Received:

29 August 2018
Revised:
Multi-criteria evaluation in
17 January 2019
Accepted:
8 February 2019
paradigmatic perspectives of
Cite as: Mahsa Fatemi,
Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam.
agricultural environmental
Multi-criteria evaluation in
paradigmatic perspectives of
agricultural environmental
management
management.
Heliyon 5 (2019) e01229.
doi: 10.1016/[Link].2019.
e01229
Mahsa Fatemi, Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam∗
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rezaei@[Link] (K. Rezaei-Moghaddam).

Abstract

Agriculture is one of the primary activities that affects the environment due to
natural resources consumption. Therefore, systematic environmental management
for the agricultural sector is required. This study was conducted to analyze the
paradigmatic perspective and strategies of agricultural environmental
management in Iran. Considering basic criteria of environmental management,
three paradigms of frontier economics, eco-development and deep ecology were
compared using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP, is a multi-
criteria decision making techniques which is useful when there are different
alternatives or indicators in decision making. Comparisons were based on the
viewpoints of 117 policy makers, superior managers and main elites and
agriculture sector researchers. Environmental managerial strategies also have
been studied. Findings revealed paradoxes among the paradigmatic perspectives
and selected strategies of different agricultural stakeholders which reduce their
effective interactions. Frontier economics is the dominant viewpoint of key
agricultural policy makers and other governmental executives. They prefer
independent reactive strategies to cope with environmental challenges.
Agricultural researchers and private sector authorities believe in eco-
development. They have selected cooperative proactive strategies in this regard.
Finally, deep ecology has the highest priority according to environmental

[Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

specialists, who endorse strategic maneuvering and believe in modifying,

rethinking and redesigning previous strategies. A paradigm shift, as well as
consistency between paradigmatic perspectives and executive strategies, is
suggested.

Keywords: Environmental science, Sociology

1. Introduction
Sustainability has been emphasized due to the imbalanced development of human
societies, especially after the industrial revolution, and the negative consequences
of population growth, capitation and consumption patterns (Wackernagel and
Yount, 2000). As a response to the environmentally and socially destructive prac-
tices of post-war mechanization and intensification, the concept of sustainable agri-
culture has become prominent in research, policy, and practice (Rose et al., 2019;
Janker et al., 2018). A comprehensive managerial system is needed in order to
harmonize between Environmental restrictions and human needs. Co-management
is kind of suitable system refers to an institutional mechanism in which government
representatives and resource user-groups, such as local and indigenous communities
interact to negotiate formal agreements on the distribution of rights, power, respon-
sibilities and benefits in the resource management process (Akamani and Hall,
2019). Adaptive collaborative management (adaptive co-management) may help
to improve adaptability and resilience and to develop ‘no-regret strategies’ for a sus-
tainable management (Ehrhart and Schraml, 2018). Environmental management is a
collection of managerial activities including environmental planning, environmental
conservation, evaluation of the environment, legislation, monitoring and control of
environmental activities (He et al., 2012; Sakr et al., 2010).

Agriculture is one of the primary activities that affects the environment due to natural
resources consumption. Therefore, systematic environmental management for the
agricultural sector is required. Environmental management of agriculture is defined
as a balance between natural resources’ capacity called biocapacity (Fatemi et al.,
2018; Borucke et al., 2013) and the amount of agricultural activities. Given the
limited capacity of natural resources, utilization should be rational, reasonable and
calculated in order to prevent or reduce degradation of natural resources. The sus-
tainability of natural resources depends upon our paradigm for the relationship be-
tween society and environment and the stakeholders’ perspective towards the
resources (Fatemi, 2017). The environmental behavior of each individual depends
on how he/she thinks about natural resources. The paradigmatic viewpoint is defined
as a framework for viewing the universe. It is the intellectual foundation including
the values, beliefs and norms of the individual, organization or nation (Raum and
Potter, 2015). It shapes the individual’s attitudes and behaviors towards the

2 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

environment as well as other aspects of the whole managerial system. Thus, modi-
fication of the dominant paradigm of the individual or the society would be construc-
tive as the principal solution to improve the behaviors of that society.

Individual scientists have categorized environmental management in differing ways.

De Vries (1989) proposed five paradigms which he labeled as Technocrat-
Adventurer, Partners, Manager-Engineer, Steward and Cultural. Similarly, Colby
(1991) classified different paradigmatic viewpoints of environmental management
into five categories much more explicitly defined and much evolutionary in terms
of described relationship among them that include Frontier Economics (the same
as technocrat-adventurer), Environmental Protection (close to steward), Resource
Management (the same as manager-engineer), Deep Ecology (identified closely
with partners) and Eco-Development (mixture of cultural and steward). Recently,
Aral (2005) categorized the paradigms of environmental management into Frontier
Economics, Radical Environmentalism, Sustainable Environmental Management,
Selective Environmentalism and Resource Allocation. These paradigmatic perspec-
tives, contain some overlaps; for instance, environmental protection and steward are
so close to frontier economics in which economic factors have been the highest pri-
ority. Resource management, manager-engineer and sustainable environmental
management are similar to eco-development. It is hard to draw a specific line be-
tween these paradigms.

In the next level, the strategies of environmental management are shaped by the
dominant paradigmatic perspectives of the executive managers in this area. The rela-
tionship between the organization and the external environment is emphasized to
identify the strategies. So, organizations should change to the passive-reactive en-
tities due to their exterior environment. In contrast, organizations must implement
diverse strategies in order to rectify existing environmental situations, so they would
become proactive entities of change by trying to manage their exterior environments.
Strategies under a concept of environmental management discussed by different sci-
entists (Leigh and Li, 2015; Lee and Rhee, 2005; Fatemi, 2017). Independent stra-
tegies are means by which the organization can reduce environmental uncertainty
and dependence relying on its resources and creativity. These strategies are imple-
mented regularly by individual organizations in an attempt to modify their compet-
itive environments. Cooperative strategies involve implicit or explicit cooperation
with other elements in the environment. In some situations, two or more organiza-
tions may implement cooperative environmental management strategies. Coopera-
tive strategies are selected by many organizations on the assumption that
combined action reduces risks and costs to individual organizations while increasing
their power. Strategic maneuvering includes strategies designed to change or alter
the task environment of the organization. These strategies under their related para-
digms represent conscious efforts by a government or organization to change the
task environment in which it operates. In fact, environmental management contains

3 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

three different strategies at different influential levels: “reactive end of pipe pollution
control, proactive reusing, remanufacturing, and recycling of products and mate-
rials” (Leigh and Li, 2015).

A multiple criteria evaluation of different paradigmatic perspectives of environ-

mental management with an emphasis on the agricultural sector, as well as
comparing diverse managerial strategies of the environment, are the main purposes
of this study. Three paradigms of frontier economics, deep ecology and eco-devel-
opment have been studied in terms of the significant differences in their main prin-
ciples and assumptions. Frontier economics is the basic economic perspective; in
contrast, deep ecology is the radical environmental viewpoint and eco-
development is an intermediate paradigmatic perspective placed in the middle of
the spectrum. Therefore, different alternative paradigms of environmental manage-
ment have been introduced and then compared in terms of the perspectives of
main policy makers, superior managers, elites and researchers of agricultural exten-
sion in Iran using AHP. In the next level, appropriate categories of environmental
management strategies were studied and ranked based on to the viewpoints of
different groups of the study.

1.1. Alternative paradigms

1.1.1. Frontier economics
One of the basic principles of this paradigm is that natural resources and ecological
services are regarded as “free gifts” of nature. The other principles include the as-
sumptions of infinite substitutability between inputs to production, the reversibility
of equilibrium and resource use, that efficient allocation through the price mecha-
nism brings a kind of social justice by rewarding each factor according to its mar-
ginal productivity (Azam, 2016). According to this paradigm, nature is seen as a
beneficial tool for humans, to be consumed, manipulated and changed for the better-
ment of the human life quality (Singh, 2015). In this worldview, the nature and so-
ciety are seen as two separate things which humans could overcome the
environment. Indeed, regarding to this viewpoint, environment should have
reformed due to the human’s insight and become desirable for the man’s require-
ments. So, the human-nature relationship is seen as one-sided oriented and in a
sense, zero-sum (Gendron, 2014).

Environmental management decisions are designed to use efficient technological

means to realize such growth. Regarding this paradigm, many technologies could
be seen as strategies for the environment management, while they were provided
for human’s power incensement in order to exploit production from nature, and/or
to reduce the negative impacts of environment’s variations on community. Accord-
ing to frontier economics, sustainability is not an important matter and the future is

4 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

created through a price system based on free choice. There are some policy strategies
based on this paradigm: “free market” means governments act only as necessary to
deal with inevitable market deficiencies; “technological optimism” can be seen in
this paradigm which means technology is a, progressive, and can treat any challenge
it makes; and there is no need to pre-market appraisal of technology. Based on the
“end-of-pipe strategy”, it is considered that nature degradation could be remade
where necessary after development has proceeded to some point where clear envi-
ronmental management can be afforded.

1.1.2. Deep ecology

The deep ecology has been cited in the opposite side of frontier economics in spec-
trum of different paradigmatic viewpoints. These specialists have a whole different
value system based on ethics and aesthetics rather than the financial and material
orientation of economics. Deep ecology fundamentally rejects the dualistic view
of humans and nature as separate and different (Pepper, 2003). This paradigm in-
volves a radical philosophy which attempts to redefine the relationship between hu-
mans and nature by granting ethical status to animals, plants, ecosystems, and even
the non-living parts of our natural environment. It values nature (non-human and
even non-living elements) for its own sake and judges that nature deserves protection
because of its intrinsic value (Pentreath, 2004).

