Food Security and Agricultural

Sustainability:
During the 60’s it was expected that in the near future, there would not be
enough food to cope with the growing population. During the late 70’s, global
food production grew to a level that was able to cope with the increasing
population. Since then, the focus has been shifted towards the problems of
insufficient food supplies in major parts of the world and concerns over intensive
farming. Due to this, there has been an increasing amount of interest into long
term food security due to problems such as land degradation.

As a result of the need to target levels of pollution and sustainable farming, the
UN introduced a programme titled Agenda 21. This however, was seen as too
general for local scales and lead to the Brundtland report. This ensured that the
later generations would be able to meet there own farming needs whilst still
working towards improvement. The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of
the UN have also offered a more specific description to lead towards sustainable
farming that is more socially acceptable.

A major issue is conflict management, between land degradation and

productivity rise.

In various practices the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is used as a yardstick for
comparison; however there are others.

To gain a better understanding of the socio-economic aspects of land use and

climate change, more research has been determined as necessary into1:

• Agricultural impacts in developing regions

• Influence of climate scenarios on water availability in sensitive areas
• Socio-economic impacts of changes in human health
• Socio-economic impacts of environmentally induced migration
• Impacts of extreme weather events based on risk assessment
• Socio-economic impacts of changes in ecosystems and biodiversity

As the quality of the soil is one of the main contributing factors to the yield of the
crop, it is important at maintain it at a reasonable level. The condition of the soil
is improved by actively coping with soil pollution through regulatory and market
measures. It is also improved by seeking feasible solutions for clean up areas
e.g. implementing the bronwfield policy to repair damaged areas..

Rough set analysis as a tool for Meta-Analysis:

Meta analysis uses previous research findings to look for any links which may be
transferred to other, unexplored cases. The statistics of this process is well
developed, especially when using quantitative data. Since the data used for this
example was soft data, the standard techniques could not be implemented. To
compensate for this, a fairly new method was used for identifying patterns in
qualitative data. This is known as rough set theory.

Since rough set theory is in the relatively early stages, there are some problems:

• Representation if uncertain or imprecise knowledge

• Evaluation of quality of available information with respect to consistency
and presence or absence of repetitive data patterns
• Identification and evaluation of data dependencies
• Approximate pattern classification
• Reasoning with uncertainty
• Information-preserving data reduction

In this study, rough set theory was used to determine whether there are factors
that systematically affect the variation in productivity in agricultural and agro-
food sector.

Decision rules are used to determine the importance of information. If attributes

occur very frequently, it exerts more dominance on that decision rule. If the
attribute occurs in every instance, it is seen as a dominant critical success factor.

Application:
Two tables are shown in the document listing the productivity growth in the farm
sector for OECD’s, and the growth in the productivity growth in the agro-food
sector. The data from these tables then undergoes a rough set analysis. This is
undertaken by classifying the codification for attributes and decision variables.
The codes for these variables are shown in tables 3 and 4. Tables 5 and 6
present the results.

