Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
This content is subject to copyright.
01 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Evaluation and comparison of
energy use eciency among
cucumber greenhouses
SamiraBehroozeh
1, DariushHayati
1*, EzatollahKarami
1,
SeyedMehdiNassiri
2 and KuroshRezaei-Moghaddam
1
1 Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz,
Iran, 2 Department of Biosystems Engineering, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Introduction: Construction of agricultural greenhouses can be considered as
one of the appropriate solutions to meet the growing food demands. However,
high energy use in greenhouse productions on the one hand and energy
limitation on the other hand are fundamental challenges facing mankind. The
present study aims to measure and compare energy eciency based on the
components of energy use sustainability (Environmental Norms, Environmental
Beliefs, Environmental Values, Technical Management, Technical Knowledge,
Education Level, Greenhouse’s Work Experience, Cost-Eectiveness and
Educational-Extension Service) among greenhouse cucumber growers.
Methods: The statistical population included cucumber production greenhouse
owners in Kerman Province, Iran. Out of the total population, 356 cases were
selected as a sample using two-stage cluster sampling method. The data collection
tool in this study was a researcher-made questionnaire. The questionnaire validity
was confirmed via the content validity method and its reliability was confirmed
through the pilot test. The data obtained from the questionnaire was recorded,
calculated, and analyzed by SPSS24, Excel2019, and Deap software.
Results and discussion: The results showed that the average energy eciency
in the studied units was 0.72 (out of 1), so that 21 and 335 greenhouses used
energy ecient and inecient, respectively. According to the components of
energy use sustainability, a significant dierence was observed between ecient
and inecient greenhouses, so that the energy ecient greenhouses have a
high level of related components. It is suggested that the decision-makers,
stakeholders, and active policy makers in the field of greenhouse crops should
consider all the components of energy use sustainability, so that the developed
policies and programs can cover all dimensions and take into account dierent
aspects of energy use sustainability. As the results of this study can serve as a
reference for other similar areas.
KEYWORDS
energy eciency, greenhouse cucumbers, technical management, technical
knowledge, cost-eectiveness, educational- extension service
1 Introduction
e agricultural sector supplies food to the growing population of the earth and raw
materials required for the industrial sector. ere are many people, especially in rural
communities, who depend on agriculture for income and employment, and a signicant
amount of the income of developing countries is related to the agricultural sector (Yazdani
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Poonam Rani,
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ireland
REVIEWED BY
Pushpendra Singh,
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India
Adnan Rasheed,
University of Alberta, Canada
Osman Özbek,
Selçuk University, Türkiye
*CORRESPONDENCE
Dariush Hayati
hayati@shirazu.ac.ir;
dariush.hayatishirazuniversity@gmail.com
RECEIVED 03 May 2024
ACCEPTED 23 August 2024
PUBLISHED 16 September 2024
CITATION
Behroozeh S, Hayati D, Karami E,
Nassiri SM and Rezaei-Moghaddam K (2024)
Evaluation and comparison of energy use
eciency among cucumber greenhouses.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1427530.
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Behroozeh, Hayati, Karami, Nassiri
and Rezaei-Moghaddam. This is an
open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 16 September 2024
DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
02 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
etal., 2019). Agricultural activities, however, have destructive eects
on the surrounding environment such as deterioration of water and
soil resources, air pollution, and the reduction of ecological diversity
(Nabizadeh etal., 2018). Limitation of water and land, as well as the
increase of the world’s population, have always attracted subjects for
farmers to provide more food per unit area (Taki et al., 2012a).
erefore, a sustainable system with high productivity should bea
priority in order to satisfy the food demands of the growing human
population, and one of the appropriate ways to overcome this problem
is to use new agricultural methods such as greenhouse structures.