The beliefs of deep ecology proponents are in opposite of anthropocentrism. The

basic deep ecology tenets concerning this fundamental relationship are intrinsic bio-
species equality, major reductions in human population, bioregional autonomy, pro-
motion of biological and cultural diversity, decentralized planning utilizing multiple
value systems, and non-growth oriented economics (Colby, 1991; Fatemi et al.,
2018). Additional tenets are the dependence on simple technology, focusing on
the use of indigenous management and technological systems. Deep ecologists
see technological fixes as usually leading to larger, costlier and more difficult prob-
lems (Paterson, 2006). Sustainability is the wrong question due to this paradigmatic
viewpoint as it turns out of man centeredness. There are some policy strategies in this
paradigm including shifting the man from egocentric view toward a harmony with
nature as well as technology management which means accepting only those clean
technologies with no harmful effects on the environment. Deep ecologists are highly
resistant to the idea of using economic costing measures for environmental damage.
They believe that ecological values exist independent of values held by society, and
imply an infinite value for living resources and even some non-living ones.

1.1.3. Eco-development
The concepts of eco-development began to emerge as an alternative in an attempt to
explicitly incorporate cultural, social and ecological goals into development (Sachs,

5 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

2000). Three eco-development objectives are social equity, ecological sustainability,

and economic viability. Considering the principles of self-sufficiency and participa-
tion were subsequently added as criteria for eco-development besides the satisfaction
of basic needs (Glaeser, 2000). The basic premise of the eco-development paradigm
is that all aspects of the political, economic, sociocultural, and techno-scientific sub-
systems need to be ecologized, rather than just the economic and technological sub-
systems. Industrial ecology, agro-ecology, broader community participation in
development planning, utilizing more local knowledge, more committed, coopera-
tive relations between the public and private sectors, sociotechnical systems design
criteria, new types of land use regimes such as extractive forest reserves and game
ranching, and synergetic integrations of agriculture, industrial, and energy systems
are some of the means of this paradigm (Colby, 1991).

This paradigm argued an alternative notion of development as a policy including

three main components: needs, self-reliance and environment. It was declared that
development and the nature form a “dialectical union” (Glaeser, 2000). The core
of the eco-development paradigm is to reform the connection between society and
environment into a “positive sum game” by rearranging man activities to be syner-
getic with ecosystem processes (Colby, 1991). The use of “development” implies a
clear reorientation and advancement of the level of integration of social, environ-
mental and economic concerns. Eco-development underlines longer term manage-
ment of “adaptability”, “resilience”, and “uncertainty” to reduce the ecological
stresses (Konchak and Pascual, 2006). This paradigm moves on from economizing
ecology to ecologizing the economy or whole social systems. Ecologize economy,
moral change to gradually generate environmental concerns, technological realism,
precautionary principle to manage uncertainty, life cycle framework, product policy,
pollution pays and policy equity are some policy strategies in relevance with the eco-
development paradigm (Rezaei-Moghaddam et al., 2005). One goal of eco-
development is to eliminate the need for the polluter to pay by reforming the econ-
omy according to ecological principles to regularly pollution reduction, rather than
just to fit pollution control economically and efficiently into existing structures.

2. Methodology
2.1. What is AHP?
The AHP, proposed by Thomas L. Saaty, is one of the most applied multi-criteria
decision making techniques (Saaty and Vargas, 2006). It is useful when there are
different alternatives or indicators in decision making. Indicators could be quantita-
tive or qualitative. AHP has been used for analyzing unstructured challenges in a va-
riety of decision making conditions ranging from simple personal decisions to

6 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

complex, capital intensive decisions in numerous areas containing management,

economics and politics. The AHP technique is based on pair-wise comparisons.

Generally, the ranking and prioritization of the alternatives in AHP includes four
phases (Saaty and Vargas, 2006): (1) Making a hierarchical model, in which all of
the elements and sub-elements involved in the decision making process should be
placed between the main goal and the alternatives in different levels; (2) Making
pair-wise comparisons in which each element is compared pairwise with the other
elements and scored based on the comparison; (3) Weights calculation in which
the primary weight is assessed based on the comparison of each element’s score
with the others’ named relative weight. In this respect, there are four different
methods including row sum, column sum, geometric mean and arithmetic mean
(Ghodsi-Pour, 2002; Chen and Huang, 2004). Final weight is assessed by the aggre-
gation of all the weights; and (4) Consistency of the system in which the inconsis-
tency rate is the mechanism determining the validity of the responses from pairwise
comparisons. Since all of the AHP calculations are based on primary judgments of
the respondents in a pairwise comparison matrix, the existence of any errors and
inconsistency in prioritizations will be defaced in the final output. The entire calcu-
lation process of AHP can be performed by different software programs such as
Expert Choice or Super Decisions.

2.2. Research steps

The entire research process from conception to design of the research instruments is
described step by step as follows.

2.2.1. First step

Different components of environmental management have been extracted from the
literature based on diverse paradigmatic viewpoints. In this phase, a total of 63 com-
ponents was listed as indicators of environmental management. Then the similar
ones were merged and new appropriate concepts were replaced based on the research
team. Finally, 35 components in 4 main groups were categorized after incorporating
and summarizing the first list (Table 1).

2.2.2. Second step

The preliminary questionnaire including 35 components extracted from the literature
in the first step (components of Table 1) was designed. Trying to gather the view-
points of different groups of experts, scientists and scholars of environmental man-
agement in agriculture, a total 62 questionnaires were completed by different groups
including 10 managers and specialists of the Central Office of Environmental Protec-
tion of Fars province and 20 elites of the think tank of this Office, 12 professors of

7 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Table 1. Results of ranking of agricultural environmental management

components.

Category component Reference Mean Rank

Economic Economic dependency on natural Rientjes (2002); Redclift (2006); 4.53 1

resources Kapoor (2001).
Human basic needs Adams (2009); Rientjes (2002); 4.22 2
Virapongse et al. (2016).
Environmental taxes (Green taxes) Singh (2015); Colby (1991); 4.05 3
Grossman (2007).
Employment He et al. (2012); Redclift (2006). 3.76 4
Economic growth Virapongse et al. (2016); Kapoor 3.05 5
(2001).
Self-sufficiency He et al. (2012); Rientjes (2002). 2.76 6
Private possession of resources Rose et al. (2019); Colby (1991); 2.41 7
Walker et al. (2006).
Combination of resources Grossman (2007); Janker et al. 2.29 8
possession systems (2018); Colby (1991).
Risk management Lee and Rhee (2005); Grossman 2.05 9
(2007).
Social-Cultural Improvement of environmental Sakr et al. (2010); Pentreath 4.82 1
culture and awareness (2004).
Equity and poverty alleviation Rezaei-Moghaddam et al. (2006); 4.41 2
Kapoor (2001).
Mutual collaboration and Colby (1991); Ragkos et al. (2015); 4.29 3
participation Sakr et al. (2010); Berkes (2009).
Social institutionalization and Sakr et al. (2010); Berkes (2009); 4.17 4
environmental organizations Janker et al., (2018), Ragkos et al.
(2015).
Environmental attitudes Adams (2009); Rezaei- 3.94 5
Moghaddam and Fatemi (2013);
Ragkos et al. (2015).
Life quality of stakeholders Buttel and Humphery (2002); 3.65 6
Rezaei-Moghaddam et al. (2005).
Social equity Kapoor (2001); Virapongse et al. 3.58 7
(2016); Buttel and Humphery
(2002).
Indigenous knowledge and Berkes (2009); Mavhura et al. 3.41 8
experiences (2013).
Environmental Biodiversity Paterson (2006); Pentreath (2004); 4.47 1
Wang et al. (2012).
Rational use of natural resources Passeri et al. (2013); Moore et al. 4.23 2
(2012); Hoekstra (2009); Kitzes
and Wackernagel (2009);
Wiedmann and Barrett (2010).
Prevention of resources Kissinger and Gottlieb (2012); 4.11 3
degradation Fatemi et al., 2018.
Reduction of environmental Adams (2009); Paterson (2006). 4.05 4
pollutions
Development of clean energies Walker et al. (2006); He et al. 3.94 5
extraction (2012).
Biocapacity and natural resources
Borucke et al. (2013); Galli et al. 3.82 6
thresholds (2014); Wackernagel (2005); Wang
et al. (2012); Galli et al. (2012).
Renewable resources management Nemat Pour and Rezaei- 3.53 7
Moghaddam (2014).
(continued on next page)

8 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Table 1. (Continued )
Category component Reference Mean Rank

Ecologic resilience Malek-Saeidi and Karami (2013); 3.17 8

Walker et al. (2006); Malek-Saeidi
et al. (2016); Berkes et al. (2003).
Non-renewable resources recycling Glaeser (2000); Colby (1991). 2.82 9
(Waste management)
Technological- Environmental adaptability Colby (1991); Virapongse et al. 4.87 1
Political (2016).
Eco-friendly technologies Salehi et al. (2008); Durant et al. 4.83 2
(2004).
Biotechnology in agriculture Salehi et al. (2012); Walker et al. 3.70 3
(2006).
Non-use of chemical inputs in Durant et al. (2004); Leigh and Li 3.29 4
agriculture (2015).
Integrated pest management He et al. (2012); Glaeser (2000); 3.17 5
Durant et al. (2004).
Minimum-use of inputs in farming Mercati (2016); Colby (1991); 3.06 6
Salehi et al. (2012).
Modern agricultural technologies Mercati (2016); Rezaei- 2.94 7
for yield increase Moghaddam et al. (2005).
Decentralization in implementation Leigh and Li (2015); Lin et al. 2.76 8
(Localization) (2016); Akamani and Hall. (2019);
Adam and Eltayeb (2016).
Returning to the traditional Anaya and Huber-Sannwald 1.82 9
agriculture (2015).
Scale of the components: (1e5).

the School of Agriculture of Shiraz University (Departments of Environment and

Natural Resources and Agricultural Extension and Education) as well as the Global
Footprint Network in the U.S.A., 10 members of the Council of Engineering System
Organization of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Fars province and 10 man-
agers and executives of the Organization of Agriculture Jihad of Fars province.