Table 1 Studies of productivity growth in the farm sector of the OECD countries

Outpu
N Country Input t Time Period TFP
1 Australia -0.10 1.10 1971 1981 1.20
2 Australia -0.10 1.90 1971 1990 2.00
3 Canada -0.10 2.50 1981 1990 2.60
4 Canada -1.06 1.17 1962 1970 2.23
5 Canada 0.01 2.37 1962 1978 2.36
6 Canada 1.05 3.57 1970 1978 2.52
7 Canada -0.40 2.60 1962 1971 3.00
8 Canada 2.40 0.20 1962 1990 -2.20
9 Canada 1.40 2.60 1971 1981 1.20
1
0 Canada 1.90 -0.50 1981 1990 -2.40
1
1 Switzerland -1.20 1.10 1973 1981 2.30
1
2 Switzerland -1.10 0.90 1973 1988 2.00
1 Switzerland -1.10 0.00 1981 1988 1.10
3
1
4 U.S. 0.88 1.85 1953 1957 0.97
1
5 U.S. 0.25 2.92 1957 1960 2.67
1
6 U.S. 0.24 1.90 1960 1969 1.66
1
7 U.S. 0.68 1.06 1969 1973 0.38
1
8 U.S. 0.72 2.75 1973 1979 2.03
1
9 U.S. 0.50 2.20 1973 1988 1.70
2
0 U.S. 0.08 1.21 1962 1970 1.13
2
1 U.S. 0.31 1.72 1962 1978 1.41
2
2 U.S. 0.55 2.22 1970 1978 1.67
2
3 U.S. 0.14 1.66 1950 1960 1.52
2
4 U.S. 0.17 1.76 1950 1982 1.59
2
5 U.S. 0.05 0.84 1960 1970 0.79
2
6 U.S. 0.34 2.60 1970 1982 2.26
2
7 Germany -0.30 1.60 1967 1987 1.90
2
8 France 0.10 2.30 1967 1987 2.20
2
9 The Netherlands 1.40 4.00 1967 1987 2.60
3
0 Belgium -0.20 1.80 1967 1987 2.00
3
1 Luxembourg -1.90 1.80 1967 1987 3.70
3
2 U.K. -0.20 1.60 1967 1987 1.80
3
3 Ireland 0.80 2.60 1967 1987 1.80
3
4 Italy 0.80 1.80 1974 1987 1.00
3
5 Denmark 0.70 2.60 1974 1987 1.90
3
6 Germany -0.40 1.30 1973 1989 1.70
3
7 France -0.50 1.90 1973 1989 2.40
3
8 Italy -0.60 1.70 1973 1989 2.30
3
9 The Netherlands 0.40 3.10 1973 1989 2.70
4 Belgium/Luxemb 0.00 1.20 1973 1989 1.20
 0 ourg
4
1 U.K. -0.20 1.50 1973 1989 1.70
4
2 Ireland 0.90 2.30 1973 1989 1.40
4
3 Denmark -0.10 2.30 1973 1989 2.40
4
4 Germany 0.00 1.70 1965 1985 1.70
4
5 France 0.10 1.80 1965 1985 1.70
4
6 Italy -0.60 1.60 1965 1985 2.20
4
7 The Netherlands 2.60 4.20 1965 1985 1.60
4 Belgium/Luxemb
8 ourg 0.00 2.20 1965 1985 2.20
4
9 U.K. -0.30 2.20 1965 1985 2.50
5
0 Ireland 0.90 2.90 1965 1985 2.00
5
1 Denmark -0.10 1.50 1965 1985 1.60
5
2 The Netherlands 1.40 3.60 1950 1960 2.20
5
3 The Netherlands 0.10 3.80 1960 1970 3.70
5
4 The Netherlands 1.10 4.40 1970 1980 3.30
5
5 The Netherlands -0.50 2.40 1980 1988 2.90
5
6 The Netherlands 0.60 3.60 1950 1988 3.00

Table 2 Studies of productivity growth in the agro-food sectors of the OECD

countries
A
N Country Sector Coverage Method Time Period
1 Canada Food Index number 61 86
2 Canada Beverage Index number 61 86
3 Canada Manufacturing Index number 61 86
4 Canada Food and Beverage Index number 62 85
5 Canada Manufacture Index number 62 85
6 Canada Food and Beverage Econometric cost function 61 82
Econometric production
7 Canada Food and Beverage function 61 82
8 Canada Food Econometric cost function 61 79
9 Canada Food and Beverage Index number 62 77
1
0 Canada Food and Beverage Econometric cost function 62 75
1 Food, Beverage and Econometric production
1 Australia Tobacco function 76 90
1
2 UK Food Input-output 54 63
1
3 UK Food Input-output 68 74
1
4 UK Agriculture Input-output 79 84
1
5 UK Agriculture Input-output 54 63
1
6 UK Agriculture Input-output 68 74
1
7 UK Agriculture Input-output 79 84
1 Econometric production
8 UK Food function 79 86
1 Econometric production
9 UK Drink function 79 86
2 Econometric production
0 UK Manufacturing function 79 86
2
1 US Food Index number 58 82
2
2 US Food Index number 58 72
2
3 US Food Index number 72 82
2 Food, Beverage and Cobb-Douglas production
4 Australia Tobacco function 76 90
2
5 US Food Index number 50 77
2
6 US Food Index number 50 72
2
7 US Food Index number 72 77
2 Solow's growth accounting
8 Italy Food method 60 85
2 Solow's growth accounting
9 Canada Food method 60 85
3 Solow's growth accounting
0 Germany Food method 60 85
3 Solow's growth accounting
1 UK Food method 60 85
3 Solow's growth accounting
2 US Food method 60 85
3 Solow's growth accounting
3 Japan Food method 60 85
3
4 Italy Food Labour productivity 70 80
3
5 Italy Food Labour productivity 53 63
3 Australia Food Labour productivity 80 85
 6
3
7 Austria Food Labour productivity 80 85
3
8 Belgium Food Labour productivity 80 85
3
9 Canada Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
0 Denmark Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
1 Finland Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
2 France Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
3 Germany Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
4 Ireland Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
5 Italy Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
6 Japan Food Labour productivity 80 85
4 Netherlan
7 ds Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
8 Norway Food Labour productivity 80 85
4
9 Sweden Food Labour productivity 80 85
5
0 UK Food Labour productivity 80 85