Greenhouses are important infrastructures to meet the
increasing demand for food (Kozai et al., 1997). ey are the
foundation of a protected cultivation system (Baeza etal., 2013), in
geographical locations where the soil, climate, and social conditions
are not optimal or even where it is impossible to grow and harvest
any plant, they make it possible for vegetables, fruits, and owers to
grow and beharvested (Zabeltitz, 1990). Greenhouses also protect
the crop from pests, insects, and extreme climate conditions such as
heavy rains or dra animals and wind. It is a signicant expectation
that greenhouses are feasible and sustainable in terms of ecological
and socioeconomic status (Bot, 2001). Despite the benets of
greenhouse cultivation, this agricultural system depends on huge
resources of energy and fossil fuels (directly and indirectly) (Taki
etal., 2012b). Energy intensive operations in greenhouse production
and energy limitation are fundamental challenges of mankind for
increasing production system performance. erefore, it is very
important to check the amount of energy use and eciency in
greenhouse production (Esfanjari Kenari etal., 2015), as low energy
eciency not only leads to energy wastage, but also causes serious
environmental contamination (Liu etal., 2020). Knowledge of the
energy ow in an agricultural system and its related factors allows
us to develop a more accurate picture of the system in terms of
energy production, resource consumption, and system eciency.
Moreover, the energy-intensive inputs are specied and the system’s
reliance on the inputs is determined according to the limited energy
resources, which is eective in future decisions to design sustainable
ecosystems in the direction of sustainable development (Koohkan,
2017). Undoubtedly, it cannot be claimed that a non-balanced
system in terms of energy consumption and production has a
constant and sustainable state for energy (Asgharipour etal., 2012).
Accordingly, most of the developed and developing countries have
measured the energy input per unit area for the production of
various agricultural crops and have attempted to optimize their
agricultural systems for energy consumption by calculating the
energy eciency index (Nasirian etal., 2006). In this regard, the
optimal energy consumption in agriculture can minimize
environmental problems, prevent the destruction of resources, and
strengthen sustainable agriculture as an economic production
system as well (Kizilaslan, 2009). e rst step for optimal use of
available resources is to evaluate the energy eciency in the
production process (Taki etal., 2012c). As the increase in demand
for food productions due to the population growth has led to
excessive use of chemical fertilizers, agricultural machinery,
insecticides and other production inputs, which ultimately causes
environmental problems and threatens public health. e ecient
energy use minimizes environmental problems, prevents the
destruction of natural resources, and promotes sustainable
agriculture as a production and economic system (Erdal etal., 2007).
Some of the factors aecting energy increasing eciency are:
management, modication of consumer behavior, modication of
environmental norms, beliefs and values (Barber et al., 2009;
Miafodzyeva et al., 2010; Viscusi etal., 2011; anh et al., 2012;
Sadeghi Shahedani and Khoshkhouy, 2015; Salehi etal., 2017; Bondari
et al., 2020; Behroozeh et al., 2024). Technical management of
agricultural inputs consumption is one of the important topics in
sustainable agriculture, because although the indiscriminate and
unplanned consumption of agricultural inputs increases the yield and
improves the quality of crops, it brings destructive eects that should
not beignored (Nuthall, 2006; Mohtashami and Zandi Daregharibi,
2018). Energy consumption management is based on learning and
knowledge of energy consumption (Huo et al., 2022). e use of
energy resources in alignment with technical management is therefore
vital to optimal energy consumption (Iqbal and Kim, 2022). us,
managing energy consumption through technical knowledge and
information of energy generation and consumption can signicantly
improve energy economy (Shahpasand, 2016; Wang etal., 2022). On
the other hand, the values, beliefs, and norms of farmers have a
signicant impact on their environmental behavior regarding the use
of agricultural inputs (Wensing etal., 2019). is is because values are
general goals that serve as principles and guides in people’s lives,
inuencing various environmental behaviors (Gao etal., 2017). In
general, individuals with environmental values are more likely to
engage in pro-environmental behaviors, such as those that reduce
energy consumption (Steg et al., 2014; Behroozeh et al., 2023).
