تحلیل کیفی و اولویت بندی چالش های توسعه پایدار کشاورزی از طریق نظریه داده بنیاد و فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی (AHP) در ایران
Keivan Torfi
1
(Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran)
Ahmadreza Ommani
2
(Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran)
Azadeh Noorollah Noorivandi
3
(Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran)
mohammad sadegh sabouri
4
(Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran)
Keywords:
Abstract :
Qualitative analysis and Prioritize the Challenges of Sustainable Agricultural Development through Grounded Theory and AHP in Iran
Abstract
The purpose of this research is qualitative analysis and prioritize the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in Iran. In this research, using a qualitative method, an attempt has been made to identify the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in Khuzestan province. Qualitative research involves in-depth evaluation, collection, and analysis of non-numerical data to identify and understand phenomena, concepts, ideas, or experiences. This research has been conducted from January to September 2021 to provide a comprehensive, and practical model to understand the challenges through grounded theory and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Khuzestan province. This research is an applied type of research, and (systematic) grounded theory is used. The data were collected by performing in-depth semi-structured interviews with the 30 agricultural experts in this field. Data analysis was done by using MAX qualitative data analysis version 12 software (maxqda12) in three steps: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The results of this study by grounded theory identified 29 initial codes and six main following challenges were categorized and by AHP prioritized: weakness in management and planning, weakness in human resources, shortage of attention to environmental studies, shortage of infrastructure facilities, shortage of credit and financial capital and weakness in legislation and sustainability policy. A model was finally designed based on the results of the study.
Keywords: Sustainable Agricultural Development, Grounded Theory, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Iran
Introduction
In recent years, sustainability has always been one of the most important strategies and concerns in the policy-making and development of national and regional programs in general, especially in the agricultural sector (Asimeh et al., 2020). The growth-oriented agricultural policy making and the failure of these policies and market led to the emergence of social, economic and environmental unsustainability in this sector, so sustainable agricultural development was emphasized (Moridsadat & Roknoddin Eftekhari, 2018).
Agriculture has positive and negative roles in the sustainability of an economy (Skrimizea et al., 2020). Agriculture provides food for the world's growing population and provides the raw materials needed for industry (Abro & Awan, 2020). It is a source of income and employment for many people, especially in rural communities. It accounts for a large part of the income of developing countries (Kalantaryan et al., 2021). However, agricultural activities can have devastating effects on the environment, such as the destruction of water and soil resources, air pollution and reduced ecological diversity (Rani et al., 2021). Today, the use of nitrogen fertilizers is widespread in most developed countries. China is the largest producer and consumer of nitrogen fertilizers (Hartmann et al., 2020).
Global fertilizer use (N + P2O5 + K2O) was estimated at 198.2 Mt of nutrients in Fertilizer Year 2020/21, almost 10 Mt (5.2%) higher than in 2019/20. This is the largest increase since 2010/11 (IFA, 2021). Nitrogen, which accounts for over half of global fertilizer use, experienced a 4.1% (4.3 Mt) increase in demand to 110.0 Mt in 2020/21. Demand for phosphorous jumped by 7.0% (3.3 Mt), reaching 49.6 Mt. Demand for potash rose by 6.2% (2.2 Mt) to 38.5 Mt (IFA, 2021). The OECD-FAO latest agricultural outlook, released in July 2021, indicates that annual growth in global fertilizer demand is expected to remain around 1% between 2021 and 2025, with a slightly declining trend over the last three years of the period. Growth rates are expected to be slightly higher for K2O than for P2O5 and N. These expectations translate into a gain of 8 Mt nutrients between 2021/22 and 2025/26. Global fertilizer use is forecast to reach 208 Mt nutrients by 2025/26 (IFA, 2021).
According to the FAO (2020), more than 698000 tons of chemical fertilizers were used in Iran in 2018. In 2018, the amount of N fertilizer consumption reached to 565000 tons. The amount of P2O5 fertilizer consumption increased 100 thousand tons. Khuzestan, Fars, Golestan and Khorasan Razavi have the highest fertilizer supply in the country. Currently, the average annual consumption of pesticides in Iran is 25,000 to 30,000 tons (AgNews, 2020). The agricultural sector of Khouzestan province faces several sustainability challenges (Kaabi et al., 2021). These include the illiteracy or primary education of more than half of the employees in the agricultural sector, high unemployment rate and declining employment in the sector. As a result, the province is involved in various economic and social issues and has become one of the most critical areas of the country in terms of environmental hazards (Moridsadat & Roknoddin Eftekhari, 2018).
The current situation of agriculture in Khouzestan province is unsustainable. In terms of water pollution (Ommani, 2019), soil erosion (Amanpour et al., 2021), use of excessive external inputs such as fertilizers and chemical pesticides (Moridsadat & Roknoddin Eftekhari, 2018), failure to use a suitable cultivation pattern (Abdeshahi et al., 2020) and low production efficiency (Hesampour et al., 2021), unsustainability is high. Due to the current situation and unsustainable agricultural situation, in order to improve the food security situation, the need to identify the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in Khuzestan province is of great importance. By identifying the existing challenges and trying to reduce them, the necessary conditions for sustainable agricultural development will be provided.
Wang et al. (2021) in their research entitled "experiences and challenges of agricultural development in an artificial oasis: a review" identified the most important challenges of sustainable agricultural development in the Mosuowan irrigation area of Xinjiang as follows: (1) soil salinization; (2) ecological and environmental deterioration; (3) declines in economic benefits; (4) and soil and environment pollution. They proposed the following measures that may feasibly address these concerns, namely: (1) comprehensively harness saline-alkali land by means of improvers, biological methods, and drainage infrastructure; (2) establish desert-oasis ecological buffer zones; (3) adjust agricultural management policies; (4) and improve plastic recycling or degradability and adjusting irrigation and fertilization strategies to reduce soil pollution.
Zhang et al. (2021) explained major challenges for achieving sustainable agriculture is to “acknowledge and explore the full range of potential tradeoffs and in some cases contradictions, between sustainability and productivity.”
Maleksaeidi et al. (2021) indicated that the challenges threatening agricultural sustainability can be divided into nine categories including shortage of investment and liquidity; environmental and climate disasters; scientific weakness; weakness of labor force in the agricultural sector; management problems; weakness of information systems; low agricultural productivity and shortage of attention to quality; challenges related to agricultural inputs; and global challenges. This 9-factor structure, which confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis, was able to explain 67.52% of the variance related to the challenges threatening agricultural sustainability in the west of Iran.
Ataei et al. (2021) showed that the challenges of applying conservation agriculture (CA) in the studied provinces could be divided into 6 general categories: institutional-infrastructure (7 concepts), economic (5 concepts), training-research (2 concepts), environmental (4 concepts), mechanization (2 concepts), and cognitive (2 concepts) challenges. The economic and institutional-infrastructure challenges were the most frequent related to applying CA. It can be concluded that to solve the challenges of applying CA, it is necessary to link various sectors of government (the Ministry of Agriculture), education and research (Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization), and industry together. The main purpose of this research is qualitative analysis and prioritize the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in Iran. Table 1 presents the theoretical framework of this research.
Table 1
Theoretical framework of this research
challenges of sustainable agricultural development | researches |
Social and Economic | Ataei et al. (2021); Maleksaeidi et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2021) |
Production and Environment | Wang et al. (2021); FAO (2020) |
Legislation and management | Maleksaeidi et al. (2021);Wang et al. (2021) |
Material and Method
In this research, using a qualitative method, an attempt has been made to identify the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in Khuzestan province. Qualitative research involves in-depth evaluation, collection, and analysis of non-numerical data to identify and understand phenomena, concepts, ideas, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a challenge, problem or come up with new ideas for research. This research has been conducted from January to September 2021 to provide a comprehensive, and practical model to understand the challenges of sustainable agricultural development through grounded theory and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method. The main method of data collection in this method is to use a variety of interviews. By analyzing and coding the text of the interviews, a paradigm model is presented (Vogel et al., 2021). In the grounded theory method, a theory is developed using a set of data. So that this theory explains a process, action or interaction on a large scale (Yu and Smith, 2021). Most researchers use the method of Strauss and Corbin to perform grounded theory analysis. The theory resulting from the implementation of such a research method is a process theory. One of the advantages of grounded theory method is that (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2021): Theory is formed on a regular basis and based on real data. t is suitable for a situation about which our knowledge is limited and there is no significant theory on which to base a hypothesis for the test. Grounded theory grows throughout the research and is achieved through the continuous interaction between data collection and analysis.
In this study, purposive sampling method and theoretical sampling strategy were used. The statistical sample included 30 agricultural experts of Khuzestan province who were selected by snowball sampling method. In this method, the researcher has selected people who can answer the research questions and have the appropriate information about sustainable agricultural development. This sampling continued until the information reached saturation level. The selection of these people was based on criteria such as at least a bachelor's degree, at least 10 years of experience in the agricultural sector and knowledge of indicators of sustainable agricultural development. In this research, based on the capability of interview tools and brain storming technique has been used to collect research data. In this regard, several interviews and five brain storming sessions were conducted with experts of agricultural Jihad in Khuzestan province who were familiar with the subject.
In these sessions, the researcher first met with the participants and explained the objectives and method of the research to them and then asked them to allocate appropriate time for interviews and meetings, so a brief explanation of the research topic was provided. The coding steps of the interviews were done in three steps: Open Coding, Axial Coding and Selective Coding. Open coding step: After holding the sessions, the researcher began to find the concepts and select the appropriate letters for them and combine the related concepts. Open coding is a part of the analysis that specifically deals with the naming and categorization of phenomena through careful study. In open coding, the data is broken down into separate sections and compared for similarities and differences. The first step in coding is to rewrite (select the title) for the phenomena. Axial Coding: The next step in re-coding is to discover the categories. When specific phenomena are identified in the data, then concepts can be grouped around them. This reduces the number of units we have to work with. The process of classifying concepts that seem to be related to similar phenomena is called categorization. A category that contains related code (tags) is given a concept name. Selective Coding: Selective coding is the main stage of theorizing. In this way, it systematically relates the central class to other classes and presents those relations within the framework of a key phrase and modifies the classes that need further improvement and development. After selective coding, the main concepts are extracted. Data collection tools in the qualitative part of the research included a semi-structured interview by the researcher and the use of brainstorming methods. To measure the validity of this qualitative study, a strategy of triangulation was used. This basically involves that the research will be conducted from different or multiple perspectives. To measure the reliability of this qualitative study, constant testing and comparison methods of data and use of tables to record data were used. After identifying the challenges, it was time to prioritize the challenges. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique was used to prioritize the challenges. AHP is a technique that is widely used in group decision making, it is used when we want to prioritize alternatives based on criteria (Mujumdar et al., 2021). AHP helps decision makers find a decision that fits their purpose and their understanding of the problem. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision, for representing and determining its elements, for linking those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions (Fang & Partovi, 2021). The steps to implement the AHP are:
Step 1: Define Alternatives.
Step 2: Define the Problem and Criteria.
Step 3: Establish Priority among Criteria Using Pairwise Comparison. ...
Step 4: Check Consistency.
Step 5: Get the Relative Weights.
Results and discussion
Individual characteristics
The statistical population in this study was 30 agricultural experts from the Agricultural Jihade. Their average age was 46.51 years, and their average work experience was 17.23 years. Also, the lowest frequency with 13 people and 43.33% had a master's degree and the highest frequency with 17 people with 56.67% had a bachelor's degree.
Coding/categorization stage
After conducting in-depth interviews and numerous sessions of brainstorming, which lasted about 3 months, the challenges of sustainable agricultural development were identified in the form of 3 stages of open coding, axial coding and selective coding using MAXqda12 software. First, the semantic units obtained from the methods of brainstorming and face-to-face interviews were entered into the software after writing edits, and then the three types of coding were implemented in order.
Open coding:
In this stage of coding, by performing content analysis and careful study and line by line of the obtained information, the concepts were adjusted. First, the data obtained from the interview were analyzed and the answers turned into semi-structured questions during the interview. The key issues were extracted in separate sentences. Thus, the results of semi-structured interviews and brainstorming with experts were identified and extracted in a total of 29 concepts. First, the main sentences under the heading of concepts were extracted from direct quotations that had at least 5 repetitions and each was given a code marked with a Ch. The results of open coding are presented in the form of a table 1.
Table 1. Concepts extracted from the interviews (in open coding)
Concepts (Initial codes) | code |
Shortage of proper market infrastructure for products with a sustainable and organic approach | CH1 |
Shortage of proper conversion and packaging industries | CH2 |
Shortage of necessary educational infrastructure in rural areas | CH3 |
Shortage of necessary physical and equipment infrastructure | CH4 |
Shortage of transport and export infrastructure | CH5 |
Shortage of sufficient credit for agricultural insurance | CH6 |
High costs of sustainable agricultural production | CH7 |
Low credits for sustainable agricultural development training programs | CH8 |
Shortage of development credits and infrastructure in the field of sustainable agriculture | CH9 |
Shortage of financial resources to provide conservational machinery | CH10 |
Shortage of adequate financial infrastructure | CH11 |
Low technical knowledge of sustainability among farmers | CH12 |
Low technical knowledge of sustainability among experts | CH13 |
Failure to hold sustainable agricultural management training courses | CH14 |
Shortage of training needs assessment in the field of sustainability | CH15 |
Shortage of development of a culture of using sustainable agricultural products | CH16 |
Shortage of institutionalization of principles, foundations and strategies of sustainable agriculture | CH17 |
Shortage of transparency of insurance laws | CH18 |
Shortage of policies to manage price risk in the region's agriculture | CH19 |
Failure to pay attention to environmental protection laws | CH20 |
Shortage of proper implementation policies for sustainable agricultural development | CH21 |
Shortage of proper crop rotation management plans | CH22 |
Shortage of managerial and executive studies of favorable land management in the region and proper cultivation pattern | CH23 |
Shortage of planning for conducting sustainability research tailored to the conditions of the region | CH24 |
Shortage of planning educational and extension programs with sustainable agricultural content | CH25 |
Implementation of projects without regard to environmental attachments | CH26 |
Improper use of chemical inputs | CH27 |
Improper use of agricultural implements | CH28 |
Land use change and the spread of environmental hazards | CH29 |
Axial coding
At this stage, the number of repetitions of concepts is determined and categories are extracted. Based on the results of axial coding, the most important challenges of sustainable development of the agricultural sector of the study area were expressed in Table 2. Based on the results, challenges in 6 categories in the form of 29 brief descriptions with 390 repetitions are extracted. In the axial coding stage, categories extracted from the open coding stage were after factors such as causality, axial phenomenon, contextual conditions, strategy, and consequences. Here, axial coding is based on the conceptual model (Figure. 1), so the subcategories are related to the main classification based on the conceptual model. The main objective is that the researcher would be able to think about and arrange data systematically.
Figure 1. Selective coding related to the challenges of sustainable agricultural development
Table 2. Axial coding related to the challenges of sustainable agricultural development
Axial Code | Categories | Concepts (Initial codes) | Repetitions |
Challenges of Sustainable Agricultural Development | Shortage of infrastructure facilities (70 Repetitions) | Shortage of proper market infrastructure for products with a sustainable and organic approach | 15 |
Shortage of proper conversion and packaging industries | 13 | ||
Shortage of necessary educational infrastructure in rural areas | 15 | ||
Shortage of necessary physical and equipment infrastructure | 13 | ||
Shortage of transport and export infrastructure | 10 | ||
Shortage of credit and financial capital (69 Repetitions) | Shortage of sufficient credit for agricultural insurance | 12 | |
High costs of sustainable agricultural production | 11 | ||
Low credits for sustainable agricultural development training programs | 15 | ||
Shortage of development credits and infrastructure in the field of sustainable agriculture | 14 | ||
Shortage of financial resources to provide conservational machinery | 12 | ||
Shortage of adequate financial infrastructure | 9 | ||
Weakness in human resources (75 Repetitions) | Low technical knowledge of sustainability among farmers | 17 | |
Low technical knowledge of sustainability among experts | 14 | ||
Failure to hold sustainable agricultural management training courses | 15 | ||
Shortage of training needs assessment in the field of sustainability | 18 | ||
Shortage of development of a culture of using sustainable agricultural products | 11 | ||
Weaknesses in legislation and sustainability policy (56 Repetitions) | Shortage of institutionalization of principles, foundations and strategies of sustainable agriculture | 10 | |
Shortage of transparency of insurance laws | 11 | ||
Shortage of policies to manage price risk in the region's agriculture | 12 | ||
Failure to pay attention to environmental protection laws | 11 | ||
Shortage of proper implementation policies for sustainable agricultural development | 12 | ||
Weaknesses in management and planning (76 Repetitions) | Shortage of proper crop rotation management plans | 18 | |
Shortage of managerial and executive studies of favorable land management in the region and proper cultivation pattern | 19 | ||
Shortage of planning for conducting sustainability research tailored to the conditions of the region | 21 | ||
Shortage of planning educational and extension programs with sustainable agricultural content | 18 | ||
Shortage of attention to environmental studies (71 Repetitions) | Implementation of projects without regard to environmental attachments | 17 | |
Improper use of chemical inputs | 18 | ||
Improper use of agricultural implements | 17 | ||
Land use change and the spread of environmental hazards | 19 |
Selective coding:
At this stage of the research, the relationship obtained in open coding and subcategories resulting from axial coding with the main category was determined based on the repetition rate index, in the form of a graph. Figure 1 shows that weakness in management and planning, weakness in human resources, shortage of attention to environmental studies, shortage of infrastructure facilities, shortage of credit and financial capital and weakness in legislation and sustainability policy, respectively, prioritize the most important challenges of sustainable agricultural development in area.
Prioritize Sustainable Agricultural Development Challenges through Hierarchical Analysis (AHP)
After identifying the decision-making alternatives (challenges of sustainable agricultural development) mentioned in the previous section and identifying the criteria and sub-criteria of sustainable agricultural development, for this purpose, qualitative methods of content analysis, interviews with experts and the brainstorming method were used. In the first step, 9 indicators and 68 sub-indicators were identified using content analysis method, and then by interviewing experts and the brainstorming method, and by agreeing among respondents, 5 indicators and 32 sub-indicators on which experts with 70% and above agreed, were extracted. To compare the alternatives, the decision tree was designed by Expert Choice software (Figure 2). After that, the challenges were prioritized according to the criteria and sub-criteria. In order to perform pairwise comparisons of the challenges of sustainable agricultural development according to the criteria and sub-criteria, a questionnaire for pairwise comparisons was completed by 30 experts.
After pairwise comparison (Figure 3) of all challenges based on each of the sub-criteria set separately, the mentioned results were combined and the final result, weight and priority of each challenge were announced based on the set of criteria determined using Expert Chose software. Figure 4 show the weight and priority of each of the items studied in the research based on the set of criteria.
Figure 2. The decision tree that was designed by Expert Choice software
Figure 3. Pairwise comparison matrix
Figure 4. The final weight of the challenges is based on the synthesized criteria of the research
Figure 5 showed geometric mean matrix. One important thing that has to be mentioned is that geometric mean is the only one that keep the first axiom of AHP alive (Axiom1: if A=nB then B=1/nA) keeping the matrix reciprocal.
Figure 5. Geometric mean matrix
Sensitivity analysis
In sensitivity analysis, the ranking of the challenges of sustainable agricultural development due to changes in the weight of criteria is examined. Sensitivity analysis is performed based on methods such as dynamic, performance, gradient, head-to-head and two-dimensional methods. In sensitivity analysis using the performance method, the criteria are shown on the horizontal axis and the decision options are shown on the vertical axis. The intersection of the challenge lines with the vertical lines that are the criteria shows the weight of each challenge in relation to that criterion (Figure 5).
Realize dynamic growth Productivity promotion Economic flexibility Overall |
Figure 5. Sensitivity analysis of the challenges of sustainable agricultural development in performance method.
Conclusion and recommendation
Based on a qualitative study conducted through grounded theory, the challenges of sustainable agricultural development were identified in three stages of coding. At this research the challenges were identified in the form of three stages of open coding, axial coding and selective coding using MAXqda12 software. Then the challenges were prioritized according to the criteria of sustainable agricultural development through AHP. The first category as the most important challenge was weaknesses in management and planning. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: shortage of proper crop rotation management plans, shortage of managerial and executive studies of favorable land management in the region and proper cultivation pattern, shortage of planning for conducting sustainability research tailored to the conditions of the region and shortage of planning educational and extension programs with sustainable agricultural content. Based on the results, it is recommended that in order to eliminate weaknesses in management and planning, should be done the designing appropriate rotation management programs, conducting management and executive studies of optimal land management in the region and appropriate cultivation pattern, proper planning for conducting sustainable research appropriate to the conditions of the region and planning educational and extension programs with sustainable agricultural content and appropriate to the conditions of the region. The second category was weakness in human resources, which was identified as second challenge. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: low technical knowledge of sustainability among farmers, low technical knowledge of sustainability among experts, failure to hold sustainable agricultural management training courses, shortage of training needs assessment in the field of sustainability and shortage of development of a culture of using sustainable agricultural products. Based on the results, in order to development human resources in the agricultural sector, it is recommended that regular educational, specialized and extension programs be held for farmers and experts. The educational needs of farmers in the field of sustainability should be evaluated through participatory methods and the necessary culture should be created for the use of sustainable agricultural products. The third category was shortage of attention to environmental studies, which was identified as third challenge. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: implementation of projects without regard to environmental attachments, improper use of chemical inputs, improper use of agricultural implements and land use change and the spread of environmental hazards. It is therefore recommended that environmental attachments should be considered in the implementation of all agricultural projects, and chemical inputs should be used optimally. Use internal inputs instead of external inputs and use agricultural machinery that minimizes soil erosion and prevent agricultural land use change. The fourth category was shortage of infrastructure facilities, which was identified as fourth challenge. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: shortage of proper market infrastructure for products with a sustainable and organic approach, shortage of proper conversion and packaging industries, shortage of necessary educational infrastructure in rural areas and shortage of necessary physical and equipment infrastructure. It is therefore recommended that provide appropriate market infrastructure for products with a sustainable and organic approach, appropriate conversion and packaging industries should be created to increase added value, necessary educational infrastructure should be set up in rural areas in order to implement educational and extension programs and establish the physical infrastructure and equipment necessary for the development of sustainable agricultural products. The fifth category was shortage of credit and financial capital, which was identified as fifth challenge. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: shortage of sufficient credit for agricultural insurance, high costs of sustainable agricultural production, low credits for sustainable agricultural development training programs, shortage of development credits and infrastructure in the field of sustainable agriculture, shortage of financial resources to provide conservational machinery. According to the obtained results, it is recommended to provide sufficient credit for agricultural insurance, support farmers to cover the high costs of sustainable agricultural production, provide the necessary funding for sustainable agricultural development training programs, provide development credit and infrastructure in the field of sustainable agriculture, providing the necessary financial resources for the provision of conservational machinery. The sixth category was weaknesses in legislation and sustainability policy, which was identified as sixth challenge. The initial codes that make up this challenge were: shortage of institutionalization of principles, foundations and strategies of sustainable agriculture, shortage of transparency of insurance laws, shortage of policies to manage price risk in the region's agriculture, failure to pay attention to environmental protection laws and shortage of proper implementation policies for sustainable agricultural development. According to the obtained results, it is recommended to Institutionalizing the principles, foundations and strategies of sustainable agriculture transparency of insurance rules, price risk management policy in regional agriculture, necessary attention to environmental protection laws and necessary and appropriate policy and planning for sustainable agricultural development. The novelty of the present study is that no such study has been conducted in the region so far. The most important application of the present study is that by removing the identified challenges, a suitable space will be provided for the development of sustainable agriculture. The most important limitation of the research is the non-generalizability of the results to other regions. Identifying strategies to overcome identified bar challenges is one of the most important directions for future research.
References:
1) Abdeshahi, A., Mardani Najafabadi, M., Zeinali, M. (2020). Determining the Optimal Cropping Pattern of Agricultural Crops in Mollasani Coumty of Iran: Application of Robust Multi-Objective Optimization Model. Agricultural Economics and Development, 28(3), 175-203. doi: 10.30490/aead.2020.304989.1090
2) Abro, A & Awan, N. W. (2020). Comparative analysis of profitability of major and minor crops in Pakistan, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages 476-481.
3) AgNews. (2020). Iran pesticide production up 31% in eight months. Retrives 20 Juanary 2020 Frome: http://news.agropages.com/News/NewsDetail---33612.htm
4) Amanpour, S., Abiyat, M., abiyat, M., Abiyat, M. (2021). Investigation of the Effect of Land Use Change on Soil Erosion and Sediment Production in Ramhormoz Basin Using Object-Oriented Classification and RUSLE Model. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 52(3), 635-649. doi: 10.22059/ijswr.2021.316628.668863
5) Asimeh, M., Nooripoor, M., Azadi, H., Eetvelde, V., Sklenička, P and Witlox, F. (2020). Agricultural land use sustainability in Southwest Iran: Improving land leveling using consolidation plans. Land Use Policy, Volume 94, 104555, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104555.
6) Ataei, P., Sadighi, H., Aenis, T., Chizari, M., Abbasi, E. (2021). Challenges of Applying Conservation Agriculture in Iran: An Overview on Experts and Farmers’ Perspectives, Air, Soil and Water Research, Volume 14: 1–12.
7) Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
8) Fang, J & Partovi, F. Y. (2021). Criteria determination of analytic hierarchy process using a topic model. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 169, 1 May 2021, 114306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.114306
9) FAO. (2020). World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Yearbook 2020. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1329en
10) Hartmann, T.E., Guzman-Bustamante, I., Ruser, R.,, Müller, T. (2020). Turnover of Urea in a Soil from the North China Plain as Affected by the Urease Inhibitor NBPT and Wheat Straw. Agronomy 2020, 10, 857. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060857
11) Hesampour, R., Hassani, M., Hanafiah, M. M., & Heidarbeigi, K. (2021). Technical efficiency, sensitivity analysis and economic assessment applying data envelopment analysis approach: A case study of date production in Khuzestan State of Iran, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, IN PRESS, 2021, ISSN 1658-077X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2021.08.003.
12) IFA. (2021). Public Summary Medium-Term Fertilizer Outlook 2021 – 2025, Market Intelligence Service, International Fertilizer Association. Available on the https://www.ifastat.org/market-outlooks
13) Kaabi, A., Roosta, K., Mohammadzadeh, S., Baradaran, R. (2021). Solutions to Reduce the Vulnerability of Farmers and Beneficiaries of Agricultural Sector to Climate Change. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 11(1), 137-159.
14) Kalantaryan, S., Scipioni, M., Natale, F., & Alessandrini, A. (2021). Immigration and integration in rural areas and the agricultural sector: An EU perspective, Journal of Rural Studies, in press, ISSN 0743-0167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.04.017.
15) Maleksaeidi, H.; Jalali, M.; Eskandari, F. (2021). Challenges Threatening Agricultural Sustainability in the West of Iran: Viewpoint of Agricultural Experts. Sustainability, 13, 3537. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13063537
16) Moridsadat, P., Roknoddin Eftekhari, A. (2018). Strategic Analysis of Sustainable Agriculture with Entrepreneurial Approach (Case Study: Khuzastan Province). Regional Planning, 8(30), 31-50.
17) Mujumdar, A., Tiwari, A., Agarwal, A and Prajapat, A. (2021). A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria. Operations Research Perspectives, Volume 8, 2021, 100185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100185.
18) Ommani , A. R. (2019). Analysis of sustainable water resources management (SWRM) in agriculture in Khuzestan Province, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 9 (5), pp. 001-006,
19) Rani, L., Thapa, K., Kanojia, N., Sharma, N., Singh, S., Grewal, A. S., Srivastav, A. L., Kaushal, J. (2021). An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657.
20) Skrimizea, E., Lecuyer, L., Bunnefeld, N., Butler, J., Fickel, T., Hodgson, I., Holtkamp, C., et al. (2020). Chapter Seven - Sustainable agriculture: Recognizing the potential of conflict as a positive driver for transformative change, (Editor(s): David A. Bohan, Adam J. Vanbergen), Advances in Ecological Research, Academic Press, Volume 63, 2020, Pages 255-311.
21) Vogel,G., Joelsson-Alm, E., Forinder, U., Svensen, C., & Sandgren, A. (2021). Stabilizing life: A grounded theory of surviving critical illness. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, Available online 7 July 2021, 103096, In Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103096
22) Wang, T., Wang, Z., Guo, L., Zhang, J., Li, W., He, H., Zong, R., Wang, D., Jia, Z., & Wen, Y. (2021). Experiences and challenges of agricultural development in an artificial oasis: A review, Agricultural Systems, Volume 193, 2021, 103220, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103220.
23) Yu, M. & Smith, S. M. (2021). Grounded theory: A guide for a new generation of researchers. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 553-568. https://doi.org/10.28945/4836
24) Zhang, X., Yao, G., Vishwakarma, S., Dalin, C,. Komarek, A., Kanter, D., Davis, K. F., Pfeifer, K., Zhao, J., et al. (2021). Quantitative assessment of agricultural sustainability reveals divergent priorities among nations, One Earth, Volume 4, Issue 9, 2021, Pages 1262-1277, ISSN 2590-3322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.015.
