sustainability

Article
Multi-Objective Optimization for Food Availability under
Economic and Environmental Risk Constraints
Bashar Hassna, Sarah Namany , Mohammad Alherbawi , Adel Elomri and Tareq Al-Ansari *

College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha P.O. Box 34110, Qatar;
[email protected] (B.H.); [email protected] (S.N.); [email protected] (A.E.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Food security remains a critical global challenge, increasingly threatened by the adverse
effects of climate change on agricultural productivity and food supply chains. Ensuring the stability,
availability, and accessibility of food resources necessitates innovative strategies to assess and mitigate
climate-related risks. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of the impact of climate change
on global food systems, focusing on the risk assessment and optimization of food supply chains from
the perspective of importers. Deploying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), this study evaluates
climate change risks associated with seven different suppliers for three key crops, considering a range
of factors, including surface temperature, arable land, water stress, and adaptation policies. Utilizing
these assessments, a multi-objective optimization model is developed and solved using MATLAB
(R2018a)’s Genetic Algorithm, aiming to identify optimal suppliers to meet Qatar’s food demand,
with consideration of the economic, environmental, and risk factors. The findings underscore the
importance of a comprehensive approach in managing food supply chains and offer insights to
enhance the resilience and sustainability of global food systems amid climate uncertainties. This
study contributes to the literature by applying AHP and multi-objective optimization in climate risk
management within food systems, providing valuable perspectives for policymakers and stakeholders
in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, the multi-objective optimization model analyzed three crop
networks, yielding total costs of USD 16 million, USD 6 million, and USD 10 million for tomatoes,
Citation: Hassna, B.; Namany, S.; onions, and cucumbers, respectively, with associated CO2 eq emissions and risk percentages. The
Alherbawi, M.; Elomri, A.; Al-Ansari, findings reveal concentrated global vegetable markets, with major importers accounting for over
T. Multi-Objective Optimization for
60% of imports, though the leading importers differ across crops, highlighting regional demand and
Food Availability under Economic
production disparities, potentially impacting food security and supply chain resilience.
and Environmental Risk Constraints.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336. https://
Keywords: food security; climate change; risk assessment; supply chain optimization; analytical
doi.org/10.3390/su16114336
hierarchy process (AHP)
Academic Editors: Riccardo Testa,
Giuseppina Migliore, Giorgio Schifani
and József Tóth

Received: 5 March 2024 1. Introduction

Revised: 8 May 2024 Climate change stands as one of the foremost global challenges, markedly affecting
Accepted: 12 May 2024 Earth’s ecosystems. While fluctuations in climate have been constant over the past century,
Published: 21 May 2024 the pace of change has accelerated notably in recent decades. Human activities since the
19th century have led to a 0.9 ◦ C increase in the average global temperature, due to the
emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Projected trends suggest that with ongoing defor-
estation and pollution of air, soil, and water, this warming could reach 1.5 ◦ C by 2050 [1].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Shifts in temperature and precipitation over time are reshaping the global distribution of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
food production advantages, potentially hindering agricultural productivity growth in
This article is an open access article
regions already struggling with hunger. These changes threaten to disrupt global agricul-
distributed under the terms and
ture and food systems, leading to yearly fluctuations in food availability. If current climate
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
trends continue, there could be unparalleled increases in crop failures, leading to decreased
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
production, higher food prices, and challenges in meeting the growing demand.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114336 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 2 of 18

Given that food systems are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural
disasters, the consequences of these factors can manifest either abruptly or gradually, lead-
ing to either favorable or adverse outcomes [1]. Notably, these impacts primarily affect the
production stages, accounting for approximately 20% of the entire value chain [2]. Further-
more, global agricultural markets have become increasingly complex due to a heightened
focus on food standards related to safety, quality, and technological advancements. These
factors drive changes throughout the industry, affecting the entire value chain. These com-
plexities intensify the challenge of establishing a resilient and robust food supply system.
Therefore, it becomes important to adopt a holistic approach, considering the entire value
chain rather than solely focusing on the production stage [3]. Therefore, there is a growing
need to enhance efforts linked to identifying and classifying risks associated with food
systems, exploring data from various segments of the value chain. Consequently, the main
objective of this study is to evaluate the climate change risk of seven different suppliers for
three different crops from the importer’s viewpoint.
In this study, the risks related to the food system are assessed considering how they
may affect Qatar’s ability to meet consumer demand. In this regard, the AHP tool is used to
assess the relative importance of various risk factors using both quantitative and qualitative
measurements. Since its development, AHP has been utilized in assisting decision making
in almost every industry [4]. Instead of relying on complex mathematical techniques, AHP
uses pairwise matrices to produce acceptable alternative priority lists [5]. The AHP is
utilized to identify and prioritize factors and subfactors critical for assessing the risks posed
by climate change to the food system. The evaluation criteria encompass aspects, such as
supply chain resilience, vulnerability to extreme weather events, greenhouse gas emissions,
and strategies for adaptation.
Sub-criteria are further subdivided into individual risk alternatives [5]. Each factor is
estimated by comparing the identified climate change risk indicators with respect to the
criteria and sub-criteria and is assigned scores based on professional judgment, climate
data, or previous studies. This procedure quantifies risks and their possible effects on
the food chain. Then, the range of scores is normalized across criteria and sub-criteria to
ensure their consistency. Subsequently, the normalized risk scores are transformed to an
overall risk factor used for assessment and policy recommendations. As such, stakeholders
can undertake proactive actions to meet the difficulties posed by climate change, assuring
food security and sustainability by applying the AHP to climate change risks in the food
system [6]. In this study, the AHP is used to evaluate each of the seven suppliers’ and assign
risk factors describing their performance in the face of climate change. In addition, a multi-
objective optimization model was developed and solved using MATLAB (R2018a)’s Genetic
Algorithm tool. This optimization framework is designed to identify the set of optimal
suppliers and determine their contribution rates to Qatar’s food basket. It ensures that
local demands are met within the suppliers’ capacities, costs are minimized, and associated
risks are kept to a minimum. The model offers insights into potential improvements for
global food systems, taking into account economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
The novelty of this study lies in its integrated approach, combining the AHP with
a multi-objective optimization model to assess and mitigate climate change risks in food
supply chains. This unique methodology allows for a comprehensive evaluation of risk
factors from the perspective of importers and optimizes supplier selection to enhance
food security in the face of climate uncertainties. It bridges the gap between climate
risk assessment and practical supply chain management, offering actionable insights for
policymakers and stakeholders in the agricultural sector. Six risk factors were chosen for
the AHP, and they include: surface temperature, arable land, water stress, rising sea levels,
agriculture policies, adaptation, and disaster response risk management. These factors
are selected for their significant influence on agricultural productivity and supply chain
resilience amidst climate change. They offer a comprehensive view of environmental and
operational challenges, informing the development of robust mitigation and adaptation
strategies within the food sector. The composite indicators identified through the AHP are
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 3 of 18

subsequently deployed in the optimization process to enhance suppliers selection for these
three crops.
This study is structured such that the following section, Section 2, provides the main
literature about food supply chain activities. Section 3 focuses on the multi-objective opti-
mization, describing the development of the mathematical model along with its associated
constraints. Following this, Section 4 offers a comprehensive analysis of the multiple-
objective model’s results, accompanied by a discussion on both input and output aspects.
Finally, the last section encompasses the conclusion and recommendations drawn from the
study’s findings.