Table 3 Codification of variables of studies related to the farm sector

Condition Attributes:
A1 - Country Code
Other Canada 1
Australia 1
USA 1
Large European UK 2
Countries Germany 2
Italy 2
France 2
Small European Denmark 3
Countries Finland 3
Netherlan
ds 3
Sweden 3
Norway 3
Belgium 3

Code
 A2 - Less than -0.5 1
Input Between -0.4
and -0.1 2
Between 0.0 and
0.4 3
Between 0.5 and
0.9 4
More than 1.0 5

Code
A3 - Less than 1.5 1
Output Between 1.6
and 2.6 2
More than 2.5 3

Time period:
Code
A4 - Starting Before
Point 1960 1
1970 2
1980 3

Code
A5 - 10
Length Years 1
20
Years 2
30
Years 3

Decision Variables:
Code
Total Factor Less than 1.5 1
Productivity Between 1.6 and
2.5 2
More than 2.5 3

Table 4 Codification of variables of studies related to the agro-food sector

Condition Attributes:

Cod
A1 - Country e
Other Canada 1
Australia 1
USA 1
Asia Japan 2
Large European UK 3
Countries Germany 3
 Italy 3
France 3
Small European Denmark 4
Countries Finland 4
Netherla
nds 4
Sweden 4
Norway 4
Belgium 4

Cod
e
A2 - Sector Food 1
Coverage Beverages 2
Manufacturing 3
Food and Beverages 4
Food, Beverages and
Tobacco 5
Agriculture 6

Cod
e
A3 - Method Index number 1
Used Econometric cost function 2
Econometric production
function 3
Input-output 4
Cobb-Douglas production
function 5
Solow growth accounting
method 6
Labour productivity 7

Time Period:
Co
de
A4 - Starting 19
Point 50 1
19
60 2
19 3
 70
19
80 4

Cod
e
A5 - 10
Length Years 1
20
Years 2
30
Years 3

Decision Variables:
Cod
e
Average Percentage Less than 1% 1
Change Between 1% and
2% 2
More than 2% 3

Table 5 Information system of the studies related to the farm sector after
codification

Object
s A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 D
1 1 2 1 2 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 3 1 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 2
5 1 3 2 1 2 2
6 1 5 3 2 1 3
7 1 2 3 1 1 3
8 1 5 1 1 3 2
9 1 5 3 2 1 1
10 1 5 1 3 1 2
11 3 1 1 2 1 2
12 3 1 1 2 1 2
13 3 1 1 3 1 2
14 1 4 2 1 1 3
15 1 3 3 1 1 3
16 1 3 2 1 1 3
17 1 4 1 2 1 1
18 1 4 3 2 1 2
19 1 4 2 2 1 2
20 1 3 1 1 1 1
21 1 3 2 1 1 1
 22 1 4 2 2 1 2
23 1 3 2 1 1 1
24 1 3 2 1 3 1
25 1 3 1 1 1 1
26 1 3 3 2 1 2
27 2 2 3 1 1 3
28 2 3 2 1 2 2
29 3 5 3 1 2 3
30 3 2 2 1 2 2
31 3 1 2 1 2 3
32 2 2 2 1 2 2
33 3 4 3 1 2 2
34 2 4 2 2 1 3
35 3 4 3 2 1 2
36 2 2 1 2 2 2
37 2 1 2 2 2 2
38 2 1 2 2 2 2
39 3 3 3 2 2 2
40 3 3 1 2 2 1
41 2 2 1 2 2 2
42 3 4 2 2 2 1
43 3 2 2 2 2 2
44 2 2 2 1 1 2
45 2 3 2 1 2 2
46 2 1 2 1 2 2
47 3 5 3 1 2 1
48 3 3 2 1 2 2
49 2 2 2 1 2 2
50 3 4 3 1 2 2
51 3 2 1 1 2 2
52 3 3 3 2 1 2
53 3 3 3 1 1 3
54 3 5 3 2 1 3
55 3 1 2 3 1 3
56 3 4 3 1 3 3
Table 6 Information system of the studies related to the agro-food sector after
the codification

