Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Cao, J.; Solangi, Y.A.
Analyzing and Prioritizing the
Barriers and Solutions of Sustainable
Agriculture for Promoting
Sustainable Development Goals in
China. Sustainability 2023,15, 8317.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108317
Academic Editors: Davide Marino,
Fridanna Maricchiolo and
Oriana Mosca
Received: 6 March 2023
Revised: 7 May 2023
Accepted: 18 May 2023
Published: 19 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Analyzing and Prioritizing the Barriers and Solutions of
Sustainable Agriculture for Promoting Sustainable
Development Goals in China
Jiangning Cao 1, 2, * and Yasir Ahmed Solangi 3,*
1Business School, Xinyang Normal University (XYNU), Xinyang 464000, China
2School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law (ZUEL),
Wuhan 430073, China
3School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
*
Correspondence: doudou@xynu.edu.cn (J.C.); yasir.solangi@nuaa.edu.cn or yasir.solangi@ujs.edu.cn (Y.A.S.)
Abstract:
Sustainable agriculture is crucial to the United Nations’ efforts to promote the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). However, to develop successful policies and strategies, it is necessary to
assess the many obstacles to implementing sustainable agriculture. This study uses Multi-Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) techniques to analyze the challenges and opportunities facing sustainable
agriculture in China’s economy, particularly in advancing the SDGs. Three enormous obstacles are
found in the study, along with fifteen smaller ones that are broken down into economic, social, and
environmental categories. The weights of the obstacles and sub-barriers are determined, and the
solutions for sustainable agriculture are ranked using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and
Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) methodologies. According to the AHP approach, economic issues
are China’s most significant obstacles to sustainable agriculture, followed by environmental and social
concerns. Climate change and a lack of financial incentives are the two highest-ranked sub-barriers.
On the other hand, the SAW approach suggests that the best ways to achieve the SDGs through
sustainable agriculture are through international cooperation, financial investments in sustainable
agriculture, and alternative agricultural methods. In order to advance sustainable agriculture and
the SDGs in China, the report advises policymakers to focus on strengthening institutional support,
increasing public awareness, and making technological investments.
Keywords:
sustainable agriculture; sustainable development goals; barriers; agriculture strategies;
AHP-SAW approach
1. Introduction
The United Nations has acknowledged sustainable agriculture as crucial to accom-
plishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [
1
]. The SDGs serve as a worldwide
plea to end poverty, safeguard the planet, and guarantee peace and prosperity for all. Sus-
tainable agriculture can play a role in accomplishing various SDGs, including SDG 1 (No
Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 12 (Responsible
Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [
2
]. Sustainable agriculture
entails a collection of principles and practices, including conservation agriculture, agro-
forestry, integrated pest management, and organic farming. These reduce agriculture’s
environmental impact and promote economic and social sustainability [
3
]. China’s rapid
economic growth in recent decades has increased demand for agricultural products. This
expansion has caused environmental degradation and social inequity, which are significant
issues [
4
]. China has turned to sustainable agriculture to promote social, economic, and
environmental sustainability [
5
]. This requires socially acceptable, commercially profitable,
and environmentally sustainable farming [
6
]. Sustainable agriculture in China means
boosting productivity, distributing gains fairly, and safeguarding the environment. Due to
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108317 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 2 of 22
the government’s focus on sustainable development and public awareness, the country’s
sustainable agriculture has increased.
Several studies have highlighted the benefits of sustainable agriculture for achieving
the SDGs [
7
–
9
]. By increasing agricultural output and decreasing food loss and waste,
for instance, sustainable agriculture has the potential to enhance food security. Through
the provision of income and livelihood opportunities for smallholder farmers and the
promotion of rural development, sustainable agriculture can also aid in the reduction of
poverty. Additionally, sustainable agriculture can improve environmental sustainability
by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, protecting natural resources, and fostering biodi-
versity [
10
]. Sustainable agriculture may have advantages, but some obstacles prevent its
widespread use. For smallholder farmers, one of the biggest obstacles is a lack of access to
resources like land, water, and seeds [
11
]. This obstacle is prevalent in developing nations,
where smallholder farmers are frequently marginalized and need help accessing resources.
The detrimental effects of agriculture on the environment, such as soil erosion [
12
], water
pollution, and biodiversity loss, provide another obstacle. Unsustainable agricultural prac-
tices [
13
,
14
], such as extensive monoculture and excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers,
frequently lead to these harmful effects. The third obstacle is the slow uptake of sustainable
agricultural practices, including integrated pest control, agroforestry, and conservation
agriculture. Lack of information and awareness among farmers, as well as institutional and
governmental barriers [
15
,
16
], frequently prevent the implementation of these practices.
Finally, a significant obstacle to widespread adoption is the need for more institutional
support and political will.
Sustainable agriculture and SDGs can be achieved in several ways. Sustainable agricul-
ture could improve food security, poverty, and the environment [
17
]. This demand is driven
by concerns about the negative impacts of agriculture on the environment and public health,
as well as a growing awareness of the importance of sustainable agriculture for achieving
the SDGs. A third solution is the potential for sustainable agriculture to create jobs and
stimulate economic growth. Sustainable agriculture can provide income and livelihood
opportunities for farmers, as well as promote rural development and stimulate the growth
of related industries, such as agro-processing and tourism [
18
]. Moreover, the availability
of new technologies and innovations, such as precision agriculture, biotechnology, and
renewable energy, can enhance the sustainability of agriculture and provide new solutions
for promoting the SDGs [19].
Promoting sustainable development goals in China requires examining and ranking
the challenges and solutions of sustainable agriculture. China, the world’s most significant
agricultural producer, must adopt sustainable agricultural practices to preserve agricul-
tural production, protect natural resources, and advance food security. Several obstacles,
including a need for more suitable legislative backing, funding, and technical innovation,
nonetheless hamper the implementation of sustainable farming practices. There is a dire
need to formulate efficient strategies for promoting sustainable agriculture by analyzing
and prioritizing these obstacles, such as enhancing policy frameworks, boosting investment
in sustainable agriculture, and encouraging technological innovation. It would help China
accomplish its targets for sustainable development, including eradicating poverty and
hunger, fostering environmentally friendly consumption and production, and safeguarding
human health. In the end, preserving the long-term sustainability of China’s agriculture in-
dustry and attaining sustainable development goals depend on analyzing and prioritizing
the challenges and solutions of sustainable agriculture.
The contribution of this research paper is twofold. First, it provides a comprehensive
assessment of the barriers and solutions of sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs,
which can help decision-makers identify the key challenges and solutions and develop
effective strategies for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving SDGs. Second,
it demonstrates the application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods,
specifically Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), in
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 3 of 22
evaluating and ranking the barriers and solution options and identifying the most suitable
options for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving SDGs in China.
The research paper is organized as follows. In the next section (Section 2), we provide
a literature review, identify barriers, sub-barriers, and solution strategies. In Section 3,
we describe the methodology used in this research. In Section 4, we present the results,
discussions, and implications of research. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the conclusion
and provide recommendations for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the
SDGs.
2. Literature Review, Identified Barriers, and Solution Strategies
2.1. Review of Related Studies
Sustainable agriculture is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been widely dis-
cussed in the literature [
3
,
20
,
21
]. Integrating the three facets of sustainabilityin agriculture—
the environmental, economic, and social—is one of the main challenges. Environmental
sustainability entails conserving and enhancing natural resources, including land, water,
and biodiversity, while reducing their detrimental effects on the ecosystem [
22
]. Economic
sustainability entails guaranteeing food security, lowering poverty, and providing income
and livelihood options for farmers and the larger economy [
4
]. In order to ensure social
sustainability, agriculture must be both socially acceptable and equitable for both farmers
and society as a whole, while also advancing food security, eradicating poverty, and en-
hancing quality of life [
23
]. There is a huge and diverse body of literature on sustainable
agriculture and its potential to advance the SDGs. Numerous studies have outlined the
challenges and potential solutions for sustainable agriculture, and some have used MCDM
techniques to assess how well sustainable agriculture is performing in terms of achieving
the SDGs [
24
–
27
]. Few research, though, have used MCDM techniques to evaluate the chal-
lenges and potential solutions of sustainable agriculture for advancing SDGs. Table 1has
identified several related studies on the development of sustainable agriculture practices.
Table 1. Previous studies on sustainable agriculture development.
Goal Finding MCDM Method Ref.
Agriculture for
sustainable development
Environmental factors (59.3%) and agricultural land availability (21.8%)
were the study’s strongest strengths. Financial services (55.8%) and
over-reliance on climate (25.9%) were the biggest weaknesses. The
highest opportunity, with a weight of 50.3%, was agricultural
export potential.
AHP [24]
Choosing the crop
pattern for sustainable
farming
This study examines Indian crop selection patterns using sustainable
farming principles. Twelve factors spanning socioeconomic conditions,
soil and water conditions, environmental and meteorological conditions
are designated and taken into account for eight most commonly
cultivated crops in Ravi season and modeled to find the most sustainable
agricultural pattern. This research will benefit Indian and worldwide
farming techniques. It will also assist stakeholders make cost-effective
crop productivity decisions for sustainable farming.
Fuzzy TOPSIS [28]
Sustainable agriculture
collaboration models
This study determined agricultural sustainability standards and optimal
collaboration arrangements. The results showed that reducing farmers
migration, sharing with agricultural engineers, land consolidation,
increasing farmers awareness are the most important criteria for
sustainable agriculture in Iran. A sensitivity analysis determined the
essential parameters that affected alternative priority. AHP method
showed that private and cooperative partnership strategies are best for
agricultural sustainability.
AHP [29]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 4 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Goal Finding MCDM Method Ref.