Environmental values, beliefs, and norms act as key components in
the adoption of sustainable production methods by agricultural
greenhouse growers (Hall etal., 2009). Norms also refer to a moral
obligation or duty that encourages individuals to engage in specic
behaviors and are a primary predictor of intention and behavior (Wan
etal., 2017). Environmental beliefs indicate a willingness to protect
the environment, such as the acceptance of using clean energy (Xia
etal., 2019; Wang etal., 2020). is is because environmental beliefs
are a system of attitudes that determine an individual’s behavior
toward the environment and serve as a frame of reference in
interacting with the environment (Corral-Verdugo etal., 2003).
In addition, the application and use of agricultural inputs is
dierent between farmers who use extension and educational services,
and farmers who do not use these services (Salehi et al., 2020).
Accessibility to extension and educational services in line with the
application of agricultural inputs has positive eects on agricultural
productivity (Emmanuel et al., 2016). In order to achieve more
sustainable farming, farmers may need to relearn and subsequently
change their attitudes (Šūmane et al., 2018) through extension
education (Polat, 2015) to overcome the resource-consumption
approaches that have long been dominant and are deeply ingrained in
the thinking and practices of many farmers (Sáenz etal., 2024). In
general, the impact of extension and educational services in
agriculture is positively and signicantly correlated with agricultural
productivity (Haq, 2012). is is because farmers who use extension
and educational services achieve higher technical eciency in
agriculture compared to those who do not benet from these services
(Dinar etal., 2007; Anik and Salam, 2017). In general, the goal of
agricultural extension services is to improve farmers’ knowledge,
which helps increase crop production and technical eciency (Biswas
et al., 2021). In this context, low educated and low experienced
farmers, compared to their more educated and experienced
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
03 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
counterparts, tend to use more than the recommended optimal
amounts of chemical fertilizers and agricultural inputs due to their
limited access to information (Adesina, 1996; Ade Freeman and
Omiti, 2003). In fact, farmers with higher levels of education tend to
have higher technical eciency (Haider etal., 2011; Rahman etal.,
2012). Because years of experience and education enrich farmers’
knowledge, leading to improved technical eciency (Athukorala,
2017). Additionally, the benets of increased productivity because of
the consumption of agricultural inputs have a positive relationship
with the intensity of their consumption, while education has a negative
relationship with it (Waithaka etal., 2007; Haq, 2015).
Agricultural production system contributes 14% of the net
global CO
2
emissions (Cooper etal., 2011) from greenhouse gases
(GHG) (Pishgar Komleh et al., 2011), and leading to the release of
30–50% of insecticides in the air (Khoshnevisan etal., 2014). In
general, the energy consumed for various agricultural activities
includes land preparation, irrigation, planting, fertilization, pest
control, harvesting, processing, transportation, and distribution of
agricultural products (Mirzabaev etal., 2023). is has contributed
to global warming since the 1950s (Masson-Delmotte etal., 2021).
e global climate is warming, and various studies (Outhwaite etal.,
2022) have conrmed that this is due to human activities that emit
greenhouse gases (GHGs). Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions
account for 40 to 60 percent (Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024) of total
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global
warming and drought (Brownea etal., 2011; Khoshnevisan etal.,
2013). erefore, reducing global warming is a major challenge for
energy consumption management, as a signicant portion of global
warming and climate change results from the combustion of fossil
fuels that releases greenhouse gases (Meyer, 2010). Greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
), and nitrous oxide
(N
2
O) are released by various human activities, including
deforestation, disruption of natural land use, industrial operations,
and unsustainable agricultural practices (such as excessive use of
energy resources, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), as well as the use of
fossil fuels like coal, oil, and petroleum products (Scott etal., 2023).
