SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Supply Chain Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method in Agricultural Supply Chain

Tarım Tedarik Zincirinde Bulanık Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemi Kullanılarak Tedarik Zinciri Risk Değerlendirmesi

Hüseyin Atlı(İskenderun Teknik Üniversitesi, İskenderun Meslek Yüksekokulu, Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Bölümü, İskenderun-Hatay, TÜRKİYE)0000-0002-1397-1514
Pages
91–101
Publication Date
2026-07-14
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of this research can assist agricultural supply chain stakeholders in identifying, classifying, and analyzing supply chain risks, as well as in planning and developing strategies to mitigate or control these risks.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main objective of the study is to analyze supply chain risks in the agricultural supply chain using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings also demonstrate that among the 17 risks, the "high cost of feed and roughage", "disease/injury/disability of the animal", and "lack of appropriate living infrastructure" are the most important risks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of this research can assist agricultural supply chain stakeholders in identifying, classifying, and analyzing supply chain risks, as well as in planning and developing strategies to mitigate or control these risks.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tedarik zinciri · sürdürülebilirlik · çok kriterli karar verme

Abstract

The main objective of the study is to analyze supply chain risks in the agricultural supply chain using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method. In this study, the importance levels and weights of the criteria in agricultural supply chain risk assessment were measured using the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process method. The results of the study indicate that the most important risk dimension is "input supply risk", followed respectively by the "production risk", "marketing risk", and "post-harvest risk" dimensions. The findings also demonstrate that among the 17 risks, the "high cost of feed and roughage", "disease/injury/disability of the animal", and "lack of appropriate living infrastructure" are the most important risks. Agricultural supply chains become inherently more complex due to long lead times, perishability, weather conditions, logistical issues, supply-demand variability, price volatility, and environmental uncertainties. Due to all these variations and uncertainties, the agricultural supply chain becomes more vulnerable to various weaknesses and risks. This situation requires us to manage agricultural supply chain risks more effectively and efficiently through a sustainable approach. In a complex supply chain structure and environment of uncertainty, multi-criteria decision-making methods are widely used to solve supply chain risk problems. The results of this research can assist agricultural supply chain stakeholders in identifying, classifying, and analyzing supply chain risks, as well as in planning and developing strategies to mitigate or control these risks.

Özet

Çalışmanın temel amacı, tarım tedarik zincirinde bulanık çok kriterli karar verme yöntemini kullanarak tedarik zinciri risklerini analiz etmektir. Bu çalışmada, tarım tedarik zinciri risk değerlendirmesinde kriterlerin önem düzeyleri ve ağırlıkları, bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP, Analytic Hierarchy Process) yöntemi ile ölçülmüştür. Çalışmanın sonuçları, en önemli risk boyutunun “girdi tedarik riski” olduğunu; bunu sırasıyla “üretim riski”, “pazarlama riski” ve “hasat sonrası risk” boyutunun takip ettiğini göstermektedir. Bulgular, ayrıca; 17 risk arasında “yem ve kaba yem maliyetinin yüksek olması”, “hayvanın hastalığı/yaralanması/sakatlığı” ve “uygun yaşam altyapısının olmaması” en önemli riskler olduğunu göstermektedir. Tarım tedarik zincirleri uzun tedarik süresi, dayanıksızlık, hava koşulları, lojistik sorunlar, arz-talep değişkenliği, fiyat değişkenliği ve çevresel belirsizlikler nedeniyle doğası gereği daha karmaşık hale gelmektedir. Tüm bu değişkenlikler ve belirsizlikler nedeniyle tarım tedarik zinciri çeşitli zafiyetlere ve risklere karşı daha hassas hale gelmektedir. Bu durum, tarım tedarik zinciri risklerini daha etkili ve verimli bir şekilde sürdürülebilir yaklaşımla yönetmemizi gerektirmektedir. Karmaşık tedarik zinciri yapısı ve belirsizlik ortamında, tedarik zinciri risk problemlerini çözmek için çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın sonuçları, tarım tedarik zinciri paydaşlarının tedarik zinciri risklerini belirlemesine, sınıflandırmasına, analiz etmesine ve riskleri azaltmak veya kontrol altına almak için strateji geliştirmelerinde ve planlama yapmalarında yardımcı olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Atlı, H. (2026). Supply Chain Risk Assessment Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method in Agricultural Supply Chain. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.1845936

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (68)