An overview of
sustainable agriculture
Agriculture needs all sciences to be sustainable. Agriculture underpins
developing and developed nations. The agriculture business struggles to
decide due to competing concerns. MCDM procedures are best for
complex agricultural decisions. They can solve difficult problems.
MCDM’s AHP worked. This article examines AHP’s usage in
agriculture-related problems, its models, data sources, and precision
using performance criteria from the past several years.
AHP [30]
Sustainable agriculture
adoption barriers
Social, economic, and environmental constraints prevent sustainable
agriculture. Therefore, this research identified these barriers according to
the sustainability triple-bottom line through a literature analysis and
examined which are more influential and prone to effects. Thus, eleven
impediments were found, with technical knowledge and qualified
workforce being the biggest obstacle to sustainable agriculture. Thus,
sustainable techniques are supplied to minimize barriers’ negative effects
and support producers, emphasising investment and policies for training
farmers in sustainable agriculture.
Fuzzy
DEMATEL [31]
Regional agriculture
sustainability
assessment
This research presents a complex approach for determining regionally
sustainable agricultural management methods by selecting the most
representative criteria for economic viability, eco-friendliness, and social
development. AHP analyses demonstrate that CO, on-site composting of
organic solid waste, mostly from farms, and field application, is the most
sustainable management option. The proposed multi-criteria tool can be
simply adapted at regional level to help farmers, their associations,
policymakers, local and regional authorities, and others quickly examine
alternative farm management techniques and discover sustainable
pathways.
AHP [32]
Agri-environmental
assessment for
sustainable agriculture
This article assesses the agri-environmental condition in selected
European Union countries to identify ways to improve agriculture and
the environment. This study employed EU indicators from the database.
All methodologies indicate similar agri-environmental trends in selected
EU countries. Finland, Ireland, and Sweden had the best
agri-environmental conditions throughout the research. The
Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany were worst. Austria and Poland
improved their agri-environmental performance, but Lithuania declined.
SAW, TOPSIS,
and EDAS [33]
Assessing sustainable
agribusiness
This study uses multicriteria analysis to choose a sustainable
agribusiness DSS. Fuzzy numbers approximate decision makers’
subjective evaluations of linguistic variables. The notion of positive and
negative ideal solutions produces a performance index value for every
farm DSS option across all evaluation criteria to determine the best
agriculture DSS. An empirical study shows how to evaluate and choose
the best agriculture DSS for sustainable farming. Performance evaluation
helps agribusinesses choose the right agriculture DSSs for competitive
advantage.
Fuzzy set theory [34]
Sustainable agriculture
research priorities
The study aimed to create a long-term vision of Poland’s ideal
agricultural industry and emphasize sustainable agriculture research.
Adaptation to climate change received 38.6% score. The Polish strategy
documents on agriculture and agricultural research reveal that these
essential research fields are already part of national policy, but there is
not enough financing and coordination to address all aspects of
sustainability in agriculture.
AHP [35]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 5 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Goal Finding MCDM Method Ref.
Assessing key
sustainable agriculture
factors
The study revealed that the Economic dimension, which accounts for
54% of the overall Sustainable Agriculture, is the most significant aspect,
followed by the Socio-territorial dimension (29%) and the Agroecology
dimension (17%). The research also makes the case that, while it is fair
for farmers to concentrate on the sustainable economic performance
component of their farms, local authorities must be involved in order to
preserve a balanced development of sustainable agriculture in the area.
AHP [36]
Table 1indicates that the MCDM methods are effective for complicated decision-
making issues involving a variety of criteria and uncertainty [
37
]. Decision-makers can use
MCDM methods to cope with ambiguous, hazy, or uncertain information and make well-
informed and based on the facts. To analyze and rank alternative options and determine
which are most appropriate for a given situation, MCDM methods have been widely
employed in a variety of sectors, including engineering, management, and environmental
sciences [
38
,
39
]. The effectiveness of sustainable agriculture in reaching the SDGs has been
evaluated in a number of research using MCDM techniques. For instance, the authors of
the prior work employed a fuzzy MCDM approach to assess the viability of agroforestry
systems in China [
40
]. They developed a set of criteria and sub-criteria related to economic,
social, and environmental sustainability and used a VIKOR method to rank the alternative
agroforestry systems. In another study, the authors applied a fuzzy MCDM method to
evaluate the performance of sustainable agriculture in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
in China [
41
]. They developed a set of criteria and sub-criteria related to greenhouse gas
emissions reduction, economic efficiency, and social equity and ranked the alternative
options. Similarly, another study the authors used the entropy method to evaluate the
performance of sustainable agriculture in promoting rural development in China [
42
]. They
developed a set of criteria and sub-criteria to select five-dimensional indexes of population,
society, economy, resources, and environment to calculate the agricultural sustainable
development index of each province in China. Moreover, in previous research, the authors
used a MCDM method to evaluate the sustainability of organic farming practices in Iran [
43
].
They developed a set of criteria and sub-criteria to rank the alternative organic farming
practices. Valizadeh et al. [
44
] applied a fuzzy TOPSIS method to evaluate the performance
of sustainable agriculture in promoting food security in Iran. They developed a set of
criteria and sub-criteria related to food security and aimed to evaluate the status of food
security in rural areas of Iran to achieve the SDGs.
2.2. Research Gap Analysis
Based on the literature review, it is evident that many studies have been conducted to
assess the barriers and solutions of sustainable agriculture for promoting the SDGs. How-
ever, most of these studies have focused on the theoretical aspects and have not provided
practical implications for policymakers and farmers. Moreover, few studies have applied
MCDM techniques to evaluate the barriers and solutions of sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this research gap by applying AHP
and SAW methods to evaluate the main barriers and solutions to sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs in China. To promote sustainable development goals in China, examining
and prioritizing sustainable agriculture’s challenges and solutions is crucial. As the world’s
largest agricultural producer, China must adopt sustainable agricultural practices to main-
tain agricultural productivity, protect natural resources, and ensure food security. However,
several obstacles, such as inadequate legislative support, insufficient funding, and limited
technological innovation, hinder the implementation of sustainable farming practices. Ana-
lyzing and prioritizing these obstacles can help develop effective strategies for promoting
sustainable agriculture, including improving policy frameworks, increasing investment
in sustainable agriculture, and encouraging technological innovation. These strategies
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 6 of 22
can help China achieve its sustainable development goals, such as reducing poverty and
hunger, promoting sustainable consumption and production, and protecting human health.
Ultimately, preserving China’s agriculture industry’s long-term sustainability and attaining
sustainable development goals depend on analyzing and prioritizing the challenges and
solutions of sustainable agriculture.
2.3. Identified Barriers and Sub-Barriers to Sustainable Agriculture Development
Based on the literature review, this study identified the main barriers to achieving
sustainable agriculture for promoting the SDGs can be categorized into three broad ar-
eas: economic, social, and environmental. These barriers are also classified into fifteen
sub-barriers, which are interrelated and interconnected, and addressing them requires a
holistic and integrated approach. Table 2shows the barriers and sub-barriers and their
brief descriptions.
Table 2. Proposed barriers and sub-barriers of the study.
Main Barrier Sub-Barrier Description Reference
Economic (EC)
Lack of financial
incentives (EC1)
The lack of financial incentives for farmers to adopt sustainable methods is
one of the main economic sub-barriers to sustainable agriculture. It can be
more expensive than conventional agricultural methods to invest in the
additional technologies, materials, and training that are frequently needed
for sustainable agriculture. Farmers might not be prepared to take the
chance of making an investment in sustainable agriculture without
financial incentives.
[7,45]
Limited access to
credit (EC2)
Limited access to credit is another economic obstacle to sustainable
agriculture. Many farmers could not have access to financing or might not
have enough security for loans, which could restrict their capacity to invest
in sustainable agricultural practices. Small-scale farmers who may have
limited resources and access to financial services may find this to be a
particular issue.
[7,45,46]
Market barriers
(EC3)
Due to higher production costs, sustainable agricultural goods sometimes
fetch higher prices than conventional ones. However, it may be
challenging for farmers to realize these higher prices due to the small
market for sustainable products. Additionally, it might be difficult for
farmers to reach consumers interested in sustainable products due to
underdeveloped marketing and distribution networks.
[47,48]
Lack of
government
support (EC4)
To encourage farmers to use sustainable agricultural techniques,
governments might offer them financial incentives, subsidies, and
technical assistance. The government’s insufficient or nonexistent support
for sustainable agriculture, however, can hinder the uptake of these
methods in many countries.
[4,49]
Short-term
economic focus
(EC5)
A short-term focus on profits is common among farmers and agricultural
firms, which might make them reluctant to invest in sustainable farming
techniques that might have longer-term economic advantages. Limited
financing availability may make it more challenging for farmers to finance
the up-front expenditures of sustainable agricultural methods.
[50,51]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 7 of 22
Table 2. Cont.
Main Barrier Sub-Barrier Description Reference
Social (SO)
Lack of
awareness and
education (SO1)
The lack of awareness and education among farmers and the larger
community is a social sub-barrier to sustainable agriculture. The
community might not recognize the significance of sustainable agriculture
for advancing SDGs, and many farmers might not be aware of sustainable
agriculture practices or their advantages.
[52,53]
Cultural barriers
(SO2)
A significant barrier to sustainable agriculture can also be found in cultural
behaviors and attitudes. For instance, it may be challenging for farmers to
accept new techniques because conventional farming methods are strongly
embedded in a community’s culture. Furthermore, some communities
might not recognize the advantages of sustainable agricultural practices in
terms of the environment or society.
[31,54,55]
Labor shortages
(SO3)
Labor shortages are another social sub-barrier to sustainable agriculture.