2. Literature Review
In recent years, the food supply chain has increasingly faced emergency situations.
These have ranged from incidents involving substandard milk powder and Sudan red
chili sauce to more alarming cases, such as soy sauce derived from hair, paraffin-laden
hotpot soup bases, toxic rice, adulterated cooking oil, and the presence of clenbuterol.
Such incidents not only provoke widespread public concern, they also pose significant
threats to the survival and growth of businesses across the entire food supply chain. These
occurrences highlight the critical need for businesses to enhance risk prevention measures
within the food supply chain. Effective risk management begins with the identification and
thorough assessment of potential risks. Notably, within the food supply chain, a predomi-
nant portion of the emergent risks is attributed to uncertainties, distinguishing these risks
from those prevalent in broader supply chain contexts [5]. The development of innovative
techniques for risk assessment is crucial. In this regard, the AHP is adopted as an efficient
tool to quantify and assess risks in the food system. It is a Multicriteria Decision-making
Method (MCDM) combining qualitative and quantitative analysis proposed by the Ameri-
can operations research scientist Saaty [6]. MCDM serves as an analytical tool designed to
tackle complex problems involving multiple alternatives with tradeoffs, where decisions
are influenced by various criteria [7]. It enables the simplification of intricate scenarios
into smaller controllable sections that can be addressed separately and then aggregated to
reach a holistic and effective solution [6]. They are various types of MCDM tools that can
be classified into two major categories: outranking methods, which assess the performance
of each alternative individually with no compensation of other criteria; and compensatory
methods, which are applicable in instances involving alternatives with positive aspects that
can outweigh the deficiencies in other alternatives [8]. In the context of risk management,
the purpose of decision makers is to improve response mechanisms and mitigation plans
faced with sudden and continuous uncertainties. This entails a holistic understanding of the
situation of resources, the current available strategies, and the performance of the sectors.
Since these problems are complex and multifaceted, the initial step towards mitigating
risks is to rank their influence on the studied system. In this regard, the AHP, which is a
compensatory MCDM, is considered one of the most effective techniques to address such
problems. It allows decision makers to systematically analyze and compare various criteria
and alternatives, considering the intricate interconnections between them. By structuring
the problem hierarchically and utilizing pairwise comparisons, the AHP captures the re-
lationships between different climate change risks. There is an inherent flexibility in the
tool, accommodating qualitative and quantitative data, along with its capacity to integrate
expert judgments. Therefore, it can be considered suitable for assessing and prioritizing
climate change risks, and as such, decision makers can utilize the AHP to make informed
choices pertaining to evolving climate challenges, ensuring a comprehensive and robust
evaluation of climate-related risks and their potential impacts.
The AHP has been extensively deployed in the food system, notably in the agriculture
sector. The latter has strategic importance as the source of nourishment, and agriculture is
also an essential part of the state’s economy, environment, and quality of life. The AHP
is extensively used in risk factor assessments. Risk factors can substantially influence
decision-making in the field of agriculture. [9]. For instance, the AHP is beneficial in
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 4 of 18

supporting decision making for land use suitability, since it aids in problem evaluation
when several competing criteria are present [10]. In order to undertake land use suitability
analysis using the AHP technique, it is important to deconstruct unstructured issues into
their constituent elements. The factors were organized into three hierarchies: goal, criteria,
and sub-criteria. The factors were compared to one another and given a relative dominant
value between 1 and 9 [6]. In addition, the AHP is extensively utilized across a variety of
sectors, including environmental science, manufacturing, and management, as highlighted
by Tscheikner-Gratl et al. [11]. Applications are diverse, for instance, Haji et al.‘s [12]
development of a risk assessment framework for greenhouse planning in arid environments,
and Thanki et al.’ s [13] exploration of lean-green practice adoption within small- and
medium-sized enterprises. The AHP’s importance lies in its capacity to synthesize both
quantitative and qualitative criteria, thereby facilitating decisions that are both informed
and transparent. Although AHP may be subject to potential inaccuracies due to subjective
judgments, the methodology includes mechanisms for consistency checks to confirm the
reliability of established priorities. Deploying authoritative data and expert opinion in
setting these priorities can further enhance the method’s precision [11]. Advancements
such as Leal’s [14] AHP-express method have streamlined the AHP application in complex
comparative analyses by minimizing procedural steps and promoting more nuanced
evaluations across the hierarchy’s various levels. At its core, the AHP simplifies intricate
issues into a hierarchical structure of criteria and alternatives, all aimed at a singular
goal [15].
The complexity and diversity of risks within the food system necessitate the use of
both qualitative and quantitative methods for a comprehensive assessment, involving
techniques, such as ranking, screening, and the distribution of weights. Navigating these
intricacies, however, demands more than just assessment; it requires the strategic align-
ment of food system components to ensure sustainability and resilience. This is where
optimization plays a pivotal role, serving as a bridge between the assessment of risks and
the implementation of effective strategies to mitigate these risks. Optimization models, par-
ticularly those with multi-objective frameworks, are instrumental in planning the complex
interplay of factors that define the food system. They provide a structured methodology
to balance competing objectives, such as environmental sustainability, economic viability,
and nutritional adequacy, amidst the dynamic and global nature of food supply chains.
Multi-objective network design can accommodate the diverse requirements of products
and nutrients within the food system. By considering factors, like sourcing, processing,
and transportation, optimization models strive to minimize environmental impacts and
financial costs while catering to societal nutritional needs. This approach enables a compre-
hensive evaluation of dietary transitions, such as shifting from meat-based to plant-based
diets, and their implications on supply chain configurations. Utilizing real-world data and
case studies, these models illuminate the trade-offs between various goals and delineate
the environmental responsibilities across the supply chain’s spectrum [16].
The integration of multi-objective optimization models within the food system has in-
creasingly become a focal point of multiple studies, aiming to reconcile the often-conflicting
goals of environmental sustainability, economic efficiency, and social equity. For instance,
Agrawal et al. [17] deployed multi-objective optimization to enhance the sustainability
of agricultural practices while maximizing crop yields and minimizing water usage. The
study uniquely balanced the need for high agricultural productivity with the imperative
of water conservation, demonstrating the potential for optimization models to contribute
to more sustainable farming practices. Another study, conducted by Jian et al. [18], in-
troduced a multi-objective optimization model within a green supply chain, balancing
economic gains with environmental benefits, demonstrating that a revenue-sharing contract
effectively aligns these dual objectives, facilitating mutual benefits for all parties involved.
Furthermore, the work of Lin et al. [19] explored the optimization of food distribution
networks to improve food access in urban areas. The model considered various objectives,
including minimizing transportation costs, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and en-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 5 of 18