For this reason, land degradation through the emission of
greenhouse gases is a signicant driver of climate change (Tione
etal., 2022). erefore, the ecient use of energy in agricultural
production systems, including greenhouse cultivation, as a crop
production system with energy compression, is the highest priority
to achieve energy use sustainability (Ghorbani et al., 2011).
Accordingly, energy analysis in agriculture plays a signicant role in
the development of human’s perspective toward agricultural
ecosystems and improves the quality of decisions and planning in
the management and development of the agricultural sector (Rathke
and Diepenbrock, 2006). e statistics of the Agricultural Jihad
Organization indicate that the area of greenhouses in Iran has
increased from 3,380 hectares to 6,630 hectares during 2003–2011.
According to the above statistics, the production of greenhouse
cucumbers, which is one of the main greenhouse crops in the world,
has increased rapidly in the country, and therefore, aer China and
Turkey, Iran ranked in third place with production of more than two
million tons of cucumbers annually (Heidari and Omid, 2011).
According to the agricultural statistics of 2016, the cultivated area of
greenhouse crops in Iran was 8,820 hectares, among which the
cultivated area of cucumber, tomato, pepper, strawberry, and
eggplant was 72.8, 8.1, 5, 5.2, and 2.6% of the total area under
cultivation in greenhouses, respectively (Agricultural Statistics,
2015). Cucumber is the most commonly greenhouse vegetable
worldwide (Nassiri and Singh, 2009) and is a warm-season plant and
grows quickly at 24–29°C (Marr, 1995). Since Kerman province has
a unique climate, it is considered as one of the largest natural
greenhouses in Iran, where it allows to grow all kinds of greenhouse
vegetables (Saei, 2019) and it is the largest producer of greenhouse
cucumbers in Iran (Mehrabi Basharabadi, 2008). According to the
literature and in order to achieve the objectives in the study, it is
concluded that the consumption of agricultural inputs and as a
result, achieving the energy use eciency depends on several factors,
based on which the conceptual framework is designed and analyzed
(Figure 1). Because many studies have investigated energy
consumption from the point of view of technical issues (Giampietro
etal., 1992; Nassiri and Singh, 2009; Fartout Enayat etal., 2017); In
several instances where the impact of non-technical factors on
energy input usage has been examined, the research has focused
more specically on the consumption of particular inputs, such as
fertilizers and chemicals (Gün and Kan, 2009; Zhou etal., 2010;
Ataei-Asad and Movahedi, 2021). Accordingly, the main objective
of this study is to measure and compare energy use eciency among
cucumber greenhouse growers. To save energy, improve energy use
eciency, and increase resource productivity, a better understanding
of sustainable energy use models can enhance economic
performance and reduce environmental impacts. Although
numerous studies have been conducted on energy use eciency in
agriculture, only a limited number have specically analyzed energy
use eciency in cucumber greenhouses based on sustainable energy
use components. Furthermore, many of these studies have not
compared energy-ecient and inecient greenhouses based on
sustainable energy use components. erefore, in this study, to
achieve the main research objective, the energy use eciency in the
greenhouses under investigation will rst beexamined and assessed.
Subsequently, energy-ecient and inecient greenhouses will
be compared and analyzed based on sustainable energy use
components. is innovative approach not only aids in identifying
the best energy use practices but also provides solutions for
optimizing energy use based on sustainable energy use components.
erefore, the present study specically examines the energy use
situation in the cucumber greenhouse by considering components
such as Environmental values, Environmental beliefs, Environmental
norms, Technical knowledge of the greenhouse, Technical
management of the greenhouse, e use of the educational- extension
services, Education level, Benet/Cost and Greenhouse’s work
experience. Consequently, the necessity of measuring and comparing
the energy use eciency in cucumber cultivation greenhouses
according to the components of the energy use sustainability is felt
because it helps managers and executives to understand the dierence
in energy use eciency in cucumber cultivation greenhouses based
on these components, and if required, design programs to strengthen
and benet from these components for the greenhouse owners.
erefore, it is required to measure and compare the energy use
eciency among cucumber cultivation greenhouses in order to make
energy use sustainability programs in agricultural greenhouses
eective. To that end, the present study investigated the energy use
eciency among the cucumber growers in Kerman province, Iran
with the aim of measuring the energy use eciency and comparing it
based on the components of energy use sustainability (Figure1).