The respondents were asked to rank and weight the components of each category in
the spectrum of 1e5 based on the importance of each component in sustainable envi-
ronmental management of agriculture. Based on Q-methodology (Doody et al.,
2009; Forouzani et al., 2013) they also were requested not to assign the same weight
to the majority of the components, so that the same weight could not be assigned to
more than two components of every category. The scientists were asked to merge
similar components or add new ones which did not exist in the questionnaire. The
weighting results of the elements of environmental management in agriculture
with the rank of each component is shown in Table 1.

2.2.3. Third step

According to the ranking results of the previous step, the 9 ultimate criteria of envi-
ronmental management in agriculture were selected in order to design the main
research questionnaire using AHP (Table 2). These criteria were designed in a

9 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Table 2. Conceptual definitions of final criteria of agricultural environmental

management.

No. Criteria Conceptual definitions

1 Human basic needs Trying to meet the basic needs of the farmers
with emphasis on economic needs in order to
improve the life quality and livelihood of the
rural people.
2 Economic dependency on natural resources Dependency of the farmers and rural society
on natural resources utilization just for
income.
3 Environmental ethics and culture Emphasis and concentration on ethical and
spiritual aspects and improvement of
environmental awareness as well as better
resource conservation by appropriate
education and effective advertising in rural
areas and other agricultural stakeholders.
4 Rational use of resources Wise and rational use of resources regarding
biocapacity and natural resources thresholds
to ensure that the farmers’ consumption does
not exceed the regeneration capacity of the
resources.
5 Equity and poverty alleviation Justice and balance in distribution of the
facilities and natural resources availability
among all of the farmers as well as socio-
economic poverty alleviation.
6 Eco-friendly technologies Utilization of technologies, tools, agro-
instruments, inputs and methods which not
only improve the quantity and quality of the
products, but also do not damage the
environmental and natural resources
capability.
7 Biodiversity Conservation of different kinds of plant
species and diverse varieties with various
needs in order to adapt to different climatic
conditions including probable conditions
such as drought.
8 Environmental adaptability Adaptability is defined as the response to
ongoing environmental changes. It is
opposite of vulnerability and leads to socio-
economic resilience.
9 Mutual collaboration and participation Maximum use of all kinds of human
capacities and different stakeholders in
agricultural organizations including
managers, experts, extension agents, farmers
and other rural people in planning, decision
making and implementation of
environmental activities and resource
conservation.

10 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

special questionnaire in the format of a pairwise matrix to compare two by two

regarding the priority of each criterion in the spectrum of 1e9. The total 117 ques-
tionnaires were completed by 5 different groups of policy makers, decision makers
and managers of environment and agricultural sector who have the key role in envi-
ronmental and agricultural policy making of the country. These five groups are
described below.

[Link]. National key policy makers of Agricultural Extension at the

Ministry of Agriculture Jihad (AEMAJ)
The Ministry of Agriculture Jihad as the main trustee of acting and implementing of
national agricultural policies includes 7 vice chancellors of which the Extension, Ed-
ucation and Research deputy is one of the main ones. This group of study includes
top managers and executives who are at the vice chancellor office of the Ministry of
Agriculture Jihad of Iran. Indeed, they are the main policy makers and decision
makers of the agricultural extension sector and have key roles in macro policies
and program planning of agricultural extension activities of the country. Especially
in Iran, which has the centralized government and hierarchical system, the vice chan-
cellor of agricultural extension in the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad is in the highest
place of the extension administrative chart for the whole decision making and inter-
vention sectors of agricultural extension in Iran. Since their decisions and activities
are affected by their paradigmatic viewpoints in this area, the perception of their
worldview will be necessary in order to achieve sustainable environmental manage-
ment in agriculture. Ten of the managers and executives of agricultural extension of
the vice chancellor office of the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad of Iran were selected
and their viewpoints in terms of different paradigms and strategies of environmental
management were compiled and used at macro policies of the country were asked to
complete a special questionnaire.

[Link]. Top managers of “Organizations of Agriculture Jihad

(OAJ)” at the provincial level
The organizations of Agriculture Jihad of different provinces are placed after the Min-
istry of Agriculture Jihad in the hierarchical executive agricultural sector of Iran. These
organizations control the agricultural activities at county, district and rural levels of
each province, they act as a liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad and other
executives sector at provincial level. The Organization of Agriculture Jihad of every
province is located at the center of that province. This management system connects
the agricultural executive sectors of counties and the rural areas. As for the more accu-
rate analysis, the “Organizations of Agriculture Jihad” and their “Extension Coordina-
tion Managements” of 4 provinces of Khuzestan, Kermanshah, Bushehr and
Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad were selected in this group. Thirty-five of the

11 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

presidents, managers and executives of these 4 provinces were chosen for completing
the questionnaire.

[Link]. Top managers of “Agricultural and Natural Resources

Research and Education Centers (ANRREC)” at the provincial level
Besides the Organizations of Agriculture Jihad of provinces, there are also Agricul-
tural and Natural Resources Research and Education Centers in each province which
have the responsibility of conducting agricultural research projects. For more accu-
rate analysis, top managers in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Ed-
ucation Centers of 4 provinces of Fars, Kermanshah, Bushehr and Kohgiluyeh and
Boyer-Ahmad were selected in this group. A total 32 of managers, directors and ex-
ecutives of these 4 provinces were selected for the questionnaires’ completion.

[Link]. Top managers and specialists of Engineering System Orga-

nization of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ESOANR) of Fars
province (private sector)
The Engineering System Organization of Agriculture and Natural Resources has
been established in order to facilitate gradual privatization of agriculture in 2001
at national and provincial levels. Some of the main goals of ESOANR are devel-
oping agricultural modern knowledge and technologies, quantitative and qualitative
grow of agricultural products, environmental and renewable natural resources con-
servation and sustainability in order to achieve sustainable development, rights pro-
tection or agricultural engineering and the integrity, coordination and collaboration
among the farmers and other government and non-government agricultural sectors.
Ten members of the Engineering Council of Agriculture and Natural Resources Sys-
tem of Fars province were selected as representatives of agricultural specialists as
well as the agricultural private sector for this research.

[Link]. Top managers and think tank elites of the Central Office of
Environmental Protection (COEP) of Fars province
The Organization of Environmental Protection is a government institution dependent
on the presidential palace with the main aims of natural ecosystems conservation and
the restoration of negative environmental consequences, prevention and control of
environmental degradation and pollution, ecological capability evaluation in order
to achieve wise and rational use of environmental resources and continuous control
supervision of natural resources consumption. The offices of Environmental Protec-
tion under control of the National Organization of Environmental Protection are
located in the centers of the provinces. Also in 2012, a professional group called
“environmental think tank” was created in the Central Office of Environmental Pro-
tection of Fars province by the Organization of Environmental Protection of the

12 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

country for the first time including 40 scientists, specialists and advanced scholars in
different areas of technical, legal, educational, social, economic and policy making
for determining and resolving environmental problems. The solutions produced by
the environmental think tank are the constructive guide for the provincial Office of
Environmental Protection. A total 30 persons including the top managers and exec-
utives (the head and deputies of the Central Office of Environmental Protection of
Fars province) as well as 26 specialists of the think tank of this office comprised
the fifth group of the study.

2.2.4. Fourth step

Following the study and analysis of paradigmatic viewpoints of different studied
groups towards environmental management in agriculture using AHP, the perspec-
tives of agricultural policy makers, scientists, executive authorities and researchers
of the same five groups were asked about appropriate strategies for effective agricul-
tural environmental management in this step. A specific questionnaire was designed
including a list of questions regarding different types of environmental management
strategies (independent strategies [14 items], cooperative strategies [10 items] and
strategic maneuvering [7 items]) in a Likert scale and required data was collected
from the respondents. The reliability of the questionnaire was verified by a pilot
study with 30 experts out of the main sample of the study from the executive experts
of Extension and Service Centers of Agriculture Jihad of Kazeroon and Firouz Abad
counties of Fars province. Cronbach’s alphas of independent strategies, cooperative
strategies and strategic maneuvering were calculated 0.78, 0.79 and 0.82, respec-
tively. It was possible to rank different kinds of strategies due to the perspectives
of different groups as well as comparing the opinions of different groups regarding
the type of selected strategies.

3. Results and discussion

Initially, the results of paradigmatic viewpoints of five groups in terms of agricultural
environmental management were presented and analyzed. Then, different types of
appropriate strategies of environmental management were studied, compared and
analyzed based on the perspectives of different active groups in the agricultural
sector.