suring equitable food distribution across different urban sectors. The findings highlighted
the critical role of optimization in creating more inclusive and environmentally friendly
food distribution systems. Focusing on food production, Abejón et al. [20] utilized opti-
mization for plant-based food production systems. The study aimed to balance nutritional
value, environmental impact, and consumer affordability through a multi-objective opti-
mization framework. The results underscored the potential for such models to guide the
development of sustainable, nutritious, and accessible plant-based food products.
The integration of AHP with optimization models offers a promising pathway to
address the complex challenges posed by climate change on food supply chains. While
AHP facilitates a detailed analysis of risk factors and their relative importance, optimiza-
tion models enable the strategic allocation of resources to mitigate these risks effectively.
This integrated approach is crucial for developing resilient and sustainable food supply
chains capable of withstanding the multifaceted impacts of climate change. Considering
sustainable supply chain management, Belamkar et al. [21] utilizes AHP to assess environ-
mental and social sustainability factors in conjunction with economic considerations. By
deploying a multi-objective optimization model, the study proposes optimal configurations
that balance the triple bottom line of sustainability, thus highlighting the versatility of
AHP in capturing diverse criteria and the power of optimization models in navigating
the trade-offs between these criteria. Furthermore, a study by Hassna et al. [22] provides
valuable insights into the application of AHP for evaluating the resilience of supply chains
to climate-induced disruptions. By identifying key resilience factors, which are integrated
into a multi-objective optimization model, the study proposed strategic adaptations that
enhanced the supply chain’s robustness against climate-related shocks. This research un-
derscores the critical role of resilience in maintaining the continuity and reliability of food
supply chains in the face of climate uncertainties.
Despite these advancements, the literature still exhibits a gap in specifically addressing
climate change risks in food supply chains through an integrated AHP and multi-objective
optimization framework. The intricate dynamics of climate risks, coupled with the crit-
ical nature of food security, necessitates a tailored approach that considers the specific
vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities of food supply chains.

3. Methodology
The methodology proposed in this study aims to enhance the resilience of the food
import system in the face of climate risks affecting exporting countries. The suggested
framework determines the optimal set of trade partners capable of meeting Qatar’s annual
demand, as an importing nation, for three essential commodities: tomatoes, cucumbers, and
onions, which are the most consumed crops in the nation. The framework is designed over
two stages, wherein the initial step is to construct a composite risk factor that depicts the
impact of climate change risks on the production of different crop-producing countries. The
indicators selected consider multiple factors representing uncontrolled natural risks, such
as surface temperature, arable land, water stress, and sea level, in addition to some moni-
tored indicators representing the countries’ response to climate change, such as disaster risk
management programs. The selection of these indicators is grounded in the recognition
that the impact of climate change on irrigation is multifaceted and influenced by a variety
of natural factors. These factors, including surface temperature, arable land availability,
water stress, and sea level, collectively contribute to uncontrolled natural risks that can
significantly affect irrigation systems. Additionally, the inclusion of monitored indicators,
such as disaster risk management programs implemented by countries, reflects the proac-
tive measures taken in response to climate change. By considering both the natural risks
and the countries’ response strategies, a comprehensive assessment of the impact of climate
change on irrigation can be obtained, providing valuable insights for effective planning
and adaptation measures. The composite indicators for each trade partner are designed
using the AHP method. The second stage of the methodology consists of optimizing the
international supply system in charge of delivering tomatoes. The problem is formulated
 reflects the proactive measures taken in response to climate change. By considering both
the natural risks and the countries’ response strategies, a comprehensive assessment of
the impact of climate change on irrigation can be obtained, providing valuable insights
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 for effective planning and adaptation measures. The composite indicators for each6trade of 18
partner are designed using the AHP method. The second stage of the methodology con-
sists of optimizing the international supply system in charge of delivering tomatoes. The
asproblem is formulated
a multi-objective as a multi-objective
optimization optimization
that minimizes that minimizes
the economic the economic
and environmental costsandin
environmental
addition costs in to
to the exposure addition
climateto the of
risks exposure to climate
the selected risks of the
trade network selected
(Figure 1). Atrade net-
detailed
work (Figure
description 1). A
of the detailed description
methodology of the
is presented methodology
in the is presented
following sections, in theSection
wherein following3.1
explains
sections,the AHP steps,
wherein Sectionand
3.1 Section
explains3.2theillustrates
AHP steps, theand
mathematical formulation
Section 3.2 illustrates theofmath-
the
optimization framework.
ematical formulation of the optimization framework.

Figure1.1.AAgeneral
Figure generalillustration
illustrationofofthe
thesuggested
suggestedmethodology.
methodology.

3.1. The AHP Methodology

3.1. The AHP Methodology
The AHP is used in this study to determine the overall risk factor characterizing every
The AHP is used in this study to determine the overall risk factor characterizing every
trade partner, such that the higher the composite index is, the higher the risk of importing
trade partner, such that the higher the composite index is, the higher the risk of importing
from the exporting country. The generic structure of the AHP begins with identifying
from the exporting country. The generic structure of the AHP begins with identifying the
the goal and objective of the assessment. Following a hierarchical approach, criteria, sub-
goal and objective of the assessment. Following a hierarchical approach, criteria, sub-cri-
criteria, and alternatives are then established, with the goal at level zero, alternatives at the
teria, and alternatives are then established, with the goal at level zero, alternatives at the
lowest level, and criteria at intermediary levels. Subsequently, a pairwise comparison is
lowest level, and criteria at intermediary levels. Subsequently, a pairwise comparison is
performed, comparing each pair of elements at lower levels to ensure consistency. During
performed,
this comparison,comparing each pair
a nine-point scaleofmethod
elements at lower levels
developed by Saatyto ensure consistency.
[15] is employed to During
assign
importance weights (refer to Table A1) [15]. Data for this study were gathered from to
this comparison, a nine-point scale method developed by Saaty [15] is employed assign
various
importance weights (refer to Table A1) [15]. Data for this study
outlets, primarily consisting of gray literature. This encompasses annual reports from were gathered from vari-
ous outlets, primarily consisting of gray literature. This encompasses
ministries, reports from consultancy firms, and databases from international organizations. annual reports from
ministries,
Then, reports
the final step from consultancy
involves estimating firms, and scores
priority databases from
at each international
level. Table A2 organiza-
lists the
tions. Then,
sources the final
that were usedstep involvesthe
to estimate estimating priority scores at each level. Table A2 lists
priority scores.
the sources that were
In this study, the used
AHP to is estimate the priority
meticulously appliedscores.
to evaluate the climate change risk
In this study, the AHP is meticulously
factors affecting agricultural sectors within seven applied to evaluate
countries: the climate
the United States ofchange risk
America,
factors affecting agricultural sectors within seven countries: the United
Iran, Lebanon, India, Turkey, Morocco, and the Netherlands. The focus is on three primary States of America,
Iran, Lebanon,
crops: tomatoes,India, Turkey,and
cucumbers, Morocco,
onions.and This the
ledNetherlands.
to the creation Theoffocus is on three
twenty-one primary
composite
crops: tomatoes,
indicators cucumbers,the
that encapsulate and onions.
risk This
profiles forled tocrop-producing
the the creation of twenty-one
sectors acrosscomposite
these
indicators For
countries. thateach
encapsulate
country theandrisk
cropprofiles for the this
combination, crop-producing
study identifies sectors across these
six critical risk
countries.
factors: For each
disaster risk country
management,and crop combination,
surface temperature thischange,
study identifies
arable land sixavailability,
critical risk
factors:
water disaster
stress, risk management,
sea level surface adaptation
rise, and agricultural temperature change,This
policies. arable landinavailability,
results a compre-
water stress, sea
hensive analysis involvinglevel rise,
15 and
pairwise agricultural
comparisons adaptation
per set of policies.
risk factors,This results in
employing thea