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
04 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
2 Materials and methods
e present study is practical purposefully, it is a survey research
in terms of data collection, and descriptive for data analysis, which
was conducted in greenhouse cucumber production farms in Kerman
province, Iran (Figure2) in the crop year of 2020–2021 (From the
middle of September 2020 to the middle of June 2021). e
population studied were the greenhouse cucumber growers
(N = 4,946), whose number was obtained through the resources
available in the Agricultural Jihad Organization of the province. e
two-stage cluster sampling method was used considering the wide
distribution of cucumber production greenhouses in dierent cities
of the province and the coverage of 92.81% of cucumber production
greenhouses in Jiro, Kahnuj, Anbarabad, and Ghalae-Ganj counties
among all the production greenhouses in the province. In the rst
step, the studied area was divided into two high-density (counties
with cultivated area above 100 ha) and low-density (counties with
cultivated area less than 100 ha) clusters in terms of cultivated area;
and in the second step, Jiro was selected from the high-density
cluster and Kerman was selected from the low-density cluster. ese
two counties were selected due to the diversity of the climate. e
number of samples in each cluster was also selected using the
proportional assignment method. In addition, Krejcie and Morgan’s
(1970) table was used to determine the sample size (n = 356).
e data collection tool in this study was a researcher-made
questionnaire, including eight main items as follows:
Energy Use Efficiency
FIGURE1
Study’s conceptual model.
FIGURE2
The site of the study area.
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
05 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
1. Energy use eciency: It is the level of energy used (MJ) to
produce a unit of crop in term of energy (Demircan etal.,
2006), i.e., this index shows how much energy has been
harvested for each mega Joule of energy consumed per hectare
for production purposes. e larger the ratio, the higher the
energy eciency (Singh et al., 2004; Banaeian etal., 2011;
Ghorbani etal., 2011). Accordingly, the level of energy use of a
greenhouse cucumber cultivation period was investigated
using questionnaires prepared including information on the
application value of agricultural inputs (Irrigation water,
Fertilizers, Chemical pesticides, Machinery, Fuel, Manpower,
Plastic, Seeds, and Electricity). In order to measure the energy
use eciency among cucumber growers, the level of energy
available in all inputs and outputs was estimated using their
energy equivalents recorded in Table1, and then the energy
eciency index was calculated using Deap soware and using
the DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) method [that was rst
introduced by Charnes etal. (1978)]. A comparison of the
average factors aecting energy use in two groups of ecient
and inecient (Nassiri and Singh, 2009) greenhouses was
made by dividing the evaluated greenhouses based on the
energy use eciency.
2. Environmental values: ey include the basic orientation of
an individual in the eld of environment and show the
worldview of people toward the natural world (Schultz and
Zelezny, 1998; Barr etal., 2003). Accordingly, environmental
values with twelve items (1- In my view, human beings hold
superior rights to utilize the environment compared to other
living beings such as plants and animals. 2- Farmers are entitled
to utilize the environment in any way they see t to enhance
agricultural productivity. 3- I prioritize agriculture over
environmental concerns. 4- Ibelieve the key to human survival
lies in increasing production rather than maintaining the
health of natural resources. 5- e marketability and perceived
quality of products are paramount considerations in
greenhouse management. 6- Iamof the opinion that chemical
residues in fruits and vegetables do not pose risks to human
health. 7- Iprioritize human welfare over the protection of
animal and plant species. 8- Iprioritize increasing agricultural
output for human sustenance over environmental preservation.
