Journal of Agricultural Machinery
with the collaboration of Iranian Society of Mechanical Engineers (ISME)

Integrating Field Experiments and Multi-Criteria Decision Modelling for Sustainable Mechanisation: A Comprehensive Assessment of Olive Harvesting Technologies

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Article- En

Authors

A. Bozorgi 1
N. Banaeian 1
M. Zangeneh 1
Z. Yousefi 2

1 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Guilan, Iran

2 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center of Guilan, Province, Guilan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2026.98934.1494
Abstract
Olive harvesting is one of the most labour-intensive operations in olive production, particularly in high-density orchards, where technology selection strongly affects productivity and sustainability. This study combines quantitative field experiments with a sustainability-oriented multi-criteria decision-making framework to evaluate three harvesting methods including hand rake, branch shaker, and over-the-row combine harvester, for Arbequina and Koroneiki cultivars in Iran. A factorial RCBD was implemented to measure harvesting loss, harvesting efficiency, harvesting rate, oil content, and chemical quality indices. Results showed significant differences among methods in harvesting loss, efficiency, and rate (P < 0.01). Hand rake achieved the highest harvesting percentage (100%) but also the highest fruit loss (3.33%). Branch shaker recorded the lowest fruit loss (1.12%) but only 53.8% efficiency. Combine harvester provided the highest harvesting rate (4429–5158 kg h⁻¹) and the greatest economic return, with benefit–cost ratios of 1.297 for Arbequina and 1.375 for Koroneiki. To integrate technical, economic, social, and environmental indicators, fuzzy AHP was used to compute criterion weights, and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) was applied to rank alternatives. Combine harvester obtained the highest GRA score (0.812), followed by the shaker (0.774) and the hand rake (0.682). A comprehensive sensitivity analysis was conducted using ten weighting scenarios and four multi-criteria decision-making methods (GRA, TOPSIS, VIKOR, and ELECTRE), which confirmed the robustness of the rankings across different policy priorities. Also, scenario-based sensitivity analysis demonstrated that combine harvesters consistently ranked first under economic and technical priorities, while shakers became the preferred option in sustainability-oriented scenarios emphasising employment and reduced non-renewable energy use. These results confirm that no single harvesting method dominates across all performance dimensions. Proposed integrated framework provides a robust, evidence-based decision support tool for selecting olive harvesting technologies that balance operational efficiency, profitability, and long-term sustainability.

Keywords

Harvest performance indicators
Mechanisation of olive production
Multi-criteria decision-making
Scenario-based sensitivity analysis
Subjects

