost of extending the farm accountancy data network to the farm sustainability data network: Empirical evidence. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(15). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158181.
  46. Winn C.A., Archontoulis S., Edwards J. (2023). Calibration of a crop growth model in APSIM for 15 publicly available corn hybrids in North America. Crop Science, 63(2): 511-534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20857.

Most read articles by the same author(s)