equation (n 2 − n /2 = 15, where n is the number of risk factors. To illustrate the process,
an example of the pairwise comparison matrix used to assess the risk factors for tomato
production in India is provided (Table 1). This methodology is consistently applied to
all scenarios under investigation. Subsequent to the completion of pairwise comparisons,
the study employs normalized eigenvalue approximation to derive priority vectors. This
involves normalizing each value within the comparison matrix by the sum of its respective
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 7 of 18

column, followed by averaging the normalized values across rows to yield a set of priority
scores for each risk factor. The culmination of this phase is the synthesis of these priority
scores into a singular, representative composite risk indicator for each crop–country pair.
This aggregation is achieved through a weighted average calculation, where the lowest
score is assigned a weight of 1 and the highest score receives a weight of 6, reflecting the
relative significance of each risk factor [23]. The generated composite risk indicators serve
as critical inputs into the optimization model detailed in the subsequent section, Section 3.2,
providing a robust foundation for the strategic assessment and mitigation of climate change
risks within the specified agricultural contexts. To aid in the understanding of the AHP
methodology and its application in this context, a hierarchical diagram is provided, visu-
ally representing the decision-making framework, from the overarching goal down to the
specific criteria considered (Figure 2).

Table 1. (a) Pairwise comparison matrix for India’s tomato production sector. (b) Pairwise comparison
matrix for India’s cucumber production sector. (c) Pairwise comparison matrix for India’s cucumber
production sector.

(a)
Surface Agricultural
Disaster Risk Arable Water Sea Level
Factors Temperature Adaptation
Management Land Stress Rise
Change Policy
Disaster Risk Management 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.33 2.00
Surface Temperature Change 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 4.00
Arable land 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
Water Stress 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
Sea level Rise 3.00 4.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 5.00
Agricultural adaptation Policy 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00
(b)
Surface Agricultural
Disaster Risk Arable Water Sea Level
Factors Temperature Adaptation
Management Land Stress Rise
Change Policy
Disaster Risk Management 1.00 0.50 0.20 0.25 0.33 2.00
Surface Temperature Change 2.00 1.00 0.75 0.33 0.25 4.00
Arable land 5.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
Water Stress 4.00 3.03 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00
Sea Level Rise 3.00 4.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 5.00
Agricultural adaptation Policy 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00
(c)
Surface Agricultural
Disaster Risk Arable Water Sea Level
Factors Temperature Adaptation
Management Land Stress Rise
Change Policy
Disaster Risk Management 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.10
Surface
0.13 0.11 0.25 0.14 0.04 0.20
Temperature Change
Arable land 0.32 0.11 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.20
Water Stress 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.20
Sea Level Rise 0.19 0.46 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.25
Agricultural adaptation Policy 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.05
 indicators serve as critical inputs into the optimization model detailed in the subsequent
section, Section 3.2, providing a robust foundation for the strategic assessment and miti-
gation of climate change risks within the specified agricultural contexts. To aid in the un-
derstanding of the AHP methodology and its application in this context, a hierarchical
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336
diagram is provided, visually representing the decision-making framework, from the
8 of 18
overarching goal down to the specific criteria considered (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The hierarchical tree of the AHP framework.

Figure 2. The hierarchical tree of the AHP framework.
3.2. The Optimisation Model
Table 1.The
(a) optimization modelmatrix
Pairwise comparison is designed totomato
for India’s optimally deliver
production the selected
sector. food
(b) Pairwise items
compar-
(i) to
ison the State
matrix of Qatar
for India’s from different
cucumber productionsupplying
sector. (c) countries (j) through
Pairwise comparison different
matrix shipping
for India’s cu-
meansproduction
cumber (k), as elaborated
sector. in Table 2. For the determination of optimal allocation (Xijk ), the
model is set to fulfill a set of 3 objectives: minimizing net cost, environmental impact, and
(a)
aggregated risk. The mathematical formulation of the optimization problem is defined
Surface
through Equations (1)–(11). Agricultural
Disaster Risk
Factors Temperature Arable Land Water Stress Sea Level Rise Adaptation
Management
Changemodel sets.
Table 2. Optimization’s Policy
Disaster Risk
1.00 i: item 0.50 0.20 of supply0.25
j: country 0.33 of shipping2.00
k: means
Management
Surface Tempera- j1: USA
2.00 1.00 j2: 0.50
Iran 0.50 0.25 4.00
ture Change
i1: Tomatoes j3: Lebanon k1: Ground freight
Arable land 5.00 i2: Onions 2.00 j4: 1.00
India 1.00 2.00freight
k2: Sea 4.00
Water Stress 4.00 i3: Cucumbers 2.00 j5: Turkey
1.00 1.00 k3: Air
2.00freight 4.00
Sea level Rise 3.00 4.00 j6: Morocco
0.50 0.50 1.00 5.00
j7: Netherlands
Agricultural ad-
0.50 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.00
aptation Policy
Objective (1): Minimizing Cost:
3 7 3  (b) 
Min ∑ ∑ ∑ Xijk · Qi · Cpij + Ct jk (1)
Surface Agricultural
Disaster Risk i=1 j=1 k=1
Factors where: Temperature Arable Land Water Stress Sea Level Rise Adaptation
Management
Change
Xijk : Allocation Policy
of purchased item (i) from country (j) through shipping mean (k).
Qi : Total quantity required of item (i).
Cpij : Cost of plantation of item (i) at country (j).
Ct jk : Cost of shipping from country (j) through shipping means (k).
3 7
Cpij = ∑ ∑ Seedsij + Waterij + Energyij + Fertilizersij + Operationsij (2)
i =1 j =1
Ct jk = D j ·C f (3)
where,
D j : Shipping distance (km).
C f : Shipping cost factor (USD /tonne.km).
The annual demand for tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers is set at 158,008, 5396, and
87,392 tons, respectively, as reported by the Planning and Statistics Authority of Qatar.
The shipment options and their associated details are presented in Table 3 for the different
supplying countries [24]. In addition, the item’s unit cost is reported in Table 4.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 9 of 18

Table 3. Estimated distance and time (days) of shipment from the different supplying countries.