9- My primary objective in farming is to maximize production
and prots. 10- Iassert my right to utilize agricultural inputs to
their maximum extent in pursuit of maximizing prots. 11-
e management of my greenhouse and my methods are my
exclusive prerogative, and I reject any interference or
supervision from others. 12- Given the current economic
climate, considerations for the environment or collective
interests are not feasible for me) were investigated.
3. Environmental beliefs: ey are a system of attitudes
determining an individual’s behavior toward the environment
and are the frame of reference in interacting with the
environment (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003). Consequently,
environmental beliefs with twelve items (1- I believe that
nature possesses inherent resilience to counteract the impacts
of modern industrialization. 2- e ingenuity of humanity
assures us that wewill not render the Earth uninhabitable.3-
e purported environmental crisis facing humanity has been
overly sensationalized. 4- Human survival does not hinge on
aligning ourselves with nature. 5- Iam of the opinion that
haphazard use of agricultural inputs does not exacerbate
environmental conditions in the area. 6- Ido not subscribe to
TABLE1 Energy equivalents of inputs and output in cucumber
production.
Inputs and
outputs
Unit Energy
equivalent
(MJ unit−1)
Ref.
A. Inputs
1. Human labor
(a) Man h 1.96 Bojaca and Schrevens (2010)
(b) Woman h 1.57 Bojaca and Schrevens (2010)
2. Machinery
Leveler h 4.703 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
Bund Former
(Tractor)
h 2.063 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
Bund Former
(Manual)
h 0.502 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
Cultivator h 3.135 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
M.B. plough h 2.508 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
Disk Harrow h 7.336 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
Sprayer h 0.502 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
3. Fuel
(a) Gasoline L 56.31 Nassiri and Singh (2009) and
Ghochebeyg etal. (2010)
(b) Gas m349.5 Kitani etal. (1999) and
Khoshnevisan etal. (2013)
(c) Petrol L 48.23 Nassiri and Singh (2009)
4. Chemical fertilizers
(a) Nitrogen (N) kg 66.14 Heidari and Omid (2011) and
Ozkan etal. (2007)
(b) Phosphate
(P2O5)
kg 12.44 Heidari and Omid (2011) and
Ozkan etal. (2007)
(c) Potassium
(K2O)
kg 11.15 Heidari and Omid (2011) and
Ozkan etal. (2007)
5. Farmyard
manure
kg 0.30 Bojaca and Schrevens (2010)
6. Chemicals kg 120 Canakci and Akinci (2006)
and Khoshnevisan etal.
(2013)
7. Water for
irrigation
m31.02 Ghochebeyg etal. (2010)
8. Electricity kWh 11.93 Ghochebeyg etal. (2010),
Nabavi-Pelesaraei etal. (2014),
and Pishgar-Komleh etal.,
2012
9. Seed kg 1 Ghochebeyg etal. (2010)
10. Plastic kg 158.2 El-Helepi (1997)
B. Output
1. Cucumber kg 0.8 Ozkan etal. (2007) and
Canakci and Akinci (2006)
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
06 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
the notion that environmental issues such as water and soil
pollution can be attributed to agricultural input usage. 7-
Assertions regarding phenomena like climate change are
exaggerated. 8- Concerns about the environment are
unwarranted as future generations will possess greater
capabilities to address present challenges. 9- e responsibility
for addressing environmental crises lies solely with the
government. 10- Idisclaim any responsibility for mitigating
environmental issues stemming from the use of chemical
pesticides in agriculture. 11- It is not incumbent upon me to
divulge information about energy use sustainability in my
greenhouse to other greenhouse owners. 12- If others make no
eorts to protect the environment, Iwould feel no responsibility
to do so.) were evaluated.