More manual labor and specialized skills are frequently needed for
sustainable agricultural techniques, which can be difficult for farmers to
find, especially in regions with a shortage of skilled labor.
[56,57]
Limited social
networks (SO4)
Collaborating together is frequently necessary for sustainable agriculture
among farmers, researchers, and other stakeholders. Social networks, on
the other hand, might not be as prevalent everywhere, which makes it
challenging for farmers to get knowledge, resources, and assistance.
[57,58]
Gender
inequalities
(SO5)
A significant social sub-barrier to sustainable agriculture is gender
inequality. Due to possible limited access to resources, knowledge, and
land tenure, women may find it difficult to undertake sustainable
agriculture. Furthermore, women’s participation in agricultural
decision-making may be constrained by conventional gender roles.
[54,55]
Environmental
(EN)
Land
degradation and
soil erosion
(EN1)
Sustainable agriculture is hampered by severe environmental sub-barriers
including soil erosion and land degradation. Monoculture and heavy
pesticide use are examples of unsustainable land use practices that can
cause soil erosion and degradation over time, lowering soil fertility and
productivity.
[59,60]
Water scarcity
and pollution
(EN2)
Water scarcity and pollution are important environmental policy barriers
to sustainable agriculture. Unsustainable water use practices, including
excessive groundwater extraction, can result in water scarcity and poorer
water quality, which has a negative impact on the sustainability and
productivity of agriculture.
[59,61]
Biodiversity loss
(EN3)
Unsustainable agriculture practices can also lead to biodiversity loss,
including the loss of native plants and animals, and the decline of
pollinators, which are critical for crop production and ecosystem health.
[55,59]
Climate change
(EN4)
Climate change is a significant environmental sub-barrier to sustainable
agriculture. It can lead to extreme weather events, such as droughts and
floods, which can damage crops and soil. Besides, climate change can alter
growing seasons and temperature regimes, affecting crop productivity and
quality.
[31,62,63]
Energy use and
emissions (EN5)
Unsustainable agriculture practices can also contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions and energy use, increasing the environmental impact of
agriculture.
[64,65]
To overcome these barriers, it is important to implement policies and strategies that
address the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable agriculture to
promote the SDGs in the context of China.
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 8 of 22
2.4. Proposed Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture Development
There are several solutions to overcome the barriers to sustainable agriculture and pro-
mote the SDGs in China. Thus, in the study, we identified multiple solutions for sustainable
agriculture development. Table 3presents the various solutions for sustain
able agric
ulture.
Table 3. Proposed solutions for sustainable agriculture.
Solution Description Reference
Investment in sustainable
agriculture (O1)
The adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices and technology
that boost production can be encouraged by investing in sustainable
agriculture practices.
[7,66]
Education and awareness (O2) Campaigns for education and awareness can highlight the advantages of
sustainable agricultural methods and persuade farmers to use them. [67,68]
Sustainable agriculture policies
and regulations (O3)
It is possible to create laws and policies that encourage environmentally
friendly agricultural methods while restricting the use of toxic agrochemicals
and excessive groundwater extraction.
[69,70]
Public-private partnerships (O4)
By giving farmers access to new technologies, markets, and funding,
public-private partnerships can aid in the promotion of sustainable
agricultural practices.
[7,71,72]
Sustainable supply chain
management (O5)
In order to ensure that agricultural products are produced responsibly and that
farmers are paid fairly for their goods, sustainable supply chain management
can be used.
[73,74]
Alternative farming practices (O6)
Agroforestry and conservation agriculture are two examples of alternative
agricultural methods that can advance sustainable agriculture and lessen its
negative effects on the environment.
[69,75]
Research and development (O7)
New sustainable agricultural practices and technologies that can increase
productivity and have a smaller negative environmental impact can be found
with the aid of research and development.
[11,76]
International cooperation (O8)
Collaboration between countries can encourage the use of sustainable farming
practices in emerging economies and aid in their global promotion. [77,78]
By utilizing these solutions, China can advance the realization of the SDGs while
overcoming obstacles to sustainable agriculture.
3. Methodology
To attempt to evaluate the challenges and potential solutions of sustainable agriculture
for advancing SDGs in the context of China, this study used the MCDM approach. With
uncertain or hazy information, the MCDM approach enables the consideration of multiple
criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. This study conducted a thorough literature analysis
to pinpoint the main barriers, sub-barriers, and solution strategies for the development
of sustainable agriculture. Firstly, the study uses the AHP [
79
] to assess and rank the
importance of barriers and sub-barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs.
Secondly, the research uses the SAW method [
80
] to analyze and rank the solutions based
on their overall performance for sustainable agriculture development. Figure 1presents
the decision model of the study. Two multi-criteria decision-making techniques that may
be used to evaluate obstacles, sub-barriers, and alternatives for sustainable agriculture
are AHP and SAW (Simple Additive Weighting). AHP is a systematic method that assists
decision-makers in prioritizing and weighing various criteria or options according to
their relative weight. Decision-makers may then compare the simpler, easier-to-manage
components of complicated challenges on a single scale. AHP helps determine the relative
significance of obstacles, sub-obstacles, and sustainable agricultural options based on
various environmental, economic, and social variables [79,81,82].
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 9 of 22
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 9 of 22
Assessing barriers and oppor tunities of sustainable
agriculture to promote SDGs
AHP method
SAW method
Identify the key barriers, sub-barriers, and opportunities
Identify the weights of the barriers and sub-barriers using
pairwise comparison matrix
Select and rank the barriers and sub-barriers
Establish the intial matrix, normalized matrix and weighted
normalized matrix
Identify the final preference value
Select the best opportunity for sustainable agriculture
Literature
review
Figure 1. Methodology of the study.
3.1. AHP Method
Saaty developed the AHP method in the 1970s [79]. The AHP is a MCDM method
that involves breaking down complex decisions into smaller, more manageable parts
[83,84]. This method enables decision-makers to prioritize and rank criteria and sub-crite-
ria based on the problem.
The AHP method involves the following steps [82]:
Step 1: Identify criteria and sub-criteria.
The first step involves identifying the criteria and sub-criteria that are relevant to
sustainable agriculture and the promotion of the SDGs.
Step 2: Develop a hierarchical structure.
The highest level of the hierarchy is the goal, which is to promote sustainable agri-
culture and achieve the SDGs. The next level is the criteria, which represent the economic,
social, and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture. The lowest level is the sub-
criteria, which are the specific factors that contribute to each criterion.
Step 3. Development of a pair-wise comparison matrix of the decision-problem using
Saaty’s 1–9-point scale. Table 4 presents Saaty’s 1–9 points scale.
Figure 1. Methodology of the study.
SAW is another multi-criteria decision-making technique that may be used to evalu-
ate obstacles, sub-obstacles, and sustainable agricultural options. In SAW, many criteria
and options are given weights according to their importance, and the weights are then
added together to provide an overall score [
80
]. SAW helps evaluate sustainable agricul-
tural hurdles, sub-barriers, and options based on various factors, including affordability,
viability, and sustainability. Decision-makers may identify the most critical strategies,
sub-strategies, and impediments to sustainable agriculture by systematically evaluating
and prioritizing them based on various criteria using AHP and SAW. These techniques
offer a clear and organized process for making decisions, which can guarantee that choices
are founded on solid logic and are made objectively. Additionally, by including stake-
holders in the decision-making process and considering their suggestions and preferences,
AHP and SAW can promote stakeholder engagement and consensus-building. Overall,
using AHP and SAW can increase decision-making effectiveness and efficiency concerning
sustainable agriculture.
3.1. AHP Method
Saaty developed the AHP method in the 1970s [
79
]. The AHP is a MCDM method that
involves breaking down complex decisions into smaller, more manageable parts [
83
,
84
].
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 10 of 22
This method enables decision-makers to prioritize and rank criteria and sub-criteria based
on the problem.
The AHP method involves the following steps [82]:
Step 1: Identify criteria and sub-criteria.
The first step involves identifying the criteria and sub-criteria that are relevant to
sustainable agriculture and the promotion of the SDGs.
Step 2: Develop a hierarchical structure.
The highest level of the hierarchy is the goal, which is to promote sustainable agricul-
ture and achieve the SDGs. The next level is the criteria, which represent the economic,
social, and environmental aspects of sustainable agriculture. The lowest level is the sub-
criteria, which are the specific factors that contribute to each criterion.
Step 3. Development of a pair-wise comparison matrix of the decision-problem using
Saaty’s 1–9-point scale. Table 4presents Saaty’s 1–9 points scale.
Table 4. Saaty’s 1–9 points scale.
Numerical Value Reciprocal Description
1 1 Equal importance
3 1/3 Moderate importance
5 1/5 Strong importance
7 1/7 Very strong importance
9 1/9 Absolute importance
2, 4, 6, 8 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8 Intermediate values
Step 4. Compute the Consistency Index (CI):
In this step, CI can be used to measure the consistency of the pair-wise comparison of
the matrix. CI can be presented as [81].
CI =λmax −n
n−1(1)
here λmax is the eigenvalue and nis the no. of main criteria
Step 5. Computing the Consistency Ratio (CR)
CR =C I
RI (2)
where RI is the random consistency index, which is presented in Table 5. During the
pair-wise comparison, the consistency ratio (CR) must be within the limit of 0.1; if it exceeds
above 0.1, then the results could be inconsistent [85].
Table 5. Random consistency index.
n RI
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.058
4 0.90
5 1.12
6 1.24
7 1.32
8 1.41
9 1.45
10 1.49
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 11 of 22
The AHP is widely used in sustainable agriculture research to prioritize and rank cri-
teria and sub-criteria based on the decision goal of the study. It is a flexible and transparent
method that allows decision-makers to incorporate their preferences and judgments into
the decision-making process.