Shipping Time
Supplier Distance (km)
Ground (Days) Sea (Days) Air (Days)
USA 12,229 NA 16,000 6–8
Iran 800 1900 500 1
Lebanon 1686 2200 3900 2
India 2856 NA 1600 2–3
Turkey 2128 2800 4800 2–3
Morocco 5638 NA 5800 2–3
The Netherlands 4984 NA 7500 1–2

Table 4. Items’ unit cost for different supplying countries.

USA Iran Lebanon India Turkey Morocco The Netherlands

Tomatoes 1.30 0.50 2.30 0.25 1.10 0.80 1.80
Onions 0.70 0.40 2.00 0.20 0.50 0.10 3.00
Cucumber 0.90 0.60 1.98 0.95 0.95 0.20 2.20

The annual demand for tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers is set at 158,008, 5396,
and 87,392 tons, respectively, as reported by the Planning and Statistics Authority of
Qatar. The shipment options and their associated details are presented in Table 3 for the
different supplying countries. In addition, the item’s unit cost is reported in Table 4 [25].
Objective (2): Minimizing Environmental Impact:
3 7 3  
Min ∑ ∑ ∑ Xijk · Qi · Epij + Ejk (4)
i =1 j =1 k =1
Epij : Environmental impact of plantation of
where
item (i) at country (j).
Ejk : Environmental impact of shipping from
country (j) through shipping means (k).
3 7
Epij = ∑ ∑ Waterij + Energyij + Fertilizersij + Operationsij (5)
i =1 j =1
Et jk = D j · E f (6)
D j : Shipping distance
where
(km).
E f : Shipping
emissions factor (kg
CO2 -e/tonne.km).
The associated emissions per mass unit of shipped items were calculated earlier
considering the distance and freight means, as reported in Table 5.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 10 of 18

Objective (3): Minimizing Risk:

3 7 3
Min ∑ ∑ ∑ Xijk · Rij /3 (7)
i =1 j =1 k =1
Rij : Aggregated risk factor of the growing item
where
(i) at country (j).

Constraints:
(1) Fulfilling Demand: The sum of allocation shall fulfill the local demand.
3 7 3
∑ ∑ ∑ Xijk · Qi · DEGijk (8)
i =1 j =1 k =1
DEGijk = D j · D f i
DEGijk : Degradation (%) of the item (i) from
where
country (j) through shipping means (k).
D j : Shipping distance (km).
D f i : Degradation factor of the item (i).
(2) Diversification: To ensure diversification, lower and upper bounds are defined.
0.1 ≤ Xijk ≤ 0.5 (9)
(3) Ensuring Quality: The allocation is restricted if item degradation exceeds 20%.
If DEGijk ≥ 0.2, Xijk ≤ 0.2 (10)
(4) Supplier Capacity Constraints: The allocation is restricted by the
supplier capacity.
Xijk · Qij ≤ Capij (11)

Table 5. Associated shipping emissions (kg CO2 -e/kg).

Item USA Iran Lebanon India Turkey Morocco The Netherlands

Tomatoes 0.000278 0.000663 0.000202 0.000595 0.000225 0.000132 0.000669
Onions 0.000147 0.000582 0.000109 0.000548 0.000120 0.000074 0.000585
Cucumber 0.000409 0.000745 0.000295 0.000643 0.000329 0.000190 0.000754

The weight loss rate of different items is highly dependent on the shipment distance
and time (days). The average weight loss of the three items for different scenarios is
presented in Table 6 [26].

Table 6. Weight loss rate of the three items (% per day).

USA Iran Lebanon India Turkey Morocco The Netherlands

Tomatoes 0.27% 0.53% 0.80% 1.06% 1.33% 1.59% 1.86%
Onions 0.03% 0.06% 0.09% 0.12% 0.15% 0.18% 0.21%
Cucumber 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50%

The optimization model is solved as a multi-objective problem, in which the three objectives
are optimized simultaneously using the genetic algorithm’s approach of MATLAB (R2018a).
In the second scenario, two sub-scenarios are evaluated, whereas in the first sub-
scenario (2a), the problem is solved for each item independently (i.e., tomatoes, cucumbers,
onions). In the second sub-scenario (2b), the problem is solved for all items collectively.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. The AHP Results
After conducting the AHP for all three crops, a single composite risk factor was
generated for each trade partner, reflecting the impact of climate-change-induced risks. The
composite risk was generated such that the priority scores resulting from the AHP were
ranked from the most critical to the least critical, such that the lowest score was given a
ranking of 1 and the highest score was given a ranking of 6. The result of the weighted
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 11 of 18

average of the ranking and priority score is a one representative score that shows the impact
of climate change on each country. Risks’ influence differs from one country to another;
however, it is consistent for all crops grown in the same country. This is due to the selection
of the individual factors that are used to generate the composite risk indicator. Those
factors generally describe the impact of climate change risks on food production and are
not crop-specific. In fact, indicators representing characteristics that are exclusive to each
crop, such as water requirement, soil quality, and adequate weather conditions, are not
factored in this analysis.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the AHP and illustrates the composite risk factors
that were used as parameters for the optimization framework as part of objective 3, aiming
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
to minimize the overall risk factor of the set of trade partners.

Table 7. The aggregated risk factor of the AHP framework.

chart shows that the Netherlands and the United States are the two largest importers of
Crop
cucumbers,
USA
accounting
Iran
for 19% and 17% of all cucumber
Lebanon India Turkey
imports, respectively.
Morocco The Netherlands
Morocco, India, Turkey, and Lebanon are major cucumber importers, with 11% to
Tomatoes 0.1149 0.1244 0.11776 0.12337 0.11742 0.04762 0.11452
  14% shares. The dominance of the Netherlands and the United States in the global cucum-
Risk Factor Rij Onions ber import
0.1149 market0.1244 0.11776 0.12308 of factors,
0.11742including
0.11724 0.11452
is likely due to a number their favorable climates,
Cucumbersadvanced
0.1147 agricultural
0.1244 technologies,
0.11776 and well-developed
0.12588 0.11742 transportation
0.11724 and logistics net-
0.11452
works. These countries are able to produce cucumbers year round and export them to all
corners of the world. An examination of the optimal import networks for tomatoes, on-
4.2. The Optimization Results
ions, and cucumbers reveals key similarities and differences. All three networks highlight
The multi-objective
a concentrated market withoptimization
a handful ofmodel
majorwas useddominating
players for three different crops
the import in order
landscape.
to determine the optimal network of exporters. The results of the three optimizations are
The top-four importers of tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers account for over 60% of all
summarized in Figure 3, while Figures 4–6 illustrate the average percentage contributions
imports, suggesting significant consolidation within the global vegetable trade. Despite
of each trading partner to the demands of tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers, respectively.
this shared characteristic, the specific countries leading each network differ. Morocco tops
Considering tomatoes, the optimal solution costs a total of USD 16 million and generates
the tomato import chart, followed by India and Iran. India emerges as the leading im-
60 tons of CO2 eq, with an average risk of 10%. As for onions, the economic costs, environ-
porter of onions, while the Netherlands and the United States jointly dominate the cucum-
mental emissions, and risk factors are USD 6 million, 1 ton of CO2 eq, and an average risk
ber import market. These variations reflect unique regional demands and production ca-
exposure of 11.8%, respectively. With regard to cucumbers, USD 10 million for the total
pacities.
supply cost, 42 tons of CO2 eq for the environmental emissions, and similar risk factors.