  1. Abbas, Q., Han, J., Bakhsh, K., Ullah, R., Kousar, R., Adeel, A., Akhtar, A., 2022. Adaptation to climate change risks among dairy farmers in Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy, 119: 106184.
  2. Abu Hatab, A., Krautscheid, L., Boqvist, S., 2021. COVID-19, livestock systems and food security in developing countries: A systematic review of an emerging literature. Pathogens, 10(5): 586.
  3. Adeyemo, O.K., Alarape, S.A., Adetunji, V.E., Saka, A.B., Adebowale, O.O., Ubiogoro, O.O., Agbede, S.A., 2021. Safety hazards along animal food supply Chain in Nigeria. In: O.O. Babalola (Eds.), Food Security and Safety: African Perspectives, Springer, London, pp. 869-883.
  4. Adeyonu, A.G., Otunaiya, A.O., Oyawoye, E.O., Okeniyi, F.A., 2021. Risk perceptions and risk management strategies among poultry farmers in south-west Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1): 1891719.
  5. Agrawal, V., Mohanty, R.P., Agarwal, S., Dixit, J.K., Agrawal, A.M., 2023. Analyzing critical success factors for sustainable green supply chain management. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(8): 8233-8258.
  6. Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2009. Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(1): 1-20.
  7. Akçaöz, H., Özkan, B., 2005. Determining risk sources and strategies among farmers of contrasting risk awareness: A case study for Cukurova region of Turkey. Journal of Arid Environments, 62(4): 661-675.
  8. Aramyan, L., Ondersteijn, C.J.M., van Kooten, O., Oude Lansink, A., 2006. Performance indicators in agri-food production chains. In: C.J.M. Ondersteijn, J.H.M. Wijnands, R.B.M. Huirne and O. van Kooten (Eds.), Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain, Springer, Printed in the Netherlands, Frontis, pp. 47-64.
  9. Aramyan, L.H., Oude Lansink, A., van Der Vorst, J.G., van Kooten, O., 2007. Performance measurement in agri‐food supply chains: A case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4): 304-315.
  10. Ashby, A., Leat, M., Hudson-Smith, M., 2012. Making connections: A review of supply chain management and sustainability literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5): 497-516.
  11. Atlı, H.F., 2024a. Sustainable supplier selection using fuzzy AHP (AHP-F) and fuzzy ARAS (ARAS-F) techniques for fertilizer supply in the agricultural supply chain. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 12(8): 1269-1280.
  12. Atlı, H.F., 2024b. Target market selection for agricultural products in international markets using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy COPRAS MCDM techniques. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 9(3): 369-382.
  13. Atlı, H.F., 2024c. Safety of agricultural machinery and tractor maintenance planning with fuzzy logic and MCDM for agricultural productivity. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 8(1): 25-43.
  14. Atlı, H.F., Senir, G., 2024. Green supplier selection using IMF SWARA and Fuzzy WASPAS techniques for the supply of agricultural pesticides. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, 7(4): 377-390.
  15. Aune, J.B., Bationo, A., 2008. Agricultural intensification in the Sahel-The ladder approach. Agricultural Systems, 98(2): 119-125.
  16. Bansal, P., Roth, K., 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 717-736.
  17. Behzadi, G., O’Sullivan, M.J., Olsen, T.L., Zhang, A., 2018. Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega, 79: 21-42.
  18. Birthal, P.S., Taneja, V.K., 2012. Operationalizing the pro-poor potential of livestock: Issues and strategies. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 82(5): 441.
  19. Burch, D., Lawrence, G., 2005. Supermarket own brands, supply chains and the transformation of the agri-food system. The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 13(1): 1-18.
  20. Cao, Y., Wu, J., Zhang, X., Niu, B., Li, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., 2019. Dynamic forage-livestock balance analysis in alpine grasslands on the Northern Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Environmental Management, 238: 352-359.
  21. Carvajal, J., Sarache, W., Costa, Y., 2019. Addressing a robust decision in the sugarcane supply chain: Introduction of a new agricultural investment project in Colombia. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 157: 77-89.
  22. Chand, S., Narayan, P., Chaudhary, K.R., 2018. Sources of risks in livestock production and their management strategies in northern India. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 88(5): 612-619.
  23. Christopher, M., 2022. Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Pearson, London.
  24. Clavijo-Buritica, N., Triana-Sanchez, L., Escobar, J.W., 2023. A hybrid modeling approach for resilient agri-supply network design in emerging countries: Colombian coffee supply chain. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 85: 101431.
  25. Croxton, K.L., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J., Lambert, D.M., Rogers, D.S., 2001. The supply chain management processes. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12(2): 13-36.
  26. De, A., Singh, S.P., 2021. Analysis of fuzzy applications in the agri-supply chain: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283: 124577.
  27. Dehghanian, F., Mansour, S., 2009. Designing sustainable recovery network of end-of-life products using genetic algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(10): 559-570.
  28. Faisal, M., Chunping, X., Abbas, A., Raza, M.H., Akhtar, S., Ajmal, M.A., Ali, A., 2021. Do risk perceptions and constraints influence the adoption of climate change practices among small livestock herders in Punjab, Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(32): 43777-43791.
  29. Gärtner, D., Keller, A., Schulin, R., 2013. A simple regional downscaling approach for spatially distributing land use types for agricultural land. Agricultural Systems, 120: 10-19.
  30. Gebremedhin, B., Pender, J., Tesfay, G., 2004. Collective action for grazing land management in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 82(3): 273-290.
  31. Gilligan, D.O., Hoddinott, J., Taffesse, A.S., 2009. The impact of Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme and its linkages. The Journal of Development Studies, 45(10): 1684-1706.