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

  1. Ahmad, R. L. (2018). Efficiency of mechanical tools for olive harvest and effect on fruit quality. Acta Horticulturae, 1199, 315-320. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1199.49
  2. Aiello, G., Vallone, M., & Catania, P. (2019). Optimising the efficiency of olive harvesting considering operator safety. Biosystems Engineering, 185, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.02.016
  3. Auguściak, I., Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2024). Personnel selection under Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis evaluation. Procedia Computer Science, 246, 3840-3850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.157
  4. Banaeian, N., Mobli, H., Fahimnia, B., Nielsen, I. E., & Omid, M. (2018). Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: A case study from the agri-food industry. Computers & Operations Research, 89, 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2016.02.015
  5. Banaeian, N., & Pourhejazy, P. (2020). Integrating sustainability into the machinery selection decisions in the agriculture sector. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(4), 167-173. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.3008560
  6. Barranco, D., Fernández-Escobar, R., & Rallo, L. (Eds.). (2022). Olive growing (2nd English ed.). Madrid, Spain: CSIC & Mundi-Prensa.
  7. Brunelli, M. (2015). Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2
  8. Chakraborty, S., Raut, R., Rofin, T., & Chakraborty, S. (2023). A comprehensive and systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making methods and applications in healthcare. Healthcare Analytics, 4, 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.health.2023.100232
  9. Cicciù, B., Schramm, F., & Schramm, V. B. (2022). Multi-criteria decision making/aid methods for assessing agricultural sustainability: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 138, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.020
  10. Cicek, G., Sumer, S. K., & Kocabiyik, H. (2024). Optimizing olive harvest methods for maximum yield and efficiency. African Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 12(1), 1-5.
  11. Cifarelli S.p.A. (2021). SC605 shaker [Product brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.cifarellispa.com/uploads/depliant/SC605_depliant_2021_en_web.pdf
  12. Connor, D. J., Gómez-del-Campo, M., Rousseaux, M. C., & Searles, P. S. (2014). Structure, management and productivity of hedgerow olive orchards: A review. Scientia Horticulturae, 169, 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.02.010
  13. Daane, K. M., & Johnson, M. W. (2010). Olive fruit fly: Managing an ancient pest in modern times. Annual Review of Entomology, 55, 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090553
  14. Famiani, F., Farinelli, D., Rollo, S., Camposeo, S., Di Vaio, C., & Inglese, P. (2014). Evaluation of different mechanical fruit harvesting systems and oil quality in very large size olive trees. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 12(4), 960-972. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2014124-5794
  15. Feng, Y., Dang, Y., Wang, J., Du, J., & Chiclana, F. (2025). A GRA-based heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision-making method with attribute interactions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 201, 110920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2025.110920
  16. Ferreira, C. C., Vieira, E., Gosta, S. E. G., Loures, E. R., & Lima, E. P. (2019). Application of MCDM method for technologies selection to support energy management. Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 1289-1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.340
  17. Ghonimy, M., Alharbi, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2025). Comprehensive performance assessment of an over-the-row olive harvester. Heliyon, 11(10), e43438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e43438
  18. Gomez-del-Campo, M., Pérez, A. G., & García, J. M. (2023). Olive Oil Quality of Cultivars Cultivated in Super-High-Density Orchard under Cold Weather Conditions. Horticulturae, 9(7), 824. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9070824
  19. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.046
  20. Gumus, A. T., Yayla, A. Y., Çelik, E., & Yildiz, A. (2013). A Combined Fuzzy-AHP and Fuzzy-GRA Methodology for Hydrogen Energy Storage Method Selection in Turkey. Energies, 6(6), 3017-3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6063017
  21. Hafezalkotob, A., Hami-Dindar, A., Rabie, N., & Hafezalkotob, A. (2018). A decision support system for agricultural machines and equipment selection: A case study on olive harvester machines. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 148, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.03.012
  22. Hua, W., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Liu, X., & Hu, C. (2025). Key technologies in apple harvesting robot for standardized orchards: A comprehensive review of innovations, challenges, and future directions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 235, 110343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.110343
  23. International Olive Council. (2020). Newsletter No. 159: December 2020. Retrieved from https://www.internationaloliveoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NEWSLETTER_159-EN.pdf
  24. Jiménez-Jiménez, F., Castro-García, S., Blanco-Roldán, G. L., Ferguson, L., Ureil, R., & Jesus, G. (2013). Table olive cultivar susceptibility to impact bruising. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 86, 100-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.06.024
  25. Jiménez, M. R., Casanova, L., Casanova, L., Paz Suarez, M., & Morales-Sillero, A. (2017). Internal fruit damage in table olive cultivars under super-high-density hedgerows. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 132, 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2017.06.003
  26. Kenarsari, H. Q., Banaeian, N., & Omid, M. (2024). Selecting a sustainable array of machinery by integrating analytic hierarchy process with gray relational analysis. Operations Research and Decisions, 34(2), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.37190/ord240207
  27. Kermani, A. M. (2016). Comparison of four harvesting machines for harvesting of oil olive. Engineering Research in Agricultural Machinery and Systems, 16(65), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.22092/erams.2016.105950
  28. Khan, A. A., Islam, M. A., Saad, A., Raza, S. M., Ali, I., Sheraz, K., Usman, M., Ali, M. M., & Ali, M. (2023). Prospects and scope of olive mechanization: A review. Zoo Botanica, 1(2), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.55627/zoobotanica.001.02.0613
  29. Kizielewicz, B., Watrobski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2025). Multi-criteria decision support system for the evaluation of UAV intelligent agricultural sensors. Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(7), 194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-025-11201-1
  30. Li, G. D., Yamaguchi, D., & Masatake, N. (2007). A grey-based decision-making approach to the supplier selection problem. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(3-4), 573-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2006.11.021
  31. Li, W., Wan, A., Li, J., Chen, K., Ma, Z., Li, Q., Jiang, R., Yang, J., & Li, T. (2025). A review of data-driven key technologies for intelligent citrus systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 239, 111121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.111121
  32. Messina, G., Sbaglia, M., & Bernardi, B. (2025). Mechanical harvesting of olive orchards: An overview on trunk shakers. AgriEngineering, 7(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7030052
  33. New Holland Agriculture. (2020). Braud 9090X Olive Harvester [Product brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.newholland.com/en-us/nar/products/grape-and-olive-harvesters/braud-9090x-olive-harvester
  34. Oderanti, F., & Wilde, P. (2011). Automatic fuzzy decision making system with learning for competing and connected businesses. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 14574-14584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.025
  35. Parvaneh, F., & Hammad, A. (2024). Application of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) to select the most sustainable power-generating technology. Sustainability, 16, 83287. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083287
  36. Pavlidis, D. E., Kafentzi, M., Rekoumi, K., Koliadima, A., Papadelli, M., Papadimitriou, K., & Kapolos, J. (2024). Turn to the wild: A comprehensive review on the chemical composition of wild olive oil. Food Research International, 196, 115038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.115038
  37. Rallo, L., Barranco, D., Castro-García, S., Connor, D. J., Gómez del Campo, M., & Rallo, P. (2013). High-Density Olive Plantations. PP 303-384 in J. Janick (Ed.). Horticultural Reviews, 41. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118707418.ch07
  38. Reid, J., & Wood, D. (2026). Supporting sustainable mangrove management in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: An application of the Environment–Vulnerability–Decision–Technology systems engineering framework. Acta Astronautica, 238, 112-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2025.08.050
  39. Solki Cheshmeh Soltani, F., & Jafari, A. (2019). Evaluation of olive waste in different harvesting methods. Proceedings of the 8th National Symposium on Losses of Agricultural Products. Tehran, Iran. Retrieved from https://conference.modares.ac.ir/files/site1/rds_journals/2661/article-2661-3804.pdf
  40. Taherdoost, H. (2017). Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP); a step by step approach. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems, 2, 244-246. Retrieved from https://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijems/2017/007-0034%282017%29.pdf
  41. Zhang, H., Fan, S., Chen, Z., Han, X., Sun, L., Sun, J., Wang, G., Fu, S., Zhang, C., Wang, J., & Liu, S. (2024). Targeting optimal power consumption: Optimizing operational parameters for orchard furrowing and fertilizing machine. Heliyon, 10(6), e28068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28068
  42. Zipori, I., Fishman, A., Ben-Barak Zelas, Z., Subbotin, Y., & Dag, A. (2021). Effect of postharvest treatments of mechanically harvested 'Manzanilla' table olives on product quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 174, 111462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111462
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Journal of Agricultural Machinery

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 26 July 2026

  • Receive Date 30 May 2026
  • Revise Date 09 June 2026
  • Accept Date 17 June 2026
  • First Publish Date 26 July 2026

Home

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Contact Us