Figure (Fromleft
Figure 3. (From left
to to right)
right) the the Pareto
Pareto fronts
fronts for tomatoes,
for tomatoes, onions,
onions, and cucumber
and cucumber optimaloptimal
import
networks.
import networks.
Considering the network of tomato distribution (Figure 4), these data suggest that
a sizable portion of the global tomato supply comes from a relatively small number of
countries. This could have implications for food security and supply chain resilience.
For example, if there is a disruption to tomato production in one of these key countries,
it could lead to higher prices and shortages for consumers around the world. It is also
interesting to note that the countries with the highest tomato imports are not necessarily
the same countries with the highest tomato consumption. For example, Morocco and India
are both major tomato exporters, but they also import a significant amount of tomatoes.

Figure 4. The optimal tomato import network.

 Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 12 of 18

This suggests that there is a complex global tomato market with multiple trade flows.
Considering onions (Figure 5), the optimal onion import network pie chart shows that
India is the largest importer of onions, followed by Turkey, Morocco, the Netherlands, Iran,
Figure 3. (From
Lebanon, left
and the to right)
United theAsPareto
States. fronts for
for cucumbers tomatoes,
(Figure 6), theonions,
optimal and cucumber
cucumber importoptimal i
networks.
network pie chart shows that the Netherlands and the United States are the two largest
importers of cucumbers, accounting for 19% and 17% of all cucumber imports, respectively.

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1

Figure 4. The optimal tomato import network.

Figure 4. The optimal tomato import network.

Figure 5. The optimal onion import network.

Figure 5. The optimal onion import network.

Figure 5. The optimal onion import network.

Figure 6. The optimal cucumber import network.

Morocco,
Figure 6. The India,
optimalTurkey, and Lebanon
cucumber importare major cucumber importers, with 11% to 14%
network.
shares. The dominance of the Netherlands and the United States in the global cucumber
import market is likely due to a number of factors, including their favorable climates,
4.3. Sensitivity Analysis
advanced
Figure agricultural
6. The technologies,
optimal cucumber and well-developed
import network. transportation and logistics net-
works.InThese
order to offset
countries the todiscrepancies
are able produce cucumbers thatyear
might
roundbeand
generated
export thembyto the
all optim
corners
model of the world.
due toAnalysis An examination of the optimal import networks for tomatoes,
the inaccuracy of parameter data and the subjectivity of AHP jud onions,
4.3. Sensitivity
and cucumbers reveals key similarities and differences. All three networks highlight a
and priority scores, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact
In ordermarket
concentrated to offset
with the discrepancies
a handful that dominating
of major players might be the generated by the optimi
import landscape.
changes in importers
experts’ point of view andand
input data on the selection of trade
all partn
model due to the inaccuracy of parameter data and the subjectivity ofofAHP
The top-four of tomatoes, onions, cucumbers account for over 60% judg
scenarios were carried
imports, suggesting outconsolidation
significant to measure the the
within impact
globalof varying
vegetable every
trade. objective
Despite this func
and priority scores, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact
the trade-offs that exist amongst the three of them. A percentage reduction and i
changes in experts’ point of view and input data on the selection of trade partne
of 20% is applied alternatively to the parameters of each objective function as a m
scenarios were carried out to measure the impact of varying every objective funct
capture the economic, environmental, and risk trade-off and the new supply distri
the trade-offs that exist amongst the three of them. A percentage reduction and in
(Table 8).
of 20% is applied alternatively to the parameters of each objective function as a me
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 13 of 18

shared characteristic, the specific countries leading each network differ. Morocco tops the
tomato import chart, followed by India and Iran. India emerges as the leading importer of
onions, while the Netherlands and the United States jointly dominate the cucumber import
market. These variations reflect unique regional demands and production capacities.

4.3. Sensitivity Analysis

In order to offset the discrepancies that might be generated by the optimization model
due to the inaccuracy of parameter data and the subjectivity of AHP judgments and
priority scores, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of any changes
in experts’ point of view and input data on the selection of trade partners. Six scenarios
were carried out to measure the impact of varying every objective function on the trade-
offs that exist amongst the three of them. A percentage reduction and increase of 20% is
applied alternatively to the parameters of each objective function as a means to capture the
economic, environmental, and risk trade-off and the new supply distributions (Table 8).

Table 8. The different sensitivity analysis scenarios.

Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3

Baseline (0) 0% 0% 0%
1 −20% 0% 20%
2 0% −20% 20%
3 0% 20% −20%
4 20% 0% −20%
5 −20% 20% 0%
6 20% −20% 0%

Results of the sensitivity analysis are summarized in Figures 7–9 that display the
sensitivity of crops’ import distributions to changes in the optimization model’s objective
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
functions. Altering economic, environmental, and risk parameters by 20% shifts the import
shares among the USA, Iran, Lebanon, India, Turkey, Morocco, and the Netherlands across
six scenarios. These shifts indicate: the import model’s responsiveness to changes in input
parameters;4 help identify which 20% 0%most sensitive to different
countries’ shares are −20% objective
function adjustments;
5 illustrate the trade-offs and 20%
−20% interplay between economic
0% costs, en-
vironmental6 impacts; and risk factors
20% in determining
−20% the optimal supplier0%distribution
for tomatoes.

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis results for tomato trade network.

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis results for tomato trade network.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis results for tomato trade network.
14 of 18
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis results for tomato trade network.

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis results for onion trade network.

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis results for onion trade network.
Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis results for onion trade network.

Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis results for cucumber trade network.

The sensitivity analysis results indicate that the risk level is the most influential factor,
where an increment of up to 20% in a risk indicator may lead to new import solutions that
are leaning towards New Zealand, especially when combined with a decrement in the level
of other factors, including cost and environmental performance. However, the reduction in
overall costs may enhance the chance of new suppliers to be selected with larger shares
(i.e., New Zealand, USA). Moreover, the onion supply is more sensitive to changes in costs
due to the larger gap in price between different suppliers.
The empirical findings from this study underscore the critical role of assessing climate
change risks and diversifying trade partners in formulating robust mitigation plans for the
food system. By leveraging the AHP in conjunction with multi-objective optimization mod-
els, an effective framework was established for identifying and prioritizing risks associated
with climate change. This approach not only reveals the vulnerabilities within the food sup-
ply chain, it also guides the strategic selection of trade partners to enhance system resilience.
The theoretical foundations of this research extend existing decision-making frameworks by
incorporating climate risk assessments within the optimization process. Such integration is
pivotal in navigating the complexities of food system sustainability, particularly in light of
the increasing randomness of climate-related disruptions. The methodology adopted in
this study provides an understanding of how diversified trade partnerships can serve as
a buffer against potential supply chain vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring continuous food
availability. From a practical perspective, the insights concluded from this analysis hold
substantial implications for stakeholders across the food supply chain. Policymakers, for
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 15 of 18

instance, are equipped with evidence-based strategies to promote agricultural diversity and
international collaboration as a means to mitigate climate change. Supply chain managers
can utilize the findings to enhance operational resilience, adopting diversified sourcing
strategies that safeguard against climate-induced supply disruptions. In relation to the
existing literature, this study’s emphasis on climate risk assessment and trade partner
diversification as part of the food supply chain’s mitigation strategy contributes a novel
perspective. While previous research has highlighted the importance of risk management
in supply chains, the comprehensive approach of integrating AHP and optimization mod-
els to specifically address climate change risks and supply chain diversification marks a
significant advancement in the field. Methodologically, the combination of risk assessment
through AHP with strategic planning via optimization models facilitated a meticulous
examination of climate change impacts on food supply chains. Considering the empirical
results with theoretical and practical considerations, this study paves the way towards a
more resilient and sustainable food system. It highlights the importance of a multifaceted
approach, which combines risk assessment, strategic diversification of trade partners and
optimization techniques in safeguarding food availability against the backdrop of global
climate change. It also underscores the urgent need for adaptive strategies in agricultural
practices and supply chain management. These findings prompt a deeper exploration into
the scalability of such models across various regions and crops, factoring in local envi-
ronmental and socio-economic conditions. Future endeavors could focus on integrating
innovative technologies like AI and IoT for dynamic data analysis and predictive mod-
eling, enhancing the precision of risk assessments. Moreover, interdisciplinary research
combining insights from climate science, agricultural economics, and supply chain man-
agement could offer comprehensive solutions to the challenges posed by climate change
on global food systems, paving the way for more resilient and sustainable food security
strategies. In addition, future expansion of the work can consist of further exploring the
dynamics of trade partner diversification in different agricultural contexts and under var-
ious climate scenarios. The development of dynamic models that can adapt to evolving
climate data and market conditions would significantly bolster the food system’s resilience
and sustainability.

5. Limitations
This study, while providing insightful contributions to the understanding of food
security strategies, is subject to several limitations that require future consideration. The
AHP used to derive weighting for risk indicators involves are subjective. The judgments
made within the AHP are based on the researchers’ interpretations and may not fully
capture the perspectives that direct engagement with experts and policymaker could offer.
Additionally, the research relies predominantly on gray literature, as accessibility to primary
data through expert interviews and surveys is challenging. This reliance may impact the
robustness and specificity of the findings, as gray literature can vary in its scrutiny and
detail compared to peer-reviewed sources. Furthermore, this study’s approach to risk
assessment considered general climate change factors, rather than crop-specific risk factors.
This decision was driven by the broader scope of the study’s aim to address food security
at a macro level and to develop the underlying methodology. However, this approach
may overlook specific vulnerabilities and risks associated with particular crops, which
could affect the precision of the risk assessments. Future research could address these
limitations by incorporating a more detailed, crop-specific risk analysis and by enhancing
the objectivity of the AHP through broader expert engagement.

6. Conclusions
This study presents a contribution to food supply chain management amidst climate
change uncertainty. The unique integration of the AHP and multi-objective optimization
model resulted in a framework that assesses and mitigates climate change risks from the
perspective of food supply chain importers. Such an approach deviates from conventional
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 16 of 18

risk assessment methods, providing a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship

between various risk factors and the strategic decisions needed for effective management.
It has been demonstrated that the integrated methodology presented in this study improves
the resilience and sustainability of food supply chains amidst growing climate uncertain-
ties. Through the systematic evaluation of risk factors via AHP and the application of a
multi-objective optimization model for selecting optimal supplier strategies and resource
allocation, actionable insights are offered to assist policymakers and stakeholders in the
agricultural sector towards more informed decision making. Furthermore, the implemen-
tation of this innovative framework uncovered crucial insights into the trade-offs and
synergies between economic, environmental, and risk objectives in supply chain manage-
ment, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to climate risk management
that considers both immediate economic implications and long-term sustainability and
resilience objectives. The scope for future research can include extending the integrated
approach to other sectors impacted by climate change or adapting the model to include new
risk factors and adaptation strategies. The incorporation of advancements in data analytics
and machine learning is also suggested to improve the model’s predictive capabilities,
facilitating dynamic and adaptive supply chain management. In conclusion, this study
offers a notable contribution to the discourse on climate risk management within food
supply chains, merging theoretical risk assessment with practical, actionable strategies for
enhancing resilience. The efficacy of combining AHP with multi-objective optimization
provides innovative approaches for sustainable supply chain management in the era of
climate.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.H., S.N., M.A., A.E. and T.A.-A.; Methodology, B.H.,
S.N., M.A. and T.A.-A.; Investigation, B.H., S.N. and M.A.; Data curation, B.H., S.N. and M.A.;
Writing—original draft, B.H.; Writing—review & editing, S.N., M.A., A.E. and T.A.-A.; Supervision,
T.A.-A. and A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was made possible by an award (GSRA7-1-0521-20080) and supported by
proposal number MME01-0922-190049 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of the
Qatar Foundation). The contents herein are solely the responsibility of the authors[s].
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Saaty table (modified from [6]).

Pairwise Importance Score Definition

1 Equal Importance
3 Slightly higher importance
3 Moderate importance
4 Moderate plus importance
5 Strong importance
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 17 of 18

Table A2. The list of alternatives/risk factors used for the composite risk quantification along with
their sources.

Risk Factor Description Gray Literature Sources

Surface Temperature Change Yearly variations in surface temperatures across the globe. [27]
Disaster Management Risk The capability to manage and mitigate disasters effectively. [28,29]
Arable Land The availability of land suitable for agriculture. [30]
Water Stress The scarcity of freshwater resources relative to demand. [31,32]
The increase in global average sea level caused by the melting
Sea Level Rise [33,34]
of ice and the expansion of seawater.
Policies and strategies implemented to adjust agricultural
Agriculture Adaptation Policy [7,35]
practices to climate change.

Table A3. Global Food Security Index scores (modified from [36]).