Object
s A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 D
1 1 1 1 2 3 1
2 1 2 1 2 3 1
3 1 3 1 2 3 2
4 1 4 1 2 3 1
5 1 3 1 2 3 1
6 1 4 2 2 3 1
7 1 4 3 2 3 1
 8 1 1 2 2 2 1
9 1 4 1 2 2 1
10 1 4 2 2 2 1
11 1 5 3 3 2 1
12 2 1 4 1 1 2
13 2 1 4 2 1 2
14 2 6 4 3 1 1
15 2 6 4 1 1 2
16 2 6 4 2 1 1
17 2 6 4 3 1 2
18 2 1 3 3 1 4
19 2 2 3 3 1 4
20 2 3 3 3 1 4
21 1 1 1 1 3 1
22 1 1 1 1 2 1
23 1 1 1 3 2 1
24 1 5 5 3 2 1
25 1 1 1 1 3 1
26 1 1 1 1 3 1
27 1 1 1 3 1 1
28 2 1 6 2 3 3
29 1 1 6 2 3 2
30 2 1 6 2 3 3
31 2 1 6 2 3 4
32 1 1 6 2 3 3
33 3 1 6 2 3 3
34 2 1 7 3 2 4
35 2 1 7 1 2 4
36 1 1 7 4 1 2
37 4 1 7 4 1 2
38 4 1 7 4 1 2
39 1 1 7 4 1 2
40 4 1 7 4 1 2
41 4 1 7 4 1 2
42 2 1 7 4 1 2
43 2 1 7 4 1 2
44 4 1 7 4 1 2
45 2 1 7 4 1 2
46 3 1 7 4 1 2
47 4 1 7 4 1 2
48 4 1 7 4 1 1
49 4 1 7 4 1 2
50 2 1 7 4 1 2
Table 7 Accuracy and quality of classification of the decision variable for the
farm sector
Class of decision
Class of Lower Upper
decision Accuracy of approximation approximation
dependant approximati number of
variable on number of objects objects
1 0.500 7 14
2 1.000 31 31
3 0.611 11 18
Accuracy of approximation : 0.777
Quality of approximation : 0.875
Core of attributes : A1, A2, A3, A4, A5

Table 8 Accuracy and quality of classification of the decision variable for agro-
food sector
Class of decision

Lower Upper
Class of decision Accuracy of approximation approximation
dependant approximati number of
variable on number of objects objects
1 0.5862 17 29
2 0.4167 10 24
3 0.1667 1 6
4 0.6250 5 8
Accuracy of classification : 0.4925
Quality of classification : 0.6600
Core of attributes : A1, A2, A3, A4

Results:
To utilise these results there is a need to develop a classification algorithm, to
then allow for predictions to be made. The algorithm may also be used for the
classification of new values. It was noted that not all of the rules are equally
important or reliable. In the case study there were 23 exact rules and 3
approximate rules for the Total Food Productivity and 13 exact rules and 5
approximate rules for the agro-food sector. As many of the rules are based only
on observations, the quality can be quite low. To decide which rules were most
relevant, they were compared using a strength method to simplify the decision
table to a few rules.

Conculsion:
This paper shows the potential for rough set theory to allow for future predictions
of growth in the farm sector. This could be applied to allow for predictions of
yields of crops for the year to provide a better insight into the amount of food
being produced, and thus the amount needed to import/ available to export.

1: Van Ierland and Klaasen (1996)