Evaluating the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems by Compromise Programing: Lorestan Koohdasht Area

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 1, Volume 34, Issue 3 - Serial Number 49, October 2020, Pages 239-257   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead.2020.17730.0

Authors

S.M. Nazarian; M. Zibaei; A. Sheikhzeinoddin^*

Department of Agricultural Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iram

Abstract

Introduction: Agricultural sector plays a vital role in Iran’s economy but this sector has pursued an unsustainable route mostly because of land and water resources degradation resulting from inefficient use of irrigation water and intensive use of inorganic inputs. However, increasing production is not the only relevant goal in farming systems. It is important to consider the effects of agriculture on soil productivity, pollution, water and energy use efficiency, Greenhouse gas emissions and social aspects. In fact, there is a strong interest for redefining production systems looking for a balance between high productivity and the protection of the environmental services provided by these farming systems. In this regard, current study evaluated environmental, economic and social impacts of agricultural systems in Kouhdasht area as one of the important regions of Lorestan province using multi-criteria compromise programming (CP) and a set of different weights. Gross margin, direct expenses and crops acreage were the indicators considered for economic sustainability analysis. The environmental indicators were water use, EIQ (environmental impact quotient), use of fertilizer, insecticides and pesticides, soil organic carbon and crop rotation. The social indicators considered for analysis were employment and education level. The basic idea in compromise programming as a well-known multi-criteria decision-making method, is to identify an ideal solution that can be obtain from the available options. This ideal solution is a point reference for decision maker and options or alternatives are ranked based on how far they are from it. The findings of this study include the identification of a set of agricultural systems based on different views or weights. These optimal agricultural systems are compared to the current agricultural systems.
Materials and Methods: In current study a compromise programming optimization model was solved to find efficient agricultural systems, according to economic, environmental and social criteria, for crop/livestock farms. An agricultural system can be shown as a linear combination of activities. Each activity is characterized by the resources and inputs employed, the type and quantity of the output produced and the environmental impacts. Generally, eight agricultural systems corresponding to different crops and livestock production were considered for analysis. The evaluation of sustainability of agriculture requires determination of attributes or indicators covering economic, environmental and social dimensions. In fact, the concept of attribute or indicator is fundamental in multi-criteria models. In this study, three economic, six environmental and two social indicators are included as attributes. Selection of indicators was based on relevance of the indicators, the frequency of using the indicator in previous studies and availability of data. The solution of CP entailed of finding the lowest distance to the ideal for all the criteria. Decision-maker preferences were simulated using nine scenarios, which combine three distance functions (π = 1, π = 2 and π =100), and three different weights based on the importance of different dimensions.
Results and Discussion: The results showed that, based on the first weight group (environmental view) and at the low and high weight for deviations (π =1 and π = 100), wheat1 and sugar beet1 systems are the most sustainable system respectively. But sugar beet2 system is the most unstable agricultural system at all levels of π and in all areas. Overuse of groundwater for irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide in some areas further reinforced agricultural unsustainability. In the second weight group (economics view) and for π = 2, activity diversification (crop -livestock) system was more balanced than continuous crop farming. In the third weight group (equal weight to all dimensions) and for π = 2, sugar beet1 and the rain fed cultivated systems were the most sustainable. In other values of π, the sugar beet2 had the least sustainable index. The findings of this study indicate instability in Azadbakht Korapa and Cham Sangar villages in all weight groups, while Katkan village is most sustainability for π = 2. Results also showed that for π = 1, Kohnani and Eastern Tarhan rural district are most sustainable and most unsustainable rural district respectively. The lack of sustainable agricultural production in Eastern Tarhan in π = 1, was due to limited economics performance in rural district. However, in high levels of sensitivity to deviations from the ideal level, the rural district of Boluran and the Western Tarhan,
are most unsustainable rural district, and North and South Kouhdasht, Golgol, Darb Gombad and Ziretang are the most sustainable rural district in the region. Finally, by putting different dimensions of sustainability, this study extracted ten independent and distinct patterns of sustainability using data mining. Farms in patterns 5 and 8 were experienced relative sustainable, and farms in the pattern 6, were unsustainable in all dimensions.
Conclusion: It was inferred from the results of this study that there are regional differences in agricultural sustainability in Kouhdasht. As a result, it is suggested that effective agricultural policies be adopted in accordance with local research.