  32. Godde, C.M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Mayberry, D.E., Thornton, P.K., Herrero, M., 2021. Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain: A review of the evidence. Global Food Security, 28: 100488.
  33. Hall, J., 2000. Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(6): 455-471.
  34. Hudec, M., 2016. Fuzziness in Information Systems: How to Deal with Crisp and Fuzzy Data in Selection, Classification, and Summarization. Springer Nature, Switzerland.
  35. Joyce, A., Paquin, R.L., 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135: 1474-1486.
  36. Khan, M.A., Chander, M., Bardhan, D., 2013. Willingness to pay for cattle and buffalo insurance: An analysis of dairy farmers in central India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 45(2): 461-468.
  37. Khan, S., Haleem, A., Khan, M.I., 2021. Risk management in Halal supply chain: An integrated fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, 16(1): 172-214.
  38. Khan, W., Khan, S., Dhamija, A., Haseeb, M., Ansari, S.A., 2023. Risk assessment in livestock supply chain using the MCDM method: A case of emerging economy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8): 20688-20703.
  39. Kumar, A., Joshi, P.K., Kumar, P., Parappurathu, S., 2014. Trends in the consumption of milk and milk products in India: Implications for self-sufficiency in milk production. Food Security, 6(5): 719-726.
  40. Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1): 65-83.
  41. Leat, P., Revoredo-Giha, C., 2013. Risk and resilience in agri-food supply chains: The case of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(2): 219-231.
  42. Lintukangas, K., Kähkönen, A.K., Ritala, P., 2016. Supply risks as drivers of green supply management adoption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 1901-1909.
  43. Masson, R., Lahrichi, N., Rousseau, L.M., 2016. A two-stage solution method for the annual dairy transportation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 251(1): 36-43.
  44. McDermott, J.J., Staal, S.J., Freeman, H.A., Herrero, M., van de Steeg, J.A., 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science, 130(1-3): 95-109.
  45. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G., 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2): 1-25.
  46. Meuwissen, M.P., Huirne, R.B.M., Hardaker, J.B., 2001. Risk and risk management: An empirical analysis of Dutch livestock farmers. Livestock Production Science, 69(1): 43-53.
  47. Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M.S., Bernabucci, U., 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science, 130(1-3): 57-69.
  48. Nilakanta, S., Scheibe, K., Rai, A., 2008. Dimensional issues in agricultural data warehouse designs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 60(2): 263-278.
  49. Palcic, I., Lalic, B., 2009. Analytical Hierarchy Process as a tool for selecting and evaluating projects. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 8(1): 16-26.
  50. Rajeev, A., Pati, R.K., Padhi, S.S., Govindan, K., 2017. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162: 299-314.
  51. Rejeb, A., 2018. Halal meat supply chain traceability based on HACCP, blockchain and internet of things. Acta Technica Jaurinensis, 11(4): 218-247.
  52. Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1): 83-98.
  53. Saaty, T.L., 2013. Analytic hierarchy process. In: S.I. Gass and M.C. Fu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, Boston, pp. 52-64.
  54. Salin, V., 1998. Information technology in agri-food supply chains. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 1(3): 329-334.
  55. Salman, K.K., Ashagidigbi, W.M., Jabar, K.T., 2010. Correlates of risk-aversion among poultry egg farmers in Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Economics and Development, 19: 46-60.
  56. Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15): 1699-1710.
  57. Sharma, R., Shishodia, A., Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., Belhadi, A., 2024. Agriculture supply chain risks and COVID-19: Mitigation strategies and implications for the practitioners. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 27(11): 2351-2377.
  58. Singh, S., Agrawal, V., Mohanty, R.P., 2022. Multi-criteria decision analysis of significant enablers for a competitive supply chain. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 19(3): 414-442.
  59. Soberi, M.S.F., Ahmad, R., 2016. Application of fuzzy AHP for setup reduction in manufacturing industry. Journal of Engineering Research and Education, 8: 73-84.
  60. Sonar, H., Sharma, I., Ghag, N., Singh, R.K., 2024. Barriers for achieving sustainable agri supply chain: Study in context to Indian MSMEs. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 27: 1-20.
  61. Stone, J., Rahimifard, S., 2018. Resilience in agri-food supply chains: A critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(3): 207-238.
  62. Sufiyan, M., Haleem, A., Khan, S., Khan, M.I., 2019. Evaluating food supply chain performance using hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 20: 40-57.
  63. Tadesse, M.A., Shiferaw, B.A., Erenstein, O., 2015. Weather index insurance for managing drought risk in smallholder agriculture: Lessons and policy implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3(1): 26.
  64. Thomson, S.J., Ross, B.B., 1996. Model-based irrigation management using a dynamic parameter adjustment method. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 14(4): 269-290.
  65. Yazdani, M., Gonzalez, E.D., Chatterjee, P., 2021. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for agriculture supply chain risk management under a circular economy context. Management Decision, 59(8): 1801-1826.
  66. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Information and control. Fuzzy Sets, 8(3): 338-353.
  67. Zadeh, L.A., 1975. Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese, 30(3): 407-428.
  68. Zhao, G., Liu, S., Lopez, C., Chen, H., Lu, H., Mangla, S.K., Elgueta, S., 2020. Risk analysis of the agri-food supply chain: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Production Research, 58(16): 4851-4876.