3.1. Analyzing the paradigmatic viewpoints of agricultural

environmental management
Making a hierarchical network is he first step of the AHP to present the challenge
which the overall goal cited on the top, then the middle shows the criteria, and finally
the bottom indicates the alternatives. In this study, the overall goal was to assess

13 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

which environmental management paradigm (Frontier economics, Eco-

development, Deep ecology) would be appropriate for the sustainable agricultural
development of Iran. The overall objective of “selection of an environmental man-
agement paradigm for sustainable agricultural development” was placed at the top
level of the analytic hierarchy shown in Fig. 1. Then, the key evaluation criteria
for assessing the objective were identified. The nine described key criteria were iden-
tified previously and include human basic needs, economic dependency on natural
resources, environmental ethics and culture, rational use of resources, equity and
poverty alleviation, eco-friendly technologies, biodiversity, environmental adapt-
ability and mutual collaboration and participation. Finally, three alternatives, frontier
economics, eco-development and deep ecology were placed at the bottom of the
AHP hierarchical model.

First, a pairwise comparison of criteria was accomplished and the following five
groups were involved in the pairwise comparison of the nine criteria. The use of
the AHP model requires determining the relative importance of each of the criteria
in the hierarchy. Each criterion in a level is compared pairwise with other criteria at
the same level, with respect to the criterion at a higher level. One hundred and seven-
teen participants in five groups examined the criteria with respect to the overall goal
(selection of an appropriate paradigm of environmental management for sustainable
agricultural development). Before the performance of pairwise comparisons, all
members of the groups were given instructions on how to conduct comparisons
among criteria with respect to the overall goal. Their judgment of the importance
of one criterion over another can be assessed subjectively and converted to a numer-
ical value using a scale of 1e9. Table 3 shows the normalized weights and the rank
for the nine criteria with the overall goal in each of the five groups.

After pairwise comparisons for all the criteria, the next step was comparisons of the
sustainable agricultural development paradigms with respect to the criteria. Pairwise

Fig. 1. Hierarchical model for selection of appropriate paradigm of environmental management for sus-
tainable agricultural development.

14 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Table 3. Prioritizing and ranking of the criteria for sustainable agricultural

development.

Components AEMAJ OAJ ANRREC ESOANR COEP

Human basic needs 0.360 (1) 0.460 (1) 0.025 (8) 0.055 (6) 0.022 (8)
Economic dependency on natural 0.274 (2) 0.131 (2) 0.015 (9) 0.019 (9) 0.017 (9)
resources
Environmental ethics and culture 0.039 (6) 0.032 (7) 0.049 (6) 0.025 (8) 0.253 (2)
Rational use of resources 0.105 (3) 0.072 (5) 0.048 (7) 0.217 (1) 0.063 (4)
Equity and poverty alleviation 0.090 (4) 0.115 (3) 0.117 (5) 0.199 (2) 0.044 (7)
Eco-friendly technologies 0.029 (8) 0.023 (8) 0.163 (4) 0.053 (7) 0.240 (3)
Biodiversity 0.028 (9) 0.021 (9) 0.169 (3) 0.101 (5) 0.268 (1)
Environmental adaptability 0.048 (5) 0.054 (6) 0.203 (2) 0.175 (3) 0.046 (6)
Mutual collaboration and 0.030 (7) 0.091 (4) 0.211 (1) 0.157 (4) 0.047 (5)
participation
Inconsistency Ratio 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09
Scale: if 1 ¼ equally important, if 3 ¼ moderately more important, if 5 ¼ strongly more important, if 7 ¼
very strongly more important, if 9 ¼ overwhelmingly more important; 2, 4, 6 and 8 are intermediate
values that can be used to represent shades of judgment between the five basic assessments (The ranks
of each criterion are presented in parentheses).

comparisons on the alternative paradigms (i.e., frontier economics, eco-development

and deep ecology) were performed with respect to each criterion. Results verification
of the decision is shown using sensitivity analysis. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was
performed to determine how sensitive the alternatives are to change in the impor-
tance of the criteria. Dynamic, gradient, performance and two dimensional analyses
are the five graphical sensitivity analysis modes as outcomes of AHP providing by
Expert Choice.11. Performance sensitivity analysis was used in this study. It demon-
strates how well each alternative performs on each criterion by changing the impor-
tance of the criterion. The results of pairwise comparisons of criteria as well as
synthetizing judgments by the five groups are presented below.

3.1.1. Key policy makers of Agricultural Extension of the

Ministry of Agriculture Jihad (AEMAJ)
Human basic needs and economic dependency on natural resources with the weights
of 0.360 and 0.274 were the two main criteria with the highest priorities based on the
opinions of key policy makers working at the agricultural extension deputy of Min-
istry of Agriculture Jihad of Iran (Table 3). These two criteria, according to their
names, focus on economic aspects and are consistent with the frontier economics
paradigm. Rational use of resources (0.105) and equity and poverty alleviation
(0.090) were perceived by this group as the third and fourth rank (Table 3) and
the weights of environmental adaptability and environmental ethics and culture
were 0.048 and 0.039, respectively (Table 3). Finally, mutual collaboration and

15 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

participation (0.030), eco-friendly technologies (0.029) and biodiversity (0.028)

were considered to be least important by this group and were placed in the last pri-
orities (Table 3). The inconsistency ratio for this group’s pairwise comparisons was
0.09 which is less than the tolerable level of 0.1 and acceptable (Table 3).

Based on findings, the environmental criteria of the deep ecology paradigm such as
eco-friendly technologies and biodiversity were considered to be the least important
by agricultural extension key policy makers of Iran. It is reasonable to see this type
of weak perspective toward environmental protection by the group which constitutes
the main macro policy making and decision making of agricultural extension, sug-
gesting negative environmental consequences for agriculture of Iran. The intensifi-
cation trend of environmental crisis and extended natural resources degradation

Fig. 2. Priority of different paradigms of environmental management for sustainable agriculture as

perceived by AEMAJ (a), OAJ (b).

16 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

would be expected due to the dominant paradigmatic viewpoints of the key agricul-
tural extension policy makers of the country.

Fig. 2(a) shows how each alternative was prioritized relative to another alternative
with respect to each criterion as well as overall. Based on the findings, the key
national policy makers of agricultural extension gave first rank to the frontier eco-
nomics paradigmatic perspective in order to sustainable agricultural development.
Eco-development and deep ecology have been placed after frontier economics.
The final weights of these paradigms calculated as 0.510, 0.336 and 0.154, respec-
tively (Table 4). According to the final weights of each paradigm, frontier eco-
nomics had the highest priority by the national policy makers, eco-development
had moderate importance and the environmental perspective of deep ecology
had the least priority with considerable difference from the other paradigms.
Indeed, economic growth and implementing the strategies to maximize agricultural
production are seen as the master key to all of the agricultural challenges of Iran
due to the dominant paradigmatic perspectives of national agricultural extension
policy makers.

3.1.2. Top managers and authorities of Organizations of

Agricultural Jihad (OAJ) at the provincial level
Human basic needs with the weight of 0.460 was placed in the first rank with a high
difference from the other criteria by the second group of the study (Table 3).
Following that, economic dependency on natural resources (0.131) and equity and
poverty alleviation (0.115) were assigned as the second and third ranks with high
priority. Mutual collaboration and participation, rational use of resources and envi-
ronmental adaptability had moderate importance in the beliefs of the OAJ group with
the weights of 0.091, 0.072 and 0.054, respectively (Table 3). Finally, environmental
ethics and culture (0.032), eco-friendly technologies (0.023) and biodiversity (0.021)
were considered to have the least priority and were placed at the last ranks by the top
managers and high executives of Organizations of Agriculture Jihad of four prov-
inces of this study. As shown in Fig. 3, the inconsistency ratio of the pairwise com-
parisons matrix of this group was 0.08 which is acceptable statistically.

Table 4. Summary of results for AHP analysis of effects of environmental

management models.

Alternatives AEMAJ OAJ ANRREC ESOANR COEP

Frontier Economics 0.510 (1) 0.479 (1) 0.081 (3) 0.106 (3) 0.080 (3)
Eco-development 0.336 (2) 0.373 (2) 0.524 (1) 0.623 (1) 0.300 (2)
Deep Ecology 0.154 (3) 0.149 (3) 0.394 (2) 0.272 (2) 0.620 (1)
The ranks of each alternative are presented in parentheses.

17 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Fig. 3. Priority of different paradigms of environmental management for sustainable agriculture as

perceived by ANRREC (c), ESOANR (d).

Comparison of the two groups of key agricultural extension policy makers and top
managers of the Organizations of Agricultural Jihad, revealed economic criteria
such as human basic needs and economic dependency on natural resources to be
the main criteria for agricultural development by the both groups, as these two eco-
nomic criteria were placed in the first and second ranks by the AEMAJ and OAJ
groups. On the other hand, the very least priority of environmental criteria such as
eco-friendly technologies and biodiversity was the second noticeable points of
comparisons of these two groups. Thus, the current environmental crisis, as well
as extended degradations, are not unexpected based on the purely economic
perspective of key executives of the agriculture sector, especially the agricultural
extension in Iran.