Keywords

Agricultural systems; Compromise programing; Kouhdasht area; Sustainability assessment

References

1- Afrokhteh H., Hagipur M., Gersin M., and Nejati B. 2013. The role of Sustainable Agriculture Development in Iran's Development Plans (Case Study: Five Years after the Revolution). Quarterly Journal of Strategic and Macroeconomic Policies 1: 43-62. (In Persian with English abstract)
2- Aghaie R. 2011. Evaluation of Stability of Rice Cultivation Systems in Sari, Mazandaran Province (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agriculture, Mohaghegh Ardebili University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
3- Akrami Mohajeri M. 2016. Study on the Sustainability of Pistachio Production in Rafsanjan (Environmental, Economic, and Social Indices) (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agriculture, Sistan and Baluchestan University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
4- Amini Faskhoodi A., and Nouri S. E. 2010. Sustainability evaluation and determination of cropping pattern based on optimization of water and soil resources utilization using nonlinear mathematical programming. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology of Natural Resources 55: 99-109. (In Persian with English abstract)
5- Anabestani A., Shayan H., Shamsuddini R., Taghilo A.A., and Zarei A. 2013. Evaluating Economic Sustainability in Rural Areas Using Multivariate Decision-Making Technique for Linear Allocation (Case Study: Jafarabad Division, Qom Province). Journal of Geography and Environmental Studies 4: 118-140. (In Persian with English abstract)
6- Babolie M. 2007. Evaluation of agricultural sustainability in blue wheat fields of Sare-Pole Zahab city based on DSR pattern (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
7- Balali H., and Montshlo M. 2015. Investigating the Status of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators by Reducing Fuel Subsidies (Case Study: Qorve Plain). Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 2: 150-158. (In Persian with English abstract)
8- Ballestero E., and Romero C. 1991. A theorem connecting utility function optimization and compromise programming. Operations Research Letters 10(7): 421-427.
9- Ballestero E. 2007. Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions. European journal of operational research 182(3): 1369-1382.
10- Blasi E., Passeri N., Franco S., and Galli A. 2016. An ecological footprint approach to environmental–economic evaluation of farm results. Agricultural Systems 145: 76–82.
11- Cabrini S. M., and Calcaterra C. P. 2016. Modeling economic-environmental decision making for agricultural land use in argentinean Pampas. Agricultural Systems 143: 183–194.
12- Cisneros J M., Grau J.B., Anton J.M., de Prada J.D., Cantero A., and Degioanni A.J. 2011. Assessing multi-criteria approaches with environmental, economic and social attributes, weights and procedures: A case study in the Pampas, Argentina. Agricultural Water Management 98(10): 1545–1556.
13- Davar Panah S. 2016. Evaluation and comparison of sustainable agriculture in selected cities of Ardebil province and determining the pattern of cultivation for sustainable agriculture (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
14- Deytieux V., Munier-Jolain N., and Caneill J. 2016. Assessing the sustainability of cropping systems in single-and multi-site studies. A review of methods. European Journal of Agronomy 72: 107-126.
15- Dı́az-Balteiro L., and Romero C. 2004. In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecological Economics 49(3): 401-405.
16- Elfkih S., Feijoo M.L., and Romero C. 2009. Agricultural sustainable management: a normative approach based on goal programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60(4): 534-543.
17- Fallahi A. 2013. Dynamic Study of Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects of Quantitative and Qualitative Management of Quantitative and Qualitative Management of Agricultural Water Resources with Emphasis on Groundwater; Case Study: Seydan-Farooq Plain, Marvdasht Township (Ph.D., Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tarbiat Modarres, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
18- Fallahi A., and Gholinezhad S. 2016. Optimal model of cultivation based on multiple economic, regional and
024 نشریه اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی، جلد 43 ، شماره 4، پاییز 1411
agricultural sustainability criteria in Sari, application of AHP and linear programming. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 1: 37-49. (In Persian with English abstract)
19- Farhadi Bansouleh B. 2009. Development of a spatial planning support system for agricultural policy formulation related to land and water resources in Borkhar & Meymeh district, Iran (Doctoral Thesis, University of ITC/Wageningen, Enschede/Wageningen, and Netherlands).
20- Gebrieli G. 2014. Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in Kordestan Province (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
21- Gomini D., Sidayee S.A., Ghanbari J., and Bashagh M.R. 2013. Agricultural Sustainability Measurement in Rural Areas (Case Study: Rural Areas in the Central District of Ravansar County). Geography and Environmental Sustainability 6: 87-106. (In Persian with English abstract)
22- Gómez-Limón J.A., and Riesgo L. 2010. Sustainability assessment of olive grove in Andalusia: A methodological proposal. In Proc. 120th EAAE Seminar, Chania, Crete, Greece.
23- Hosseinzad J., Namvar A., Hayati B., and Pishbahar A. 2014. Cultivation pattern of crops with emphasis on sustainable agriculture in the lands below the dam of Alavian. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production 2: 41-54. (In Persian with English abstract)
24- Islamic-Iranian Pattern Center for Advancement. 2016. Concepts and indicators of progress in the water, environment, food security and natural resources. Environmental think tank, food security and natural resources. (In Persian with English abstract)
25- Javani Kh. 2010. Analysis of socio-economic sustainability of saffron production and its impact on rural development (Master's Degree, Faculty of Humanities, Zanjan University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
26- Kamali M., and Hewage K. 2017. Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 3592-3606.
27- Lee D. R., Barrett C. B., and McPeak J. G. 2006. Policy, technology, and management strategies for achieving sustainable agricultural intensification. Agricultural Economics 34(2): 123-127.
28- Liu F., and Zhang H. 2013. Novel methods to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability of main agricultural regions in China. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33(3): 621-633.
29- Mehrara A., Modanlou Jouibari S. and Zare Zeidi A.S. 2018. Environmental Protection Review on Sustainable Development. Bimonthly Letter of Applied Studies in Management and Development 2: 105-115. (In Persian with English abstract)
30- Manafi-Molayousefi M., Hayati B., Pishbahar E., and Nematiyan J. 1395. Assessment of Agricultural Sustainability in East Azarbaijan Province by Compromise Programing, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 31(4): 279-289.
31- Mohsenzadeh A. 2013. Agricultural Sustainability Studies in Golestan Province with Emphasis on Economic Approach (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agricultural Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources). (In Persian with English abstract)
32- Nasseri A. 2014. Comparison and Sustainability of Potato, Onion and Tomato Cultivation in Jiroft County (Master's Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
33- Niemmanee T., Kaveeta R., and Potchanasin C. 2015. Assessing the economic, social, and environmental condition for the sustainable agricultural system planning in Ban Phaeo District, Samut Sakhonn Province, Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 197: 2554–2560.
34- Omani A., and Chizari M. 2006. Sustainability Analysis of Wheat Farming System, a Study in Khuzestan Province. Journal of Agricultural Sciences of Iran 2: 257-266. (In Persian with English abstract)
35- Porzand F., and Bakhshoodeh M. 2011. Assessment of agricultural sustainability in Fars province using an agreed planning approach. Agricultural Economics Research 1: 1-26. (In Persian with English abstract)
36- Rezaei Moghadam K. 1997. Agricultural, Poverty and Sustainable Agriculture Promotion in Behbahan (Master's Degree in Agricultural Promotion and Education, Faculty of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
37- Shooshtarian A. 2010. Analysis of agricultural and environmental economic policies in the Mashhad watershed basin: An Approach to Agricultural Sustainability (Ph.D., Faculty of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
38- Talebpour Sh. 2012. Targeted Effects of Energy Subsidies on Crop Pattern, Farmer's Income, Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Indices at Farm Level (Master's Degree, Faculty of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Iran). (In Persian with English abstract)
39- Torkamani J., and Abdollahi Ezat-Abadi M. 2005. Application of Compromise Planning in the Management of Risk Resources: Case Study of Groundwater Resources in Rafsanjan City. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3: 43-54. (In Persian with English abstract)
ارزیابی پایداری سیستمهای کشاورزی با استفاده از رهیافت برنامهریزی توافقی... 022
40- Wang L., Wang C., Li, B., and Wang W. 2011. Sustainable Land Use Evaluation in Wanzhou District. Journal of Sustainable Development 4(3): 125.
41- WWW.amar.org.ir