3.2. SAW Method
The SAW is an MCDM method used to evaluate alternatives [
80
]. In SAW, each choice
is weighted for each criterion and ranked by their weighted aggregate score. SAW provides
an instant evaluation of the alternatives depending on the chosen criteria [86].
The SAW technique requires these steps [80]:
Step 1. Construct the decision matrix:
A=
a11 a12 · · · a1n
a21 a22 · · · a2n
.
.
..
.
.· · ·
.
.
.
am1am2· · · amn
=aij m×n(3)
where aij is the value of alternative iwith respect to decision criterion j.
Step 2. Normalize the decision matrix by the following equations:
µij =1
1+aij
f1−f2,i=1, 2, . . . , m,j=1, 2, . . . n(4)
µij =1
1+aij
f1f2,i=1, 2, . . . , m,j=1, 2, . . . , n(5)
Step 3. Determine the weights of decision criteria by subjective or objective weighting
methods. The resulting weight vector would be as follows:
W=[w1,w2, . . . , wn](6)
where nis the number of decision criteria or evidence maps.
Step 4. Calculate the significance degree of each alternative by the following equation:
Si=
m
∑
i=1
wjµij ,i=1, 2, . . . , m(7)
3.3. Experts of the Study
This study surveyed five specialists in sustainable agricultural fields such agronomy,
environmental science, economics, and social sciences. Based on their publishing record,
academic credentials, and expertise, the experts were chosen to assure the study’s quality
and dependability. To ensure a varied variety of perspectives in the study, experts were
picked from different locations and institutions. Webmail was used to consult specialists.
The experts were involved in several stages of the study, including developing the criteria
and sub-criteria for evaluating the barriers and solutions of sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs, assigning weights to the criteria, and evaluating the alternative options
using the AHP and SAW methods. The experts were involved in reviewing and validating
the results of the study. The involvement of experts in the study can ensure that the results
are based on sound scientific principles and reflect the current state of knowledge in the
field of sustainable agriculture in China.
4. Results and Case Analysis
In this study, the case of China has been taken to determine the barriers and sub-
barriers, that impede the development of sustainable agriculture and the SDGs. In this
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 12 of 22
regard, the solution strategies proposed in the study to overcome the identified barriers
and sub-barriers to promote sustainable agriculture development in the context of China.
4.1. Results of Main Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was used to determine the weights of the main barriers to sustainable
agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The results of the pairwise comparisons among
the main barriers are presented in Table 6, along with the corresponding weights obtained
using the AHP method. The final ranking is presented in Figure 2.
Table 6. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the main barriers.
Main Barrier EC SO EN Weight
EC 1 2.267 1.515 0.472
SO 0.440 1 0.561 0.196
EN 0.659 1.782 1 0.330
Consistency: 0.0033
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 12 of 22
4.1. Results of Main Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was used to determine the weights of the main barriers to sustain-
able agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The results of the pairwise comparisons
among the main barriers are presented in Table 6, along with the corresponding weights
obtained using the AHP method. The final ranking is presented in Figure 2.
Table 6. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the main barriers.
Main Barrier EC SO EN Weight
EC 1 2.267 1.515 0.472
SO 0.440 1 0.561 0.196
EN 0.659 1.782 1 0.330
Consistency: 0.0033
Figure 2. The weights and ranking of main-barriers.
According to the results, economic (EC) barriers were the most significant, with a
weight of 0.4727. Environmental barriers came next, with a weight of 0.3306, and social
barriers, with a weight of 0.1966. These results indicate that EC factors are the most im-
portant barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting the SDGs, followed by EN and
SO factors. Sustainable agriculture should target environmental barriers such soil erosion,
water pollution, and land degradation to support SDGs, according to the research. Ad-
dressing economic challenges like inadequate financial resources and market access and
social barriers like poor education and gender inequality could assist promote sustainable
agriculture and achieve the SDGs [55].
4.2. Results of Economic Sub-Barriers Using AHP
For promoting SDGs in China, the AHP technique was utilized to weight economic
sub-barriers to sustainable agriculture. Table 7 shows the pairwise sub-barrier compari-
sons and AHP weights. Figure 3 ranks economic sub-barriers. According to the results,
lack of financial incentives (EC1) was the most significant sub-barrier of economic barriers,
with a weight of 0.386. This was followed by lack of government support (EC4), with a
weight of 0.210, and limited access to credit (EC2), with a weight of 0.149. The short-term
economic focus (EC5) and market barriers (EC3) ranked least important sub-barriers.
These results indicate that addressing the sub-barriers of EC1 and EC4 could significantly
contribute to promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs. Improving fi-
nancial incentives and government support can help farmers increase their productivity
0.4727
0.1966
0.3306
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
Economic (EC) Social (SO) Environmental (EN)
Weights
Figure 2. The weights and ranking of main-barriers.
According to the results, economic (EC) barriers were the most significant, with a
weight of 0.4727. Environmental barriers came next, with a weight of 0.3306, and social
barriers, with a weight of 0.1966. These results indicate that EC factors are the most
important barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting the SDGs, followed by EN
and SO factors. Sustainable agriculture should target environmental barriers such soil
erosion, water pollution, and land degradation to support SDGs, according to the research.
Addressing economic challenges like inadequate financial resources and market access and
social barriers like poor education and gender inequality could assist promote sustainable
agriculture and achieve the SDGs [55].
4.2. Results of Economic Sub-Barriers Using AHP
For promoting SDGs in China, the AHP technique was utilized to weight economic
sub-barriers to sustainable agriculture. Table 7shows the pairwise sub-barrier comparisons
and AHP weights. Figure 3ranks economic sub-barriers. According to the results, lack of
financial incentives (EC1) was the most significant sub-barrier of economic barriers, with a
weight of 0.386. This was followed by lack of government support (EC4), with a weight of
0.210, and limited access to credit (EC2), with a weight of 0.149. The short-term economic
focus (EC5) and market barriers (EC3) ranked least important sub-barriers. These results
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 13 of 22
indicate that addressing the sub-barriers of EC1 and EC4 could significantly contribute to
promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs. Improving financial incentives
and government support can help farmers increase their productivity and income, which in
turn can lead to the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. Access to credit also needs
to be addressed to make sustainable agriculture practices more accessible and affordable
for farmers.
Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the economic sub-barriers.
EC Sub-Barrier EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 Weight
EC1 1 2.550 3.322 2.267 2.408 0.386
EC2 0.392 1 1.643 0.698 0.870 0.149
EC3 0.301 0.608 1 0.698 0.870 0.116
EC4 0.440 1.431 1.431 1 2.220 0.210
EC5 0.415 1.148 1.148 0.450 1 0.137
Consistency: 0.0168
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 13 of 22
and income, which in turn can lead to the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices.
Access to credit also needs to be addressed to make sustainable agriculture practices more
accessible and affordable for farmers.
Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the economic sub-barriers.
EC Sub-Barrier EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 Weight
EC1 1 2.550 3.322 2.267 2.408 0.386
EC2 0.392 1 1.643 0.698 0.870 0.149
EC3 0.301 0.608 1 0.698 0.870 0.116
EC4 0.440 1.431 1.431 1 2.220 0.210
EC5 0.415 1.148 1.148 0.450 1 0.137
Consistency: 0.0168
Figure 3. The weights and ranking of Economic (EC) sub-barriers.
4.3. Results of Social Sub-Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was also used to determine the weights of the sub-barriers of social
barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The results of the pair-
wise comparisons among the sub-barriers are presented in Table 8, along with the corre-
sponding weights obtained using the AHP method. Figure 4 illustrates the ranking of so-
cial (SO) sub-barriers. According to the results, lack of awareness and education (SO1) was
the most significant sub-barrier of social barriers, with a weight of 0.372. This was followed
by cultural barriers (SO2), with a weight of 0.272, and gender inequalities (SO5), with a
weight of 0.175. These results indicate that addressing the sub-barrier of SO1 is crucial for
promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs. Lack of education and aware-
ness also need to be addressed to promote sustainable agriculture practices among farm-
ers. Besides, providing equal opportunities for men and women in agriculture can lead to
beer economic, social, and environmental outcomes. The findings of this research are
also supported by the findings in [31], in which the authors concluded that “technical
knowledge and a qualified workforce” were the most influential factors in adopting sus-
tainable agriculture. According to Rodriguez et al. [14], in addition to lack of funding,
social barriers, land tenure, infrastructure and incompatibility are also important barriers
to the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices.
0.386
0.149
0.116
0.21
0.137
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5
Weights
Figure 3. The weights and ranking of Economic (EC) sub-barriers.
4.3. Results of Social Sub-Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was also used to determine the weights of the sub-barriers of
social barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The results of the
pairwise comparisons among the sub-barriers are presented in Table 8, along with the
corresponding weights obtained using the AHP method. Figure 4illustrates the ranking
of social (SO) sub-barriers. According to the results, lack of awareness and education
(SO1) was the most significant sub-barrier of social barriers, with a weight of 0.372. This
was followed by cultural barriers (SO2), with a weight of 0.272, and gender inequalities
(SO5), with a weight of 0.175. These results indicate that addressing the sub-barrier of
SO1 is crucial for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs. Lack of
education and awareness also need to be addressed to promote sustainable agriculture
practices among farmers. Besides, providing equal opportunities for men and women in
agriculture can lead to better economic, social, and environmental outcomes. The findings
of this research are also supported by the findings in [
31
], in which the authors concluded
that “technical knowledge and a qualified workforce” were the most influential factors in
adopting sustainable agriculture. According to Rodriguez et al. [
14
], in addition to lack of
funding, social barriers, land tenure, infrastructure and incompatibility are also important
barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices.
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 14 of 22
Table 8. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the social sub-barriers.
SO Sub-Barrier SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5 Weight
SO1 1 1.245 3.519 4.828 2.766 0.372
SO2 0.802 1 2.766 3.623 1.551 0.272
SO3 0.284 0.361 1 2.667 0.802 0.121
SO4 0.207 0.275 0.374 1 0.221 0.057
SO5 0.361 0.644 1.245 4.514 1 0.175
Consistency: 0.0238
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 14 of 22
Table 8. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the social sub-barriers.
SO Sub-Barrier SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5 Weight
SO1 1 1.245 3.519 4.828 2.766 0.372
SO2 0.802 1 2.766 3.623 1.551 0.272
SO3 0.284 0.361 1 2.667 0.802 0.121
SO4 0.207 0.275 0.374 1 0.221 0.057
SO5 0.361 0.644 1.245 4.514 1 0.175
Consistency: 0.0238
Figure 4. The weights and ranking of Social (SO) sub-barriers.
4.4. Results of Environmental Sub-Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was also used to determine the weights of the sub-barriers of envi-
ronmental barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The results of
the pairwise comparisons among the sub-barriers are presented in Table 9, along with the
corresponding weights obtained using the AHP method. Figure 5 presents the ranking of
environmental (EN) sub-barriers. According to the results, climate change (EN4) was the
most significant sub-barrier of EN barriers, with a weight of 0.310. Following this were
energy use and emissions (EN5), with a weight of 0.199, and land degradation and soil
erosion (EN1), with a weight of 0.306. These results suggest that addressing the sub-bar-
rier of EN4 is crucial for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs. Cli-
mate change is a pressing issue that requires immediate action, such as the implementa-
tion of climate-smart agriculture practices. EN1 is another significant sub-barrier that
needs to be addressed through the adoption of sustainable soil management practices,
such as conservation tillage and cover cropping. This finding is supported by [31] that
environmental dimension variables such as climate change/soil control/production man-
agement affect the sustainability of agriculture.
Table 9. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the environmental sub-barriers.
EN Sub-Barrier EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 Weight
EN1 1 2.667 3 1.431 1.515 0.306
EN2 0.374 1 0.608 0.284 0.450 0.085
EN3 0.333 1.643 1 0.301 0.333 0.097
EN4 0.698 3.519 3.322 1 2.220 0.310
EN5 0.659 2.220 3 0.450 1 0.199
Consistency: 0.0288
0.372
0.272
0.121
0.057
0.175
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5
Weights
Figure 4. The weights and ranking of Social (SO) sub-barriers.
4.4. Results of Environmental Sub-Barriers Using AHP
The AHP method was also used to determine the weights of the sub-barriers of
environmental barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs in China. The
results of the pairwise comparisons among the sub-barriers are presented in Table 9, along
with the corresponding weights obtained using the AHP method. Figure 5presents the
ranking of environmental (EN) sub-barriers. According to the results, climate change (EN4)
was the most significant sub-barrier of EN barriers, with a weight of 0.310. Following
this were energy use and emissions (EN5), with a weight of 0.199, and land degradation
and soil erosion (EN1), with a weight of 0.306. These results suggest that addressing
the sub-barrier of EN4 is crucial for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the
SDGs. Climate change is a pressing issue that requires immediate action, such as the
implementation of climate-smart agriculture practices. EN1 is another significant sub-
barrier that needs to be addressed through the adoption of sustainable soil management
practices, such as conservation tillage and cover cropping. This finding is supported by [
31
]
that environmental dimension variables such as climate change/soil control/production
management affect the sustainability of agriculture.
Table 9. Pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the environmental sub-barriers.
EN Sub-Barrier EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5 Weight
EN1 1 2.667 3 1.431 1.515 0.306
EN2 0.374 1 0.608 0.284 0.450 0.085
EN3 0.333 1.643 1 0.301 0.333 0.097
EN4 0.698 3.519 3.322 1 2.220 0.310
EN5 0.659 2.220 3 0.450 1 0.199
Consistency: 0.0288
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 15 of 22
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 15 of 22
Figure 5. The weights and ranking of Environmental (EN) sub-barriers.
4.5. Results of Overall Sub-Barriers Using AHP
Based on the AHP analysis, the overall sub-barriers of sustainable agriculture for pro-
moting SDGs have been ranked. Table 10 provides the overall sub-barrier ranking. The
results indicate that the lack of financial incentives (EC1) and climate change (EN4) is the
most significant sub-barrier, followed by land degradation and soil erosion (EN1) about
sustainable agriculture practices. The findings suggest that addressing these sub-barriers
is critical for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs in the context of
China. In previous studies, lack of financial incentives has also been concluded to be one
of the major barriers to sustainable agriculture [7,14,45].
Table 10. Results of overall sub-barriers.
Code Sub-Barrier Weight Rank
EC1 Lack of financial incentives 0.182 1
EN4 Climate change 0.102 2
EN1 Land degradation and soil erosion 0.101 3
EC4 Lack of government support 0.099 4
SO1 Lack of awareness and education 0.073 5
EC5 Short-term economic focus 0.070 6
EN5 Energy use and emissions 0.066 7
EC2 Limited access to credit 0.065 8
EC3 Market barriers 0.055 9
SO2 Cultural barriers 0.053 10
SO5 Gender inequalities 0.034 11
EN3 Biodiversity loss 0.032 12
EN2 Water scarcity and pollution 0.028 13
SO3 Labor shortages 0.023 14
SO4 Limited social networks 0.0113 15
4.6. Results of Solutions Using SAW Method
The SAW method was used to evaluate the solutions of sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs in China. Figure 6 indicates the final ranking of solutions (alternatives)
based on the decision goal of the study. The results suggest that encouraging the adoption
of sustainable agriculture practices, such as investment in sustainable agriculture (O1), is
0.306
0.085 0.097
0.310
0.199
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
EN1 EN2 EN3 EN4 EN5
Weights
Figure 5. The weights and ranking of Environmental (EN) sub-barriers.
4.5. Results of Overall Sub-Barriers Using AHP
Based on the AHP analysis, the overall sub-barriers of sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs have been ranked. Table 10 provides the overall sub-barrier ranking. The
results indicate that the lack of financial incentives (EC1) and climate change (EN4) is the
most significant sub-barrier, followed by land degradation and soil erosion (EN1) about
sustainable agriculture practices. The findings suggest that addressing these sub-barriers
is critical for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving the SDGs in the context of
China. In previous studies, lack of financial incentives has also been concluded to be one of
the major barriers to sustainable agriculture [7,14,45].
Table 10. Results of overall sub-barriers.
Code Sub-Barrier Weight Rank
EC1 Lack of financial incentives 0.182 1
EN4 Climate change 0.102 2
EN1 Land degradation and soil erosion 0.101 3
EC4 Lack of government support 0.099 4
SO1 Lack of awareness and education 0.073 5
EC5 Short-term economic focus 0.070 6
EN5 Energy use and emissions 0.066 7
EC2 Limited access to credit 0.065 8
EC3 Market barriers 0.055 9
SO2 Cultural barriers 0.053 10
SO5 Gender inequalities 0.034 11
EN3 Biodiversity loss 0.032 12
EN2 Water scarcity and pollution 0.028 13
SO3 Labor shortages 0.023 14
SO4 Limited social networks 0.0113 15
4.6. Results of Solutions Using SAW Method
The SAW method was used to evaluate the solutions of sustainable agriculture for
promoting SDGs in China. Figure 6indicates the final ranking of solutions (alternatives)
based on the decision goal of the study. The results suggest that encouraging the adoption
of sustainable agriculture practices, such as investment in sustainable agriculture (O1), is
the most significant solution for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving SDGs.
International cooperation (O8) alternative farming practices (O6) are also important solu-
tions for promoting SDGs. Education and awareness (O2) and public-private partnerships
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 16 of 22
(O4) are moderately important solutions for sustainable agriculture development. These
two factors are more important than the arrangement presented in this study, because they
are the basis for finding good (successful) agriculture practices that lead to sustainable
agricultural development, and then transferring this knowledge to farmers to apply and
benefit from it. Additionally, promoting sustainable supply chain management (O5), re-
search and development (O7), and sustainable agriculture policies and regulations (O3),
can strengthen the capacity of farmers and stakeholders in sustainable agriculture practices
and innovation can further contribute to achieving the SDGs. The government should
invest to promote sustainable agriculture practices [14].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 8317 16 of 22
the most significant solution for promoting sustainable agriculture and achieving SDGs.
International cooperation (O8) alternative farming practices (O6) are also important solu-
tions for promoting SDGs. Education and awareness (O2) and public-private partnerships
(O4) are moderately important solutions for sustainable agriculture development. These
two factors are more important than the arrangement presented in this study, because
they are the basis for finding good (successful) agriculture practices that lead to sustaina-
ble agricultural development, and then transferring this knowledge to farmers to apply
and benefit from it. Additionally, promoting sustainable supply chain management (O5),
research and development (O7), and sustainable agriculture policies and regulations (O3),
can strengthen the capacity of farmers and stakeholders in sustainable agriculture prac-
tices and innovation can further contribute to achieving the SDGs. The government should
invest to promote sustainable agriculture practices [14].
Figure 6. The final ranking of solutions of sustainable agriculture.
4.7. Discussion
The present study aimed to assess the barriers and solutions of sustainable agricul-
ture for promoting SDGs using the AHP and SAW methods. The study identified and
prioritized the main and sub-barriers in the economic, social, and environmental aspects
of sustainable agriculture, and explored solutions for overcoming these barriers. The re-
sults of the study identified the main barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting
SDGs, as well as the sub-barriers in the economic, social, and environmental aspects. The
main barriers identified by the study were limited financial resources, a lack of access to
credit and market, and inadequate policies and regulations. These findings support the
view of studies that financial and policy barriers hampered sustainable agricultural ap-
proaches [4,11].
Lack of financial incentives, government assistance, and credit were the economic
barriers to sustainable agriculture. Lack of credit and market access inhibits sustainable
agriculture and lowers farmer income [46]. Lack of awareness and education, cultural ob-
stacles and gender disparities were all social challenges to sustainable agriculture. The
findings of this study are consistent with previous studies that have identified limited
awareness, education, and social networks as significant barriers to the adoption of sus-
tainable agriculture practices [52,67]. The sub-barriers identified in the environmental as-
pect of sustainable agriculture were climate change, land degradation and soil erosion,
and energy use and emissions. These sub-barriers have been identified in previous studies
as significant challenges to sustainable agriculture and food security [19,87]. The study
0.670
0.537
0.372
0.509 0.483
0.602
0.436
0.625
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8
Weights
Solutions to Sustainable Agriculture
Figure 6. The final ranking of solutions of sustainable agriculture.
4.7. Discussion
The present study aimed to assess the barriers and solutions of sustainable agriculture
for promoting SDGs using the AHP and SAW methods. The study identified and prioritized
the main and sub-barriers in the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable
agriculture, and explored solutions for overcoming these barriers. The results of the study
identified the main barriers to sustainable agriculture for promoting SDGs, as well as
the sub-barriers in the economic, social, and environmental aspects. The main barriers
identified by the study were limited financial resources, a lack of access to credit and market,
and inadequate policies and regulations. These findings support the view of studies that
financial and policy barriers hampered sustainable agricultural approaches [4,11].
Lack of financial incentives, government assistance, and credit were the economic
barriers to sustainable agriculture. Lack of credit and market access inhibits sustainable
agriculture and lowers farmer income [
46
]. Lack of awareness and education, cultural
obstacles and gender disparities were all social challenges to sustainable agriculture. The
findings of this study are consistent with previous studies that have identified limited
awareness, education, and social networks as significant barriers to the adoption of sustain-
able agriculture practices [
52
,
67
]. The sub-barriers identified in the environmental aspect
of sustainable agriculture were climate change, land degradation and soil erosion, and
energy use and emissions. These sub-barriers have been identified in previous studies as
significant challenges to sustainable agriculture and food security [
19
,
87
]. The study also
determined solutions for overcoming the barriers to sustainable agriculture and promoting
the SDGs. The results of the SAW method identified that the application of sustainable
agriculture practices such as investment in sustainable agriculture, International cooper-
ation, and alternative farming practices, can provide solutions for achieving economic,
social, and environmental sustainability. The findings of this study are consistent with
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 17 of 22
previous studies that have highlighted the importance of sustainable agriculture practices
in achieving economic, social, and environmental sustainability [24,41].
In one of the previous research used AHP method [
24
], and identified that environ-
mental and agricultural land availability are the strengths, while financial services and
climate change are the weaknesses for sustainable agriculture development. Moreover, in
another study, the authors proposed sustainable agriculture collaboration models using
AHP to determine agricultural sustainability standards. The study indicated that private
and cooperative partnership strategies are best for agricultural sustainability in Iran [
29
].
There are also various barriers that obstruct the development of sustainable agriculture
from a social, economic, and environmental perspective. For instance, the study showed
that technical know-how and qualified workers are the major barriers to implementing sus-
tainable agriculture practices [
31
]. The results are in line with the current study’s findings,
which also revealed that economic, environmental and social factors are the key drivers
for sustainable agriculture development. In similar study, authors used the AHP method
to assess agriculture sustainability from a regional perspective and selected the economic
viability, environmental friendliness, and social criteria from sustainable pathways [
32
].
Furthermore, sustainable priorities were suggested for the long-term vision of Poland’s
agriculture industry. The authors used AHP method and identified that adaptation to
climate change is most crucial factor, although limited financing options hinder the devel-
opment of sustainable agriculture [
35
]. Finally, the earlier study’s results also consistent
with current study; they also indicated that the economic aspect is the most vital for farmers
to concentrate on the sustainable economic performance component of their farms [36].
The present study provides insights into the barriers and solutions of sustainable
agriculture for promoting SDGs in the context of China. The findings of the study have
implications for policymakers, researchers, and farmers who seek to promote sustainable
agriculture practices and achieve SDGs in the country.
4.8. Policy Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the following policy recommendations a
re pr
oposed:
•
Policies should prioritize creating awareness and training stakeholders to promote
sustainable agriculture practices and help achieve the SDGs. This may be accomplished
by providing farmers with training programs, extension services, and public awareness
campaigns. Education and awareness policies assist stakeholders in comprehending
the benefits of sustainable agriculture practices, encouraging their adoption, and
promoting sustainable development.
•
The government should strengthen its support for sustainable agriculture practices
and eliminate economic hurdles by providing money, subsidies, and other incentives.
Such policies can encourage farmers to adopt sustainable practices while also assisting
in resolving the economic difficulties mentioned in this study. The government may
help the transition to sustainable agriculture and promote sustainable development
by providing financial assistance.
•
Collaborations among many stakeholders, including farmers, NGOs, and government
agencies, must be strengthened to promote sustainable agriculture and achieve the
SDGs. Policies should prioritize the development of discourse and knowledge-sharing
platforms, with an emphasis on developing partnerships. This can enhance stake-
holder collaboration, the exchange of ideas and best practices, and the adoption of
sustainable agriculture practices.
•
Policies should prioritize research and development efforts to address the constraints
highlighted in this study and promote sustainable agriculture. This can aid in dis-
covering novel and creative sustainable agriculture practices and solutions. Policy-
makers may encourage the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices, boost agri-
cultural production, and advance sustainable development by investing in research
and development.
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 18 of 22
•
Policies should encourage customers to adopt sustainable consumption patterns, such
as decreasing food waste, purchasing locally farmed vegetables, and eating less meat.
Such policies can lessen the demand for unsustainable agricultural practices while
promoting sustainable agriculture. Policymakers can assist consumers in making
educated decisions that contribute to sustainable development and encourage the
implementation of sustainable agriculture practices by supporting sustainable con-
sumption patterns.
•
Policies should prioritize the enhancement of monitoring and evaluation of sustainable
agriculture practices in order to measure progress toward the SDGs and identify
areas for improvement. It would assist policymakers in evaluating the efficacy of
their policies and programs, identifying obstacles and opportunities, and making
data-driven choices. Policymakers may guarantee that they are on track to meet their
sustainable development goals and support adopting sustainable agricultural practices
by monitoring and assessing sustainable agriculture practices.
In summary, supporting sustainable agricultural practices is essential for combating
global issues, including poverty, food insecurity, climate change, and achieving the SDGs.
Policies that prioritize education and awareness, government funding, collaborations, re-
search and development, sustainable consumption, and monitoring and evaluation are
crucial for overcoming obstacles and realizing the solutions to sustainable agriculture. Poli-
cymakers may promote sustainable agriculture practices, assist in sustainable development,
and solve global concerns by enacting such legislation.
5. Conclusions
In order to investigate the main obstacles, auxiliary obstacles, and potential remedies
of sustainable agriculture for advancing SDGs in China, the study adopted an MCDM
methodology. The results of the analysis show that the most significant barriers to adopting
sustainable agricultural practices in China have been rated, with economic considerations
first followed by environmental and social barriers. The economic sub-factors show that
the lack of financial incentives is the most critical factor impacting sustainable agriculture
in China, with government support coming in at a close second. The Chinese government
promotes sustainable agricultural practices, but specific issues must be resolved. Cultural
barriers are the next most significant sub-factor needing particular care regarding social
aspects, followed by a lack of knowledge and education. Climate change, land degradation,
and soil erosion provide the biggest problems for the agriculture industry in terms of
environmental sub-barriers. The most significant barriers to adopting sustainable farming
practices are a need for more financial incentives, climate change, land degradation, and
soil erosion. According to the ranking of strategies, investing in sustainable agriculture is
the best way to accomplish sustainable agricultural goals in China.
The results showed that economic, social, and environmental reasons were the main
barriers to attaining sustainable agriculture and advancing the SDGs. The report also
highlighted several alternatives for addressing these issues and advancing sustainable
agriculture, including using sustainable land use practices, adopting organic farming
methods, and exploiting renewable energy sources. By implementing these solutions, we
can promote environmental sustainability, social fairness, and economic growth—all of
which are essential for achieving the SDGs. The study is remarkable in that it detailed sub-
obstacles under each component, suggested techniques for overcoming them, and identified
the main barriers and remedies. The use of MCDM approaches, particularly AHP and
SAW, allowed for a thorough analysis of the problems and solutions related to sustainable
agriculture and provided decision-makers with a framework for setting priorities.
This research is a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable agriculture
since it outlines the major and minor challenges to achieving the SDGs through sustainable
farming practices. The study’s conclusions can help stakeholders in the agriculture sector
make policy decisions about the challenges and opportunities for developing sustainable
farming practices. Policymakers may create efficient policies and strategies for advancing
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 19 of 22
sustainable agriculture practices and achieving the SDGs by addressing the acknowledged
constraints and seizing the possibilities.
This study has limitations that should be considered when evaluating the findings.
First, the study’s expert sample may only partially reflect the field’s expert population on
sustainable agriculture because it was small. Future studies should include a more extensive
and varied sample of experts to guarantee the generalizability of the findings. Second,
because the study was limited to a single location and concentrated on the challenges and
opportunities of sustainable agriculture in advancing the SDGs, its findings might need to
be generalizable to other areas with varied environmental, economic, and social factors.
Therefore, to identify region-specific policies and strategies, future research should examine
the challenges and solutions of sustainable agriculture in various regions. Last but not
least, this study used AHP and SAW techniques to assess the challenges and advancements
of sustainable agriculture for the SDGs. However, different perspectives on the ranking
of obstacles and solutions may be provided by other techniques like VIKOR, TOPSIS,
DEMATEL, and ANP. The use of various techniques to validate the results of this study
should thus be explored in further research.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.C.; Methodology, J.C. and Y.A.S.; Formal Analysis,
Y.A.S.; Investigation, J.C.; Data Collection, J.C.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.C. and Y.A.S.;
Writing—Review and Editing, Y.A.S.; Supervision, Y.A.S.; Funding Acquisition, J.C. All of the authors
contributed significantly to the completion of this review, conceiving and designing the review, and
writing and improving the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are
available on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. United Nations. Cities—United Nations Sustainable Development Action 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
2.
United Nations. THE 17 GOALS: Sustainable Development; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York,
NY, USA, 2015.
3.
Velten, S.; Leventon, J.; Jager, N.; Newig, J. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability
2015
,7, 7833–7865.
[CrossRef]
4.
Xia, X.; Ruan, J. Analyzing barriers for developing a sustainable circular economy in agriculture in China Using Grey-DEMATEL
approach. Sustainability 2020,12, 6358. [CrossRef]
5.
Liu, D.; Li, Y.; Wang, P.; Zhong, H.; Wang, P. Sustainable Agriculture Development in Northwest China Under the Impacts of
Global Climate Change. Front. Nutr. 2021,8, 706552. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Giray, G.; Catal, C. Design of a data management reference architecture for sustainable agriculture. Sustainability
2021
,13, 7309.
[CrossRef]
7.
Havemann, T.; Negra, C.; Werneck, F. Blended finance for agriculture: Exploring the constraints and possibilities of combining
financial instruments for sustainable transitions. Agric. Hum. Values 2020,37, 1281–1292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Varela, D.; Monteiro, F.; Vidigal, P.; Silva, L.; Romeiras, M.M. Mechanisms implemented for the sustainable development of
agriculture: An overview of Cabo Verde performance. Sustainability 2020,12, 5855. [CrossRef]
9.
Nhemachena, C.; Matchaya, G.; Nhemachena, C.R.; Karuaihe, S.; Muchara, B.; Nhlengethwa, S. Measuring baseline agriculture-
related sustainable development goals index for Southern Africa. Sustainability 2018,10, 849. [CrossRef]
10.
Jirapornvaree, I.; Suppadit, T.; Kumar, V. Assessing the environmental impacts of agrifood production. Clean Technol. Environ.
Policy 2022,24, 1099–1112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Laurett, R.; Paço, A.; Mainardes, E.W. Sustainable Development in Agriculture and its Antecedents, Barriers and Consequences—
An Exploratory Study. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021,27, 298–311. [CrossRef]
12.
Sartori, M.; Philippidis, G.; Ferrari, E.; Borrelli, P.; Lugato, E.; Montanarella, L.; Panagos, P. A linkage between the biophysical and
the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion. Land Use Policy 2019,86, 299–312. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 20 of 22
13.
Calatrava, J.; Martínez-Granados, D.; Zornoza, R.; González-Rosado, M.; Lozano-García, B.; Vega-Zamora, M.; Gómez-López,
M.D. Barriers and Opportunities for the Implementation of Sustainable Farming Practices in Mediterranean Tree Orchards.
Agronomy 2021,11, 821. [CrossRef]
14.
Rodriguez, J.M.; Molnar, J.J.; Fazio, R.A.; Sydnor, E.; Lowe, M.J. Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change
agent perspectives. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009,24, 60–71. [CrossRef]
15.
Lowe, P.; Ward, N.; Potter, C. Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy. In Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy;
CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 1999.
16.
Mazhar, R.; Ghafoor, A.; Xuehao, B.; Wei, Z. Fostering sustainable agriculture: Do institutional factors impact the adoption of
multiple climate-smart agricultural practices among new entry organic farmers in Pakistan? J. Clean. Prod.
2021
,283, 124620.
[CrossRef]
17.
Pearson, L.J.; Pearson, L.; Pearson, C.J. Sustainable urban agriculture: Stocktake and opportunities. In Urban Agriculture: Diverse
Activities and Benefits for City Society; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2011; pp. 7–19. ISBN 9781136543142.
18.
Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; Rui, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, X. Evaluation of sustainable agriculture and rural development in agro-pastoral ecotone
under climate change: A comparative study of three villages in the Shenfu coalfield, China. J. Rural Stud.
2022
,93, 504–512.
[CrossRef]
19.
Klerkx, L.; Rose, D. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and
responsibility in food system transition pathways? Glob. Food Sec. 2020,24, 100347. [CrossRef]
20.
Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 11,
ISBN 978-94-007-5448-5.
21.
Mushi, G.E.; Serugendo, G.D.M.; Burgi, P.Y. Digital Technology and Services for Sustainable Agriculture in Tanzania: A Literature
Review. Sustainability 2022,14, 2415. [CrossRef]
22. Hrustek, L. Sustainability driven by agriculture through digital transformation. Sustainability 2020,12, 8596. [CrossRef]
23.
Pretty, J.; Attwood, S.; Bawden, R.; van den Berg, H.; Bharucha, Z.P.; Dixon, J.; Flora, C.B.; Gallagher, K.; Genskow, K.;
Har
tley, S.E.; et al
. Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management. Glob. Sustain.
2020,3, E23. [CrossRef]
24.
Ali, E.B.; Agyekum, E.B.; Adadi, P. Agriculture for sustainable development: A SWOT-AHP assessment of Ghana’s planting for
food and jobs initiative. Sustainability 2021,13, 628. [CrossRef]
25.
Veisi, H.; Liaghati, H.; Alipour, A. Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainable agriculture using analytic
hierarchy process (AHP). Ecol. Indic. 2016,60, 644–654. [CrossRef]
26.
Davarpanah, S.; Bonab, S.H.; Khodaverdizadeh, M. Assessment and comparison of sustainable agriculture approach using a
combination of AHP and TOPSIS. Int. Acad. J. Econ. 2016,3, 7–18.
27.
Aldababseh, A.; Temimi, M.; Maghelal, P.; Branch, O.; Wulfmeyer, V. Multi-criteria evaluation of irrigated agriculture suitability
to achieve food security in an arid environment. Sustainability 2018,10, 803. [CrossRef]
28.
Qureshi, M.R.N.; Singh, R.K.; Hasan, M.A. Decision support model to select crop pattern for sustainable agricultural practices
using fuzzy MCDM. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018,20, 641–659. [CrossRef]
29.
Poursaeed, A.; Mirdamadi, M.; Malekmohammadi, I.; Hosseini, J.F. The partnership models of agricultural sustainable develop-
ment based on multiple criteria decision making (mcdm) in iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010,5, 3185–3190.
30.
Kumar, A.; Pant, S. Analytical hierarchy process for sustainable agriculture: An overview. MethodsX
2023
,10, 101954. [CrossRef]
31.
Barbosa Junior, M.; Pinheiro, E.; Sokulski, C.C.; Ramos Huarachi, D.A.; de Francisco, A.C. How to Identify Barriers to the
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture? A Study Based on a Multi-Criteria Model. Sustainability 2022,14, 13277. [CrossRef]
32.
Bartzas, G.; Komnitsas, K. An integrated multi-criteria analysis for assessing sustainability of agricultural production at regional
level. Inf. Process. Agric. 2020,7, 223–232. [CrossRef]
33.
Namiotko, V.; Galnaityte, A.; Krisciukaitiene, I.; Balezentis, T. Assessment of agri-environmental situation in selected EU
countries: A multi-criteria decision-making approach for sustainable agricultural development. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2022
,29,
25556–25567. [CrossRef]
34.
Duan, S.X.; Wibowo, S.; Chong, J. A multicriteria analysis approach for evaluating the performance of agriculture decision
support systems for sustainable agribusiness. Mathematics 2021,9, 884. [CrossRef]
35.
Wieliczko, B.; Floria´nczyk, Z. Priorities for Research on Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Poland. Energies
2022
,15, 257.
[CrossRef]
36.
Ngo, T.; Nguyen, H.D.; Ho, H.; Nguyen, V.K.; Dao, T.T.T.; Nguyen, H.T.H. Assessing the important factors of sustainable
agriculture development: An Indicateurs de Durabilitédes Exploitations Agricoles-Analytic Hierarchy Process study in the
northern region of Vietnam. Sustain. Dev. 2021,29, 327–338. [CrossRef]
37.
Kul, C.; Zhang, L.; Solangi, Y.A. Assessing the renewable energy investment risk factors for sustainable development in Turkey.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020,276, 124164. [CrossRef]
38.
Kubler, S.; Robert, J.; Derigent, W.; Voisin, A.; Le Traon, Y. A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2016,65, 398–422.
39.
Pohekar, S.D.; Ramachandran, M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2004,8, 365–381. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 21 of 22
40.
Zhou, X.Y.; Wang, X.K.; Wang, J.Q.; Li, J.B.; Li, L. Decision support framework for the risk ranking of agroforestry biomass power
generation projects with picture fuzzy information. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2020,39, 4631–4650. [CrossRef]
41.
Yue, Q.; Wu, H.; Wang, Y.; Guo, P. Achieving sustainable development goals in agricultural energy-water-food nexus system:
An integrated inexact multi-objective optimization approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021,174, 105833. [CrossRef]
42.
Zhou, Z.; Duan, J.; Li, W.; Geng, S. Can rural road construction promote the sustainable development of regional agriculture in
China? Sustainability 2021,13, 10882. [CrossRef]
43.
Khalili Moghadam, B.; Jabarifar, M.; Bagheri, M.; Shahbazi, E. Effects of land use change on soil splash erosion in the semi-arid
region of Iran. Geoderma 2015,241–242, 210–220. [CrossRef]
44.
Valizadeh, N.; Ahmadi Dehrashid, A.; Bijani, M.; Ahmadi Dehrashid, H.; Nasrollahizadeh, B.; Mohammadi, A. Food security
assessment in rural areas: Evidence from Iran. Agric. Food Secur. 2021,10, 17.
45.
World Bank. Toward Scaled-Up and Sustainable Agriculture Finance and Insurance in Uganda; World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2019.
46.
Carauta, M.; Latynskiy, E.; Mössinger, J.; Gil, J.; Libera, A.; Hampf, A.; Monteiro, L.; Siebold, M.; Berger, T. Can preferential
credit programs speed up the adoption of low-carbon agricultural systems in Mato Grosso, Brazil? Results from bioeconomic
microsimulation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018,18, 117–128. [CrossRef]
47. Kuschke, I.; Cassim, A. Sustainable Agriculture: 2019 Market Intelligence Report; GreenCape: Cape Town, South Africa, 2019.
48.
Melovi´c, B.; Cirovi´c, D.; Backovic-Vuli´c, T.; Dudi´c, B.; Gubinova, K. Attracting green consumers as a basis for creating sustainable
marketing strategy on the organic market-relevance for sustainable agriculture business development. Foods
2020
,9, 1552.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
49.
Shen, J.; Zhu, Q.; Jiao, X.; Ying, H.; Wang, H.; Wen, X.; Xu, W.; Li, T.; Cong, W.; Liu, X.; et al. Agriculture green development:
A model for China and the world. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2020,7, 5–13. [CrossRef]
50.
Zhu, Q.; Jia, R.; Lin, X. Building sustainable circular agriculture in China: Economic viability and entrepreneurship. Manag. Decis.
2019,57, 1108–1122. [CrossRef]
51.
Rondhi, M.; Pratiwi, P.A.; Handini, V.T.; Sunartomo, A.F.; Budiman, S.A. Agricultural land conversion, land economic value, and
sustainable agriculture: A case study in East Java, Indonesia. Land 2018,7, 148. [CrossRef]
52.
Maini, E.; De Rosa, M.; Vecchio, Y. The role of education in the transition towards sustainable agriculture: A family farm learning
perspective. Sustainability 2021,13, 8099. [CrossRef]
53.
Migliorini, P.; Lieblein, G. Facilitating transformation and competence development in sustainable agriculture university
education: An experiential and action oriented approach. Sustainability 2016,8, 1243. [CrossRef]
54.
Loos, J.; Von Wehrden, H. Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European
Cultural Landscapes. Sustainability 2018,10, 1395. [CrossRef]
55.
Adegbite, O.O.; Machethe, C.L. Bridging the financial inclusion gender gap in smallholder agriculture in Nigeria: An untapped
potential for sustainable development. World Dev. 2020,127, 104755. [CrossRef]
56.
Montt, G.; Luu, T. Does Conservation Agriculture Change Labour Requirements? Evidence of Sustainable Intensification in
Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Agric. Econ. 2020,71, 556–580. [CrossRef]
57.
Kheyfets, B.A.; Chernova, V.Y. Sustainable agriculture in russia: Research on the dynamics of innovation activity and labor
productivity. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019,7, 814–824. [CrossRef]
58.
Diehl, J.A. Growing for sydney: Exploring the urban food system through farmers’ social networks. Sustainability
2020
,12, 3346.
[CrossRef]
59. Alam, A. Soil Degradation: A Challenge to Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Sci. Res. Agric. Sci. 2014,1, 50–55. [CrossRef]
60.
Usman, M.; Ibrahim, F.; Oyetola, S.O. Sustainable agriculture in relation to problems of soil degradation and how to amend such
soils for optimum crop production in Nigeria. Int. J. Res. Agric. Food Sci. 2018,4, 1–17.
61. Do Cameira, M.R.; Pereira, L.S. Innovation issues in water, agriculture and food. Water 2019,11, 1230. [CrossRef]
62. Huang, J.-K.; Wang, Y.-J. Financing sustainable agriculture under climate change. J. Integr. Agric. 2014,13, 698–712. [CrossRef]
63.
Nguyen, N.; Drakou, E.G. Farmers intention to adopt sustainable agriculture hinges on climate awareness: The case of Vietnamese
coffee. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,303, 126828. [CrossRef]
64.
Chopra, R.; Magazzino, C.; Shah, M.I.; Sharma, G.D.; Rao, A.; Shahzad, U. The role of renewable energy and natural resources
for sustainable agriculture in ASEAN countries: Do carbon emissions and deforestation affect agriculture productivity? Resour.
Policy 2022,76, 102578. [CrossRef]
65.
Solangi, Y.A.; Longsheng, C.; Ali Shah, S.A.; Alsanad, A.; Ahmad, M.; Akbar, M.A.; Gumaei, A.; Ali, S. Analyzing renewable
energy sources of a developing country for sustainable development: An integrated fuzzy based-decision methodology. Processes
2020,8, 825. [CrossRef]
66.
Plastun, A.; Makarenko, I.; Grabovska, T.; Situmeang, R.; Bashlai, S. Sustainable Development Goals in agriculture and responsible
investment: A comparative study of the Czech Republic and Ukraine. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2021,19, 65–76. [CrossRef]
67.
Murakami, C.D.; Hendrickson, M.K.; Siegel, M.A. Sociocultural tensions and wicked problems in sustainable agriculture
education. Agric. Hum. Values 2017,34, 591–606. [CrossRef]
68.
Sargani, G.R.; Zhou, D.; Raza, M.H.; Wei, Y. Sustainable entrepreneurship in the agriculture sector: The nexus of the triple bottom
line measurement approach. Sustainability 2020,12, 3275. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023,15, 8317 22 of 22
69.
Rose, D.C.; Sutherland, W.J.; Barnes, A.P.; Borthwick, F.; Ffoulkes, C.; Hall, C.; Moorby, J.M.; Nicholas-Davies, P.; Twining, S.;
Dicks, L.V. Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: Lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy
2019,81, 834–842. [CrossRef]
70.
Sevinç, G.; Aydo˘gdu, M.H.; Cançelik, M.; Sevinç, M.R. Farmers’ Attitudes toward Public Support Policy for Sustainable
Agriculture in GAP-¸Sanlıurfa, Turkey. Sustainability 2019,11, 6617. [CrossRef]
71.
Ferroni, M.; Castle, P. Public-private partnerships and sustainable agricultural development. Sustainability
2011
,3, 1064–1073.
[CrossRef]
72.
Lambin, E.F.; Thorlakson, T. Sustainability standards: Interactions between private actors, civil society, and governments. Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018,43, 369–393. [CrossRef]
73.
Nayal, K.; Raut, R.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Narkhede, B.E.; Gedam, V.V. Integrated technologies toward sustainable
agriculture supply chains: Missing links. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021; ahead of print. [CrossRef]
74.
Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Gawankar, S.A. Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain:
A review for research and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020,219, 179–194. [CrossRef]
75.
Bergman, M.M.; Jordaan, H. (Eds.) Toward a Sustainable Agriculture: Farming Practices and Water Use; MDPI: Basel,
Switzerland, 2018.
76.
Gonsalves, J.; Becker, T.; Braun, A.; Campilan, D.; De Chavez, H.; Fajber, E.; Kapiriri, M.; Rivaca-caminade, J.; Vernooy, R.;
Becker, T.; et al. Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management A
Sourcebook. In Development; International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development:
Calamba, Philippines, 2005; pp. 193–200.
77.
Pandey, N.; de Coninck, H.; Sagar, A.D. Beyond technology transfer: Innovation cooperation to advance sustainable development
in developing countries. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2022,11, e422. [CrossRef]
78.
Besset-Manzoni, Y.; Rieusset, L.; Joly, P.; Comte, G.; Prigent-Combaret, C. Exploiting rhizosphere microbial cooperation for
developing sustainable agriculture strategies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018,25, 29953–29970. [CrossRef]
79. Saaty, T.L. The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,45, 378.
80.
Stevi´c, Ž.; Pamuˇcar, D.; Kazimieras Zavadskas, E.; ´
Cirovi´c, G.; Prentkovskis, O. The Selection of Wagons for the Internal Transport
of a Logistics Company: A Novel Approach Based on Rough BWM and Rough SAW Methods. Symmetry
2017
,9, 264. [CrossRef]
81. Franek, J.; Kresta, A. Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014,12, 164–173. [CrossRef]
82. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,48, 9–26. [CrossRef]
83.
Yu, D.; Kou, G.; Xu, Z.; Shi, S. Analysis of Collaboration Evolution in AHP Research: 1982-2018. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.
2021,20, 7–36. [CrossRef]
84.
Sinha, A.; Nikhil, S.; Ajin, R.S.; Danumah, J.H.; Saha, S.; Costache, R.; Rajaneesh, A.; Sajinkumar, K.S.; Amrutha, K.; Jo
hny, A.; et al
.
Wildfire Risk Zone Mapping in Contrasting Climatic Conditions: An Approach Employing AHP and F-AHP Models. Fire
2023
,
6, 44. [CrossRef]
85. Harker, P.T. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Model. 1987,9, 837–848. [CrossRef]
86.
Sotoudeh-Anvari, A.; Sadjadi, S.J.; Molana, S.M.H.; Sadi-Nezhad, S. A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for
optimal search model. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2018,7, 395–404. [CrossRef]
87.
Amjath-Babu, T.S.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Vermeulen, S. Climate action for food security in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture
in nationally determined contributions to the Paris agreement. Clim. Policy 2019,19, 283–298. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