4. Environmental norms: ey are formal and informal rules
that express the type of behavior (environmental behavior) and
individual relationships in the community (Vesely and
Klöckner, 2018). In this regard, environmental norms with four
items [1- Ibelieve that the implementation of environmentally
friendly practices in greenhouse cultivation and the adoption
of eco-conscious interventions have limited impact on
environmental conservation. 2- Istrongly feel that adherence
to environmental principles and regulations is not merely a
choice but a mandatory obligation. 3- It is my view that
concern over environmental pollution is unwarranted, as
technological advancements will inevitably resolve such issues.
4- From my perspective, humans possess the capability to
manipulate the environment to suit their requirements]
were investigated.
5. Technical management: Greenhouse management includes
planning, directing, and controlling the operations before
cultivating, harvesting, producing, and supplying (Hanan etal.,
2012). Technical management with 11 items including 1-
Which cases have youanalyzed to optimize fuel consumption
in greenhouse design? 2- What measures do youimplement to
minimize energy waste within the greenhouse? 3- In a
fan-and-pad cooling system, where is the fan positioned within
your greenhouse? 4- What are your greenhouse’s temperature
settings for daytime and nighttime operation? 5- What cooling
mechanisms do youemploy to reduce temperatures inside the
greenhouse? 6- How do you prevent energy wastage,
particularly concerning light and heat? 7- What method do
you use to ensure even heat distribution throughout the
greenhouse? 8- What types of heating equipment is utilized in
your greenhouse? 9- What type of air circulation system is
installed within the greenhouse? 10- What fuel source is used
for heating the greenhouse? 11- Are there any subsidies
available for the purchase of fuel? were evaluated in this study.
6. Technical knowledge: Technical knowledge is a set of
principles for the application of agricultural inputs, which
includes the two dimensions of “knowledge of application”
and “knowledge of environmental benets” (Abtew etal.,
2016). Accordingly, measurement and analysis of technical
knowledge were conducted with 17 items including: 1- What
issues arise for cucumbers when excessive nitrogen fertilizer
is applied before owering? 2- At which stage of cucumber
growth was nitrogen fertilizer administered? 3- What are the
impacts of applying phosphate fertilizers on cucumbers?
4- Which elements’ proportion is crucial for regulating both
vegetative and reproductive growth in cucumber plants? 5-
Where are ticks most active during the cold season? 6- What
factors contribute to reductions in sulfur levels in plants? 7-
How does ensuring the appropriate moisture level benet
plant growth? 8- What type of fertilizer should be fully
applied to the soil before planting? 9- If harvest time is
expected within the next eight days and chemical intervention
is necessary in the greenhouse, what is the maximum
pre-harvest interval for the chemical to beused? 10- How
does light intensity aect plant development? 11- What
impacts do elevated EC levels have on cucumber plants? 12-
What is the primary limiting factor for greenhouse
cultivation? 13- What is the EC level of the soil in which
cucumbers are grown? 14- What is the soil pH for cucumber
cultivation? Additionally, which elements are used to,
respectively, increase and decrease soil acidity? 15- How
frequently, in what forms, and on what occasions do
youconduct soil sampling and testing? 16- What methods do
youemploy for non-chemical control of cucumber downy
mildew? 17- What strategy do youemploy to enhance the
volume of cucumber plant roots?
7. Educational extension services: Educational extension
services are responsible for disseminating technological
knowledge to farmers (Singh and Meena, 2019) and helping
them improve agricultural practices and increase management
skills (Wanigasundera and Atapattu, 2019). In this study, 12
items including 1- Do the experts of Agricultural Jihad
(Iranian public agricultural organization who responsible to
supply extension and educational services) or the related
research center visit your greenhouse during the cultivation
period? 2- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or the
related research center visit your greenhouse on a monthly
basis? 3- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or the
related research center oer youservices related to cucumber
greenhouses? 4- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or
the related research center provide youwith training regarding
cucumber greenhouses? 5- Are you a member of online
groups related to greenhouses? 6- Have youso far received
advisory services and counseling through virtual groups about
the greenhouses for growing cucumber? 7- Have youused
educational- extension books regarding the greenhouses for
growing cucumber? 8- Have youused educational- extension
journals regarding the greenhouses for growing cucumber?