18 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Top managers and executives of Organizations of Agriculture Jihad selected the

frontier economics paradigmatic viewpoint as the main goal to sustainable agricul-
tural development resembling the key agricultural extension policy makers (Fig. 2b).
The total weight of this paradigm was assessed at 0.479. Eco-development and deep
ecology placed in the next priorities with weights of 0.373 and 0.149 (Table 4).
There is similarity between the first two executive groups which placed priority
on the frontier economics paradigm and considered deep ecology as the least impor-
tant paradigm with noticeable difference. Therefore, economic growth using modern
technologies to increase production was considered to be the most important factor
by the main managers of Organization of Agriculture Jihad of Iran following their
superiors at the ministry level. In other words, the similar perspectives of AEMAJ
and OAJ in ranking of the EM paradigms might be attributed to the hierarchical
centralized system of government organizations of Iran. It is probable that most of
the experts of these two organizations believe in environmental conservation in their
personal perspective but when they put in their organizational status, they should act
harmonic with the main goal of the institution and try to make decisions and policies
in relevant with higher production and economic growth. Thus, the frontier eco-
nomics was placed as first rank in Fig. 2, then eco-development and deep ecology
were placed after with significant differences.

3.1.3. Top managers and researchers of Agricultural and

Natural Resources Research and Education Centers
(ANRREC) of the provinces
The criteria of mutual collaboration and participation and environmental adaptability
were the most important criteria perceived by this group with weights of 0.211 and
0.203, respectively (Table 3), followed by biodiversity (0.169), eco-friendly technol-
ogies (0.163) and equity and poverty alleviation (0.117) with noteworthy weights
and were placed in the third to fifth ranks. The managers and researchers of ANR-
REC of the four provinces of this study gave moderate priority to environmental
ethics and culture as well as rational use of resources. The final weights of these
two criteria as shown in Table 3 were 0.049 and 0.048, respectively. The criteria
of human basic needs (0.025) and economic dependency on natural resources
(0.015) had the least importance in comparison with the other criteria in order to
achieve sustainable agricultural development. The inconsistency ratio of pairwise
comparisons of this group equals 0.07 which was less than the tolerable level of
0.1 (Table 3).

The results revealed the different opinions of the members of agricultural and natural
resources research and education centers in the four provinces of the study with the
two executive groups mentioned previously. This group, contrary to the other two
last groups, accorded the lowest priority to the economic criteria of human basic

19 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

needs and economic dependency on natural resources, but considered the socio-
environmental criteria such as mutual collaboration and participation, biodiversity
and eco-friendly technologies as highly important.

Based on Fig. 3(c), the eco-development paradigmatic viewpoint was considered the
highest priority in order to achieve the main goal of sustainable agricultural devel-
opment; this was followed by deep ecology. The final weights of these two para-
digms were 0.524 and 0.394, respectively (Table 4). The managers and
researchers of ANRREC of the four provinces of the study selected the frontier eco-
nomics with the noticeable difference and the weight of 0.081 as the least priority.
Providing comprehensive environmental management to sustainable agricultural
development entails the simultaneous notice to both economic and environmental
aspects, as the “eco” signifies both economic and ecological factors.

3.1.4. Council of Engineering System Organization of

Agriculture and Natural Resources (ESOANR) of Fars province
Rational use of resources was the most important criterion in the experts’ of the
council of ESOANR of Fars province viewpoint. This criterion with the weight of
0.217 had the first rank among the others (Table 3). It was followed by the criteria
of equity and poverty alleviation, environmental adaptability, mutual collaboration
and participation and biodiversity, all of which had significant importance. The
weights of these criteria were 0.199, 0.175, 0.157 and 0.101, respectively (Table
3). The priority of the two criteria of human basic needs (0.055) and eco-friendly
technologies (0.053) were at a moderate level in the opinion of the experts of this
group (Table 3). Finally, the criteria of environmental ethics and culture as well
as economic dependency on natural resources had the least priority among the all
criteria with weights of 0.025 and 0.019 (Table 3). The inconsistency ratio of the
pairwise comparisons matrix of this group was 0.08 which was less than tolerable
level of 0.1 and acceptable (Table 3).

The main decision makers of ESOANR of Fars province selected the eco-
development paradigmatic viewpoint as an appropriate perspective toward sustain-
able agricultural development (Fig. 3d). The final weight of this paradigm was calcu-
lated 0.623 (Table 4). This was followed by deep ecology with the weight of 0.272 in
the second rank and the frontier economics paradigm as the least important paradig-
matic viewpoint perceived by the main private sector of agriculture of Iran (Table 4).
Eco-development was placed in the middle of the spectrum which had two radical
paradigmatic perspectives of frontier economics and deep ecology. It suggests the
need to conduct future studies by an interdisciplinary research team including scien-
tists from economic, social and environmental sciences. Resembling the environ-
mental challenges would be possible only by comprehensive considering to all of
the aspects due to the proponents of eco-development paradigm.

20 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

There were some similarities in comparing the findings of the groups of ANRREC
and ESOANR of Fars province in terms of the selection of an appropriate paradigm
for sustainable agricultural development. Despite differences in the final weights, the
order of the paradigms was the same in both groups. Eco-development was desig-
nated the first rank in the opinion of the two groups followed by deep ecology
and frontier economics, respectively. The close connection of both groups with
academia, pure research and updated results of new studies worldwide, suggests
that they have increased environmental awareness as well as a more rational perspec-
tive about environmental protection. Interdisciplinary tendency of the researchers in
these two organizations reflects in their preferences regarding paradigmatic perspec-
tives of environmental management. As it is shown in Fig. 3, the multi-dimensional
and integrative worldview of eco-development was chosen as the first rank in the di-
agram. They also selected deep ecology as the second rank following the worldwide
mainstream of environmental conservation and sustainability. Finally, the frontier
economics was placed at the lowest part of the diagram. Following interdisciplinary
tendency of the researchers in these two organizations However, a questionable
point relates to weak communications between governmental executive sectors of
agriculture (AEMAJ and OAJ) and the research and private sectors of agriculture
(ANRREC and COEP of Fars province) in Iran. So the research subjects are come
from the international literature with no relevance to the main problems of the Iran
and the research findings would not be applicable for the agricultural policies and
programs as well.

3.1.5. Top managers and the think tank members of Central

Office of Environmental Protection (COEP) of Fars province
The criteria of biodiversity, environmental ethics and culture and eco-friendly tech-
nologies were considered as the highest priorities for sustainable agricultural devel-
opment based on the viewpoints of top managers and think tank members of COEP
of Fars province. The weights of these three criteria were 0.268, 0.253 and 0.240
with significant difference from other criteria (Table 3). Rational use of resources
placed at the fourth rank with the weight of 0.063. According to the opinion of
the experts of this group, other criteria such as mutual collaboration and participation
(0.047), environmental adaptability (0.046) and equity and poverty alleviation
(0.044) had moderate importance. While the two criteria of human basic needs
and economic dependency on natural resources with the final weights of 0.022
and 0.017 were considered to be the lowest priorities with assignment as the two
last ranks (Table 3). The inconsistency ratio of the pairwise comparisons of this
group was 0.09 which is acceptable (Table 3).

Based on the findings, the managers and specialists of the COEP of Fars province
had an environmental perspective by prioritizing such criteria as biodiversity,

21 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

environmental ethics and culture as well as eco-friendly technologies with sizeable

differences from other factors. This means that they had a strong tendency toward
environmental conservation as the highest priority. Indeed, they believe in special
consideration for environmental criteria as the only way to attain sustainable agricul-
tural development.

The dominant perspective of the managers and experts of COEP of Fars province
was closer to the deep ecology paradigm (total weight of 0.620) with a considerable
difference from the other two points of view and was assigned the first rank (Fig. 4,
Table 4). The top managers of the central office of environmental protection had
environmental concerns at the higher level and this was consistent with the mission
which has been defined for their organization. Eco-development (0.300) with mod-
erate importance and finally frontier economics (0.080) with the least priority were
placed at the next stages after deep ecology (Table 4). According to deep ecology as
the dominant paradigmatic perspective of the managers and specialists of COEP,
having respect for the environment is required due to its intrinsic value apart from
the benefits derived by human and other organisms. Thus, everyone must practice
environmental conservation. It is logical that these radical environmentalists prefer
the basic assumptions of deep ecology perspective due to their personal red lines as
well as the transcendental mission of the organization in conserving the natural re-
sources and the whole nature. As it is seen in Fig. 4, deep ecology was ranked as first
perspective with quit large space with the other two worldviews especially the fron-
tier economics.

Fig. 4. Priority of different paradigms of environmental management for sustainable agriculture as

perceived by COEP (e).

22 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

3.2. Analysis of the agricultural environmental management

strategies
First, the findings from the opinions of five groups in terms of diverse types of envi-
ronmental management strategies in agriculture of Iran have been presented. Next,
the analysis of the comparison of these five groups was explained based on appro-
priate strategies of environmental management.

3.2.1. Key policy makers of Agricultural Extension of the

Ministry of Agriculture Jihad (AEMAJ)
Independent strategies (60.80) were chosen with the highest priority as the most
appropriate executive strategies for environmental management of agriculture in
Iran (Table 6). This was followed by cooperative strategies (49.42) and strategic
maneuvering (37.20) in the next priorities (Table 6). The findings revealed that im-
plementing of independent, separate and sporadic strategies was the main orientation
of key agricultural extension policy makers at the ministry level suggesting the
choice of a separate strategy for different challenges ahead. Based on the results,
the strategies of “modern agricultural technologies to agricultural production in-
crease” and “improvement of rural livelihood” were the most important strategies
among all independent strategies in the opinion of agricultural extension policy
makers of Iran (Table 5). On the other hand, an independent strategy of “privatiza-
tion of resource property” and “educational programs of environmental manage-
ment” were considered as the least priority by this group. Iranian policy makers
of agricultural extension did not believe in the strategy of “decentralization and
localization in agriculture” as an appropriate strategy to achieve agricultural environ-
mental management and have given it the least priority among the other cooperative
strategies (Table 5). Finally, national policy makers of this group did not favor stra-
tegic maneuvering as the third category of the strategies and have evaluated all items
in this category as least important.

3.2.2. Top managers and authorities of Organizations of

Agricultural Jihad (OAJ) at provincial level
Independent strategies (54.29) had the highest priority in the viewpoints of the top
managers and executives of OAJ (Table 6). “Improvement of rural livelihood”
and “Organic fertilizers use in agriculture” were considered to be the most important
among all independent strategies in the opinion of this group (Table 5). The top man-
agers of Organizations of Agriculture Jihad following their superiors at the ministry
level, prioritized the cooperative strategies (51.52) and strategic maneuvering
(39.43) at the next ranks (Table 6). “Management of renewable resources” and
“development of entrepreneurship and employment in agricultural activities” were
the most important in the category of cooperative strategies. The top managers of

23 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 24
([Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
[Link]

Table 5. Prioritization of environmental management strategies in accordance with the perspectives of the different groups.

Strategies Items Groups

AEMAJ OAJ ANRREC ESOANR COEP

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Independent Strategies Unit organization as a trustee 4.32 7 4.17 3 4.03 6 4.07 6 3.90 9
for EM
Using modern agricultural 4.90 1 4.14 4 4.07 5 4.16 4 4.10 6
technologies
Privatization of resources 3.80 14 3.43 13 3.31 13 3.90 8 3.47 13
property
Improvement of rural 4.80 2 4.51 1 4.00 7 4.00 7 3.10 14
livelihood
Educational programs of EM 3.90 13 4.12 5 4.10 3 4.10 5 4.04 7
Issues and leaflet about EM 4.27 9 3.91 8 3.69 10 3.50 11 3.83 11
No chemical input in 4.10 12 3.49 12 3.56 11 3.00 13 3.70 12
agriculture
Biotechnology in agriculture 4.60 3 3.71 9 4.09 4 4.20 3 4.15 5
Land leveling to optimal 4.40 6 3.97 7 3.88 8 3.30 12 4.20 4
water use
Organic fertilizers use in 4.20 10 4.20 2 4.13 2 3.70 10 4.30 3
agriculture
Conservation of plant species 4.50 5 3.60 10 3.50 12 3.80 9 3.97 8
by tissue culture
Collection of various seeds 4.30 8 3.57 11 3.72 9 4.30 2 3.87 10

Article Nowe01229
Development of clean energy 4.51 4 4.11 6 4.28 1 4.40 1 4.53 1
Minimum external input in 4.14 11 3.31 14 3.09 14 2.80 14 4.47 2
agriculture
(continued on next page)
 25
([Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
[Link]

Table 5. (Continued )
Strategies Items Groups

AEMAJ OAJ ANRREC ESOANR COEP

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Cooperative Strategies Cooperation of different 3.70 7 4.06 6 3.94 7 4.60 1 3.93 9

organizations for EM
Information on optimal use of 4.10 3 4.17 4 4.13 4 4.26 4 4.17 4
NR
Indigenous knowledge of 2.30 9 1.49 10 4.00 6 4.20 5 4.05 7
local rural for EM
Development of 3.60 8 4.23 2 3.81 9 3.80 10 3.97 8
entrepreneurship and
employment in agricultural
activities
Emphasize on biocapacity 3.80 6 4.02 7 4.06 5 4.08 7 4.10 5
and NR thresholds
Comprehensive agricultural 4.00 5 4.14 3 3.88 8 3.90 8 4.07 6
programs
Integrated management of 4.08 4 4.08 5 4.16 3 4.10 6 4.30 2
pests,
disease and weeds
Waste management and 4.12 2 3.86 8 4.22 2 4.27 3 4.27 3
recycling
Management of renewable 4.20 1 4.49 1 4.41 1 4.30 2 4.40 1

Article Nowe01229
resources
Decentralization and 1.50 10 2.23 9 3.79 10 3.85 9 3.77 10
localization in agriculture
(continued on next page)
 26
([Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
[Link]

Table 5. (Continued )
Strategies Items Groups

AEMAJ OAJ ANRREC ESOANR COEP

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Strategic Maneuvering Rural empowerment by 3.70 3 4.37 1 3.84 6 4.27 4 4.27 7

NGOs
Green taxes 1.32 7 1.49 5 3.25 7 3.20 7 4.73 1
Green incentives 1.40 5 1.37 7 4.13 2 4.00 5 4.60 3
Social capital application in 2.60 4 2.51 4 3.88 5 4.30 2 4.58 4
program planning
Strict environmental rules and 1.30 6 1.40 6 4.00 3 3.80 6 4.63 2
regulations
Improvement of farmers’ 3.65 2 4.26 3 3.91 4 4.20 3 4.33 6
motivation and accountability
for EM
Improvement of farmers’ 3.80 1 4.30 2 4.34 1 4.60 1 4.40 5
attitudes toward EM
Scale: 1e5 EM ¼ Environmental Management; NR ¼ Natural Resources.

Article Nowe01229
 Article Nowe01229

Table 6. Description of the five groups in terms of different environmental

management strategies.

Groups Strategies Range Minimum Maximum Mean

AEMAJ Independent Strategies 10 56 66 60.80

Cooperative Strategies 28 32 60 49.42
Strategic Maneuvering 12 30 42 37.20
OAJ Independent Strategies 30 38 68 54.29
Cooperative Strategies 21 39 60 51.52
Strategic Maneuvering 18 30 48 39.43
ANRREC Independent Strategies 26 40 66 53.44
Cooperative Strategies 29 41 70 56.57
Strategic Maneuvering 36 34 70 54.69
ESOANR Independent Strategies 26 37 63 53.20
Cooperative Strategies 28 42 70 57.96
Strategic Maneuvering 30 40 70 56.80
COEP Independent Strategies 31 39 70 55.80
Cooperative Strategies 34 36 70 57.49
Strategic Maneuvering 18 52 70 63.13
The same scores have been assigned to all three categories providing the same condition for comparisons
(scale: 14e70).

OAJ did not believe in “indigenous knowledge of local rural for environmental man-
agement” and “decentralization and localization in agriculture” among cooperative
strategies and gave them the least priorities in this category. Lastly, the strategy of
“rural empowerment by NGOs” was considered as the highest priority in the stra-
tegic maneuvering category, but the remaining items received low scores (Table 5).

3.2.3. Top managers and researchers of Agricultural and

Natural Resources Research and Education Centers
(ANRREC) of provinces
The experts of this group have given the highest priority to cooperative strategies
(56.57). This was followed by strategic maneuvering (54.69) and independent stra-
tegies (53.44) with little difference between the two (Table 6). Indeed, the managers
and researchers of ANRREC in the studied provinces considered all three types of
strategies as appropriate solutions to comprehensive environmental management
of agriculture but they had strong orientation to cooperative strategies as opposed
to the other two categories. “Development of clean energy application” and “organic
fertilizers use in agriculture” were the most important strategies among the all inde-
pendent strategies according to the top managers and researchers of ANRREC in the
four provinces of the study (Table 5). The cooperative strategies of “management of
renewable resources”, “waste management and recycling” and “integrated manage-
ment of pest, disease and weeds” received the highest scores by this group of experts.
Finally, the strategies of “improvement of farmers’ attitudes toward environmental

27 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

management” and “green incentives to active agricultural firms” were considered the
highest priorities in the strategic maneuvering category (Table 5).

3.2.4. Council of Engineering System Organization of

Agriculture and Natural Resources (ESOANR) of Fars province
Similar to the previous group, the experts of the council of ESOANR ranked coop-
erative strategies (57.96), strategic maneuvering (56.80) and independent strategies
(53.20) as appropriate strategies for sustainable environmental management in agri-
culture of Iran, respectively (Table 6). “Development of clean energy application,”
“Collection of various seeds” and “biotechnology in agriculture” were the most
important independent strategies (Table 5). “Cooperation of different organizations
for environmental management” and “management of renewable resources” were
selected as the most effective cooperative strategies in order to achieve sustainable
agricultural development. Finally, “improvement of farmers’ attitudes toward envi-
ronmental management” and “social capital application in program planning” were
assigned as the highest priorities in the strategic maneuvering category by the key
authorities of agricultural private sector of Iran (Table 5).

3.2.5. Top managers and the think tank members of Central

Office of Environmental Protection (COEP) of Fars province
Strategic maneuvering (63.13) had the highest priority according to the viewpoint of
heads and experts of think tank of COEP of Fars province (Table 6). “Green taxes,”
“strict environmental rules and regulations” and “green incentives to active agricul-
tural firms” were chosen as the most effective strategies among the other items of the
strategic maneuvering category by the experts of this group (Table 5). Cooperative
strategies (57.49) and independent strategies (55.80) were placed after strategic
maneuvering (Table 6). “Management of renewable resources” and “integrated man-
agement of pests, disease and weeds” as cooperative strategies and “development of
clean energy application” and “minimum use of external input in agriculture” as in-
dependent strategies were the most important by the heads and think tank experts of
COEP of Iran (Table 5).

The results demonstrate different rankings by the five groups of the study in terms of
different types of environmental management strategies, but there were some simi-
larities in this regard. Even though the three groups of ANRREC, ESOANR and
COEP accorded close scores to three categories of strategies and considered all of
them as the effective and appropriate solutions for environmental management, their
tendency and orientation favored strategic maneuvering and cooperative strategies.
These three groups believed that the application of independent and sporadic strate-
gies no longer works and it is necessary to move toward integration of different types
of strategies as well as stakeholders’ empowerment in order to achieve sustainable

28 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

environmental management. On the contrary, independent strategies were consid-

ered as the highest priority by the other two groups of AEMAJ and OAJ in the study.

3.2.6. Comparing different groups in terms of environmental

management strategies
To provide more accurate comparisons among the opinions of different groups in
terms of executive strategies of agricultural environmental management of Iran,
an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed. Three ANOVAs were as-
sessed due to different types of strategies. Based on the results for independent stra-
tegies, there was a significant difference between the score mean of this type of
strategy in the perspective of agricultural extension key policy makers of the minis-
try and the other groups (sig. ¼ 0.041). The score mean of independent strategies
based on key policy makers of the ministry (60.80) was significantly higher
(Table 7).

The results of an ANOVA regarding cooperative strategies revealed that there was a
significant difference between the score mean of the opinions of the two groups of
AEMAJ and OAJ and the other three groups (sig. ¼ 0.003). The score mean of coop-
erative strategies in the groups of ANRREC (56.57), ESOANR (57.96) and COEP
(57.49) were greater than the other two groups (AEMAJ, OAJ) (Table 7). Based on
the ANOVA test regarding strategic maneuvering, there was also a significant differ-
ence between the score mean of AEMAJ and OAJ and the other three groups in terms
of strategic maneuvering scores (sig. ¼ 0.0001). The score means of strategic
maneuvering were 37.20 and 39.43, respectively, which were less than the other
groups (Table 7). There was a significant difference for the score of strategic

Table 7. ANOVA results for comparison of strategies among groups.

Groups Strategies

Independent Cooperative Strategic

Strategies Strategies Maneuvering

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

AEMAJ 60.80a 3.01 49.42a 11.06 37.20a 4.73

b a a
OAJ 54.29 6.16 51.52 5.73 39.43 3.61
ANRREC 53.44b 6.91 56.57b 8.51 54.69b 10.48
ESOANR 53.20b 8.41 57.96b 9.79 56.80b 10.29
b b c
COEP 55.80 7.76 57.49 7.62 63.13 5.55
F 2.582 4.327 55.917
Sig. 0.041 0.003 0.0001
The means denoted with similar letters were not significantly different at the 0.05 level in the LSD test.

29 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

maneuvering of the experts of two groups of ANRREC and ESOANR and the other
groups. The score means of these two groups at the moderate level equal 54.69 and
56.80, respectively. Finally, there was a significant difference in the score mean of
strategic maneuvering between the viewpoint of managers and think tank members
of COEP and the other four groups in the study; the score mean of this type of strat-
egy with the highest amount equals 63.13. The results of ANOVA tests including the
means, standard deviation, F and significance levels are presented in Table 7.

4. Conclusion
The paradigms constitute the intellectual foundation that includes the values, beliefs
and norms of the individual, organization or society. Since strategies and decisions
are also rooted in the intellectual foundation, one can perceive the strategies and be-
haviors of the individual or organization by reviewing their intellectual paradigm.
The strategies which are selected and implemented by policy makers, executives
and managers are also extracted from their paradigmatic viewpoints. Frontier eco-
nomics, eco-development and deep ecology are considered as the three fundamental
paradigmatic perspectives relevant to environmental management debates. Frontier
economics proponents, with emphasis on economic components, consider economic
growth and high agricultural production as the main solution to sustainable agricul-
tural development. In contrast, radical environmentalists believe in deep ecology and
consider it as the highest priority for environmental protection under any circum-
stances. Finally, there is a moderate and intermediate perspective called eco-
development, which takes into consideration economic, social and environmental as-
pects in order to achieve comprehensive environmental management. There are three
different types of strategies in terms of environmental management which are
matched with different paradigmatic perspectives. Regarding complexity, these stra-
tegies are independent strategies, cooperative strategies and strategic maneuvering,
respectively. The environmental management strategies selected by each principal
group of the agricultural sector of Iran are consistent with their paradigmatic
viewpoints.

The key national policy makers and executives of agricultural extension of Iran have
an economic paradigmatic perspective toward environmental management, thus as-
signing priority to economic factors such as natural resources use to meet the needs
of Iranians more than the other socio-environmental elements. Removing economic
barriers, agricultural production growth and more utilization of natural resources are
the most effective factors to sustainable agricultural development based on the opin-
ions of the agricultural extension policy makers and executive managers. Consistent
with this intellectual foundation, selected strategies would be mostly independent,
separate and sporadic. In other words, the orientation of the principal agricultural
extension policy makers of Iran supports implementation of reactive strategies after

30 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

facing the crisis. Temporary and positional reduction of environmental damage in

the agricultural sector is the main objective of this kind of strategy.

The managers and policy makers of the private sector, as well as researchers of agri-
culture of Iran, have a moderate paradigmatic viewpoint, so they consider socio-
environmental aspects in addition to economic factors, and even give highest priority
to environmental aspects most of the time. They also have a greater tendency to sup-
port integrated and cooperative strategies in addition to reactive independent strate-
gies in special situations. Agricultural researchers and the policy makers of the
private sector prefer proactive strategies over reactive ones. They believe in foresight
and implementation of appropriate strategies before facing environmental degrada-
tion as a means of crisis prevention. Using proactive strategies in agriculture requires
systematic land use planning studies in order to identify the capacities of natural re-
sources of each region for comprehensive land and water management. Thus it could
be possible to determine and cope with environmental challenges and barriers before
a crisis occurs.

Environmental policy makers, superior managers and the specialists of Fars province
have a totally different perspective in comparison with the other agricultural policy
maker groups of the study. This group has perceived intensive environmental crisis
as well as strong environmental concerns more than others. They absolutely believe
in prioritizing the environmental components, so they prefer far more complex stra-
tegies for comprehensive environmental management in order to achieve sustainable
agricultural development. The policy makers and experts of the central office of
environment protection argue that it is necessary to rethink, modify and redesign
common strategies in order to resolve environmental challenges and crises of Iran.
Using new strategies in the agriculture sector leads to maximum consistency be-
tween the environmental programs and challenges, as well as adjusting to the spe-
cific condition of each region. On the other hand, it is possible to change and
modify the strategies in accordance with their flexibility. Empowerment of rural
farmers enables them to confront independently future problems in terms of environ-
mental challenges to agriculture.

The paradigmatic perspectives of the agricultural extension key policy makers of

Iran suggest that the viewpoint of the main policy makers and authorities as the su-
perior executives of agricultural extension of the country is mainly supports agricul-
tural production growth due to the modernization and diffusion of agricultural
innovations theory. Environmental crisis would be worsened following the continu-
ity of this theory. In contrast, the managers and specialists of the other organizations
related to agriculture have more moderate perspectives related to the environmental
circumstances, but they do not have much executive force to make necessary
changes in the country. The paradoxes among the paradigmatic viewpoints of
different policy maker groups in agriculture sector of Iran is another challenge which

31 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

reduces their effective interactions. Weak communications among these groups of

policy makers is probably rooted in the strong differences in their perspectives
and intellectual paradigms. Selecting and implementing effective strategies for better
environmental management of agriculture has not happened since there is no change
in the paradigmatic perspectives of agricultural policy makers and executives of Iran.
A paradigm shift is required from frontier economics to the more environmental
paradigm of eco-development in the age of environment called ecological enlighten-
ment due to the widespread environmental crisis. Thus, a fundamental change is
needed in the dominant theory of innovation diffusion focusing on economic factors
to the green theories emphasizing all aspects of socio-economic and environmental
components. Emphasizing on economic growth and agricultural production increase
through transfer of technical knowledge no longer work. It is also required to notice
biocapacity of resources, poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability, food
safety and multi-functional agriculture comprehensively to a sustainable environ-
mental management.

Declarations
Author contribution statement
Mahsa Fatemi: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experi-
ments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis
tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam: Conceived and designed the experiments; Contributed

reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information
No additional information is available for this paper.

References

Adam, Y.O., Eltayeb, A.M., 2016. Forestry decentralization and poverty allevia-
tion: a review. For. Policy Econ 73, 300e307.

32 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Adams, W.M., 2009. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a

Developing World. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York.

Akamani, K., Hall, T.E., 2019. Scale and co-management outcomes: assessing the
impact of collaborative forest management on community and household resilience
in Ghana. Heliyon 5 (1), e01125.

Anaya, C.A., Huber-Sannwald, E., 2015. Long-term soil organic carbon and nitro-
gen dynamics after conversion of tropical forest to traditional sugarcane agriculture
in East Mexico. Soil Tillage Res. 147, 20e29.

Aral, M.M., 2005. Perspectives on Environmental Management Paradigms. Interna-

tional Conference on Environmental Exposure and Health, Atlanta, GA USA.
October 2005.

Azam, M., 2016. Does environmental degradation shackle economic growth? A

panel data investigation on 11 Asian countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65,
175e182.

Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation,

bridging organizations and social learning. Environ. Manag. 5, 1692e1702.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E.,
Morales, J.C., Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., 2013. Accounting for demand and sup-
ply of the biosphere`s regenerative capacity: the national footprint accounts under-
lying methodology and framework. Ecol. Indicat. 24, 518e533.

Buttel, F.H., Humphery, C.R., 2002. Sociological theory and the natural environ-
ment. In: Dunlap, R.E., Michelson, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociol-
ogy. Greenwood Press, USA, pp. 33e69.

Chen, C.J., Huang, C.C., 2004. A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech indus-
tries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Informe. Manage. 7, 839e851.

Colby, M.E., 1991. Environmental management in development: the evolution of

paradigms. J. Ecol. Eco. 3, 193e213.

De Vries, H.J.M., 1989. Sustainable Resource Use: an Enquiry into Modelling and
Planning. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

Doody, D.G., Kearney, P., Barry, J., Moles, R., O`Regan, B., 2009. Evaluation of
the Q-method as a method of public participation in the selection of sustainable
development indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 9, 1129e1137.

33 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Durant, R.F., Chun, Y.P., Kim, B., Lee, S., 2004. Toward a new governance para-
digm for environmental and natural resources management in the 21st century.
Adm. Soc. 6, 643e682.

Ehrhart, S., Schraml, U., 2018. Adaptive co-management of conservation conflicts

e an interactional experiment in the context of German national parks. Heliyon 4
(10), e00890.

Fatemi, M., 2017. Ecological Footprint and its Application in the Extension of Sus-
tainable Environmental Management in Agriculture of Fars Province. Ph.D. disser-
tation. Shiraz University, Iran.

Fatemi, M., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Wackernagel, M., Shennan, C., 2018. Sustain-
ability of environmental management in Iran: an ecological footprint analysis. Iran
Agric. Res. 37 (2) xxexx.

Forouzani, M., Karami, E., Zamani, Gh.H., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., 2013. Agricul-
tural water poverty: using Q-methodology to understand stakeholders` perceptions.
J. Arid Environ. 97, 190e204.

Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., Lazarus, E., 2014. Ecological footprint: impli-
cations for biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 173, 121e132.

Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Giljum, S., 2012.
Integrating ecological, carbon, and water footprint into a “footprint family” of in-
dicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indicat.
16, 100e112.

Gendron, C., 2014. Beyond environmental and ecological economics: proposal for
an economic sociology of the environment. Ecol. Econ. 105, 240e253.

Ghodsi-Pour, S.H., 2002. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Amir-Kabir Publica-

tions, Tehran, Iran.

Glaeser, B., 2000. Environment and developing countries. In: Redclift, M.,
Woodgate, G. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Ed-
ward Elgar, USA, pp. 101e118.

Grossman, M.R., 2007. Agriculture and the polluter pays principle. Electron. J.
Comp. Law 3, 1e66. [Link]

He, G., Lu, Y., Mol, A.P.J., Beckers, T., 2012. Changes and challenges: China`s
environmental management in transition. Environ. Dev. 3, 25e38.

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2009. Human appropriation of natural capital: a comparison of

ecological footprint and water footprint analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68, 1963e1974.

34 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Janker, J., Mann, S., Rist, S., 2018. Social sustainability in agriculture- A system
based framework. J. Rural Stud. 65, 32e42.

Kapoor, I., 2001. Towards participatory environmental management? J. Environ.

Manag. 63, 269e279.

Kissinger, M., Gottlieb, D., 2012. From global to place oriented hectares: the case
of Israel`s wheat ecological footprint and its implications for sustainable resource
supply. Ecol. Indicat. 16, 51e57.

Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., 2009. Answers to common questions in ecological

footprint accounting. Ecol. Indicat. 4, 812e817.

Konchak, W., Pascual, U., 2006. Converging economic paradigms for a construc-
tive environmental policy discourse. Environ. Sci. Policy 9, 10e21.

Lee, S.Y., Rhee, S.K., 2005. From end-of-pipe technology towards pollution pre-
ventive approach: the evolution of corporate environmentalism in Korea. J. Clean.
Prod. 13, 387e395.

Leigh, L., Li, X., 2015. Industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis and supply chain
environmental sustainability: a case study of a large UK distributor. J. Clean.
Prod. 106, 632e643.

Lin, W.N., Wang, N., Song, N.Q., Lu, Y., 2016. Centralization and decentraliza-
tion: evaluation of marine and coastal management models and performance in
the Northwest Pacific Region. Ocean Coast Manag. 130, 30e42.

Malek-Saeidi, H., Karami, E., 2013. Social-ecological resilience and sustainable

agriculture under water scarcity. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37, 262e290.

Malek-Saeidi, H., Karami, E., Zamani, Gh.H., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Hayati, D.,
Masoudi, M., 2016. Discovering and characterizing farm households’ resilience un-
der water scarcity. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2, 499e525.

Mavhura, E., Manyena, S.B., Collins, A.E., Manatsa, D., 2013. Indigenous knowl-
edge, coping strategies and resilience to floods in Muzarabani, Zimbabwe. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 5, 38e48.

Mercati, V., 2016. Organic agriculture as a paradigm of sustainability: Italian food

and its progression in the global market. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 8, 798e802.

Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A., Galli, A., 2012. Projecting future human de-
mand on the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indicat. 16, 3e10.

Nemat Pour, L., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., 2014. Attitudes of rural women towards
the consequences of vermin-compost production in Fars province. J. Agric. Exten.
Educ. 2, 15e39.

35 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Passeri, N., Borucke, M., Blasi, M., Franco, S., Lazarus, E., 2013. The influence of
farming technique on cropland: a new approach for the ecological footprint. Ecol.
Indicat. 29, 1e5.

Paterson, B., 2006. Ethics for wildlife conservation: overcoming the human-nature
dualism. Bioscience 56, 144e150.

Pentreath, R.J., 2004. Ethics, genetics and dynamics: an emerging systematic

approach to radiation protection of the environment. J. Environ. Radioact. 74,
19e30.

Pepper, D., 2003. Modern Environmentalism: an Introduction. Routledge, USA.

Ragkos, A., Theodoridis, A., Batzios, C., 2015. Public awareness concerning the
multifunctionality of Cypriot agriculture. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 4, 147e157.

Raum, S., Potter, C., 2015. Forestry paradigms and policy change: the evolution of
forestry policy in Britain in relation to the ecosystem approach. Land Use Pol. 49,
462e470.

Redclift, M.R., 2006. Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes

of age. Horizontes Antropol. 25, 65e84.

Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Fatemi, M., 2013. Towards an environment-sociologic

model to sustainable agriculture and investigation of strategic policy alternatives.
J. Agric. Technol. 6, 1381e1397.

Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., Gibson, J., 2005. Conceptualizing sustainable

agriculture: Iran as an illustrative case. J. Sustain. Agric. 3, 25e56.

Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., Woelfel, J., 2006. The agricultural specialists’
attitudes toward alternative sustainable agricultural paradigms: a Galileo method
analysis. Food Agric. Environ. 2, 310e319.

Rientjes, S., 2002. Making nature conservation modern: an analysis of develop-

ments in nature conservation policy in relation to macro-social changes: The
Netherlands as a case study. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 4, 1e21.

Rose, D.C., Sutherland, W.J., Barnes, A.P., Borthwick, F., Ffoulkes, C., Hall, C.,
Moorby, J.M., Nicholas-Davies, P., Twinings, S., Dicks, L.V., 2019. Integrated
farm management for sustainable agriculture: lessons for knowledge exchange
and policy. Land Use Pol. 81, 834e842.

Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2006. Decision Making with the Analytic Network Pro-
cess: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits Op-
portunities, Costs and Risks. Springer, New York.

36 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
 Article Nowe01229

Sachs, W., 2000. Sustainable development. In: Redclift, M., Woodgate, G. (Eds.),
The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, USA,
pp. 71e82.

Sakr, D.A., Sherif, A., El-Haggar, S.M., 2010. Environmental management sys-
tems` awareness: an investigation of top 50 contractors in Egypt. J. Clean. Prod.
18, 210e218.

Salehi, S., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Ajili, A., 2008. Performance monitoring tech-
nologies: pattern to sustainable agriculture. J. Agric. Exten. Educ. 1, 15e23.

Salehi, S., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Ajili, A., 2012. Extension of grid soil sampling
technology: application of extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). J. Res.
Agric. 1, 078e087.

Singh, N.M., 2015. Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: sharing
the burden and joy of environmental care. Ecol. Econ. 117, 53e61.

Virapongse, A., Brooks, S., Metcalf, E.C., Zedalis, M., Gosz, J., Kliskey, A.,
Alessa, L., 2016. A social-ecological systems approach for environmental manage-
ment. J. Environ. Manag. 178, 83e91.

Wackernagel, M., 2005. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: the
Underlying Calculation Method. Global Footprint Network, USA, Oakland.

Wackernagel, M., Yount, J.D., 2000. The ecological footprint: an indicator of prog-
ress toward regional sustainability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 511e529.

Walker, B., Anderies, J., Kinzing, A., Ryan, P., 2006. Exploring resilience in
social-ecological systems through comparative studies and theory development:
introduction to the special issue. Ecol. Soc. 1, 12e19.

Wang, B.C., Chou, F.Y., Lee, Y.J., 2012. Ecological footprint of Taiwan: a discus-
sion of its implications for urban and rural sustainable development. Comput. En-
viron. Urban Syst. 36, 342e349.

Wiedmann, T., Barrett, J., 2010. A review of the ecological footprint indicator-
perceptions and methods. Sustainability 2, 1645e1693.

37 [Link]
2405-8440/Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]