Indicators USA Lebanon India Iran Morocco Turkey The Netherlands

Surface temperature 89 NA 87 NA 83 82 70
Disaster Management Risk 100 NA 96 NA 0 100 100
Arable land (Land
71 NA 51 NA 70 87 83
deterioration)
Water Stress 50 NA 25 NA 25 25 50
Sea level 98 NA 98 NA 99 99 44
Agricultural adaptation Policy 100 NA 100 NA 100 100 100

References
1. Roe, S.; Streck, C.; Obersteiner, M.; Frank, S.; Griscom, B.; Drouet, L.; Fricko, O.; Gusti, M.; Harris, N.; Hasegawa, T. Contribution
of the Land Sector to a 1.5 C World. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 817–828. [CrossRef]
2. Cucagna, M.E.; Goldsmith, P.D. Value Adding in the Agri-Food Value Chain. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 293–316.
3. Ringsberg, H. Perspectives on Food Traceability: A Systematic Literature Review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 558–576.
[CrossRef]
4. Vaidya, O.S.; Kumar, S. Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 169, 1–29. [CrossRef]
5. Wang, X. Food Supply Chain Safety Risk Evaluation Based on AHP Fuzzy Integrated Evaluation Method. Int. J. Secur. Its Appl.
2016, 10, 233–244.
6. Saaty, T.L. What Is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; ISBN 3-642-83557-0.
7. European Environment Agency. Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/
publications/cc-adaptation-agriculture (accessed on 25 December 2023).
8. Lautenbach, S.; Seppelt, R.; Liebscher, J.; Dormann, C.F. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Global Pollination Benefit. PLoS ONE
2012, 7, e35954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Demirel, N.Ç.; Yücenur, G.N.; Demirel, T.; Muşdal, H. Risk-Based Evaluation of Turkish Agricultural Strategies Using Fuzzy
AHP and Fuzzy ANP. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2012, 18, 685–702. [CrossRef]
10. Beinat, E.; Nijkamp, P. Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 1998; Volume 9, ISBN 0-7923-5198-3.
11. Tscheikner-Gratl, F.; Egger, P.; Rauch, W.; Kleidorfer, M. Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods for Integrated
Rehabilitation Prioritization. Water 2017, 9, 68. [CrossRef]
12. Haji, M.; Govindan, R.; Al-Ansari, T. Novel Approaches for Geospatial Risk Analytics in the Energy–Water–Food Nexus Using an
EWF Nexus Node. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2020, 140, 106936. [CrossRef]
13. Thanki, S.; Govindan, K.; Thakkar, J. An Investigation on Lean-Green Implementation Practices in Indian SMEs Using Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 284–298. [CrossRef]
14. Leal, J.E. AHP-Express: A Simplified Version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process Method. MethodsX 2020, 7, 100748. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. Saaty, T. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Decision Making; 1980; Volume 1, p. 69.
16. Trienekens, J.H.; Wognum, P.; Beulens, A.J.; van der Vorst, J.G. Transparency in Complex Dynamic Food Supply Chains. Adv. Eng.
Inform. 2012, 26, 55–65. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4336 18 of 18

17. Agrawal, A.; Bakshi, B.R.; Kodamana, H.; Ramteke, M. Multi-Objective Optimization of Food-Energy-Water Nexus via Crops
Land Allocation. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2024, 183, 108610. [CrossRef]
18. Jian, J.; Guo, Y.; Jiang, L.; An, Y.; Su, J. A Multi-Objective Optimization Model for Green Supply Chain Considering Environmental
Benefits. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5911. [CrossRef]
19. Lin, D.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Yang, L.; Shi, Y.; Soar, J. Optimizing Urban Distribution Routes for Perishable Foods Considering
Carbon Emission Reduction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4387. [CrossRef]
20. Abejón, R.; Batlle-Bayer, L.; Laso, J.; Bala, A.; Vazquez-Rowe, I.; Larrea-Gallegos, G.; Margallo, M.; Cristobal, J.; Puig, R.;
Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Multi-Objective Optimization of Nutritional, Environmental and Economic Aspects of Diets Applied to the
Spanish Context. Foods 2020, 9, 1677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Belamkar, P.; Biswas, S.; Baidya, A.; Majumder, P.; Bera, U.K. Multi-Objective Optimization of Agro-Food Supply Chain
Networking Problem Integrating Economic Viability and Environmental Sustainability through Type-2 Fuzzy-Based Decision
Making. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 421, 138294. [CrossRef]
22. Hassna, B.; Namany, S.; Alherbawi, M.; Elomri, A.; Al-Ansari, T. Decision Making Approaches to Improve Resilience in Food
Supply Chains and Enhance Food Security Against Climate Change Risks. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; Volume 52, pp. 89–94. ISBN 1570-7946.
23. Mabhaudhi, T.; Nhamo, L.; Mpandeli, S.; Nhemachena, C.; Senzanje, A.; Sobratee, N.; Chivenge, P.P.; Slotow, R.; Naidoo, D.;
Liphadzi, S.; et al. The water–energy–food nexus as a tool to transform rural livelihoods and well-being in Southern Africa. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Namany, S.; Govindan, R.; Di Martino, M.; Pistikopoulos, E.N.; Linke, P.; Avraamidou, S.; Al-Ansari, T. Developing intelligence in
food security: An agent-based modelling approach of Qatar’s food system interactions under socio-economic and environmental
considerations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 32, 669–689. [CrossRef]
25. Planning and Statistics Authority (PSA). Qatar Agricultural Statistics. 2020.
26. Pathare, P.B.; Dairi, M.A.; Al-Mahdouri, A. Effect of storage conditions on postharvest quality of tomatoes: A case study at
market-level. J. Agric. Mar. Sci. 2021, 26, 13–20.
27. International Monetary Fund. Climate Change Indicators: Surface Temperature. Available online: https://climatedata.imf.org/
datasets/4063314923d74187be9596f10d034914_0/explore (accessed on 20 December 2023).
28. The World Bank. DataBank. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed on 20 December 2023).
29. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (IFHV). World Risk Report 2023. 2023.
Available online: https://weltrisikobericht.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/WRR_2023_english_online161023.pdf (accessed
on 20 December 2023).
30. The World Bank. Urban Land Area (sq. km). Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.UR.K2
(accessed on 20 December 2023).
31. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). SDG Indicator Framework. Available online: https://w3.unece.
org/SDG/en/Indicator?id=140 (accessed on 20 December 2023).
32. Resource Watch. Water Stress Country Ranking. Available online: https://resourcewatch.org/data/explore/wat036rw1-Water-
Stress-Country-Ranking (accessed on 20 December 2023).
33. European Environment Agency. Sea Level Rise. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/sea-
level-rise-6/assessment (accessed on 20 December 2023).
34. The World Bank. World Sea Level Rise Dataset. Available online: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0041449/
World-Sea-Level-Rise-Dataset (accessed on 20 December 2023).
35. University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN). ND-GAIN Country Index. Available online: https://gain.nd.
edu/our-work/country-index/ (accessed on 20 December 2023).
36. The Economist. Global Food Security Index 2022. The Economist. 2022. Available online: https://impact.economist.com/
sustainability/project/food-security-index/ (accessed on 25 December 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.