9- Have youused educational- extension lms regarding the
greenhouses for growing cucumber? 10- Do the information
resources cover your information needs about greenhouses for
growing cucumber? 11- Do youhave access to appropriate
information resources about the greenhouses for cultivating
cucumber? 12- Have youtaken part in the educational classes
and workshops regarding the greenhouses for growing
cucumber? were used to evaluate the benet of promotional-
educational services.
8. Individual characteristics: A demographic survey of
greenhouse cucumber growers was conducted by considering
the income from cucumber cultivation, the cost of cucumber
cultivation, the level of cucumber cultivation experience, and
the level of education.
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
07 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
e questionnaire validity was conrmed via the content validity
method by expert professors and its reliability was conrmed through
the pilot test. In addition, the number of studied greenhouse owners
was obtained through the resources available in the Agricultural Jihad
Organization. e steps of conducting the research are shown in
Figure3. e data obtained from the questionnaire was recorded,
calculated, and analyzed by SPSS24, Excel2019, and Deap soware.
3 Results and discussion
Table2 presents the demographic characteristics of greenhouse
owners. It illustrates that the average area of land dedicated to
cucumber cultivation in the surveyed region is 12,952.3 square meters.
Moreover, the average duration of greenhouse cucumber cultivation
is reported as 8.8 years, with a standard deviation of 3.6. e
respondents’ average educational attainment stands at 11.1 years, with
a standard deviation of 5.2. Furthermore, the study reveals that 6% (22
individuals) of participants are female, while 94% (334 individuals)
are male.
e ndings concerning the technical management of individuals
studied in cucumber cultivation within greenhouses, aimed at
optimizing energy use, reveal that the average technical management
score among greenhouse owners (9.83) falls below the intermediate
level. is deciency stems from a lack of essential information and
knowledge necessary for ecient greenhouse management and
optimal energy use. For instance, owners neglect crucial solutions for
greenhouse design to minimize fuel use and prevent energy waste.
Additionally, they fail to regulate greenhouse temperatures adequately
throughout the day and night, and they do not employ suitable cooling
and heating systems to maintain favorable conditions for plant growth
(Table3). Consequently, the greenhouse manager’s decisions regarding
greenhouse unit implementation and management, as well as
agricultural input utilization, do not result in ecient energy use. In
fact, energy use sustainability in agriculture cannot beachieved solely
through technology for environmental protection but requires
changes in behavior, improved management, and enhanced knowledge
of farmers about energy use and identifying the factors aecting it
(Bourdeau, 2004). is is because sustainability in energy use and
energy systems management helps enhance energy use eciency
(Behroozeh etal., 2022). Furthermore, the technical knowledge of
greenhouse owners (with a mean score of 13.65) regarding cucumber
cultivation in greenhouses falls below the intermediate level. is
deciency primarily arises from their limited understanding of
various agricultural inputs’ proper usage during the cultivation
process. is includes aspects such as observing the latent period, soil
sampling and testing, the eects of high electrical conductivity (EC)
on cucumber, non-chemical methods for plant disease control, and
regulating optimal plant temperature. Oen, this lack of knowledge
leads to haphazard and unprincipled input usage, thereby decreasing
energy eciency in cucumber-growing greenhouses (Table 3).
erefore, excelling in greenhouse crop production requires an
increase in technical knowledge (Hall, 2003). us, achieving energy
use eciency requires utilizing technical knowledge for sustainability
in energy use (Anderson, 2010; Croppenstedt, 2005).
e ndings regarding individuals’ environmental values in
relation to ecient energy use in cucumber-growing greenhouses
indicate that the average value among greenhouse owners (21.87) falls
below the intermediate level. is discrepancy arises from the owners
prioritizing agricultural activities for sustenance over environmental
protection. ey perceive increased production as more crucial for
human survival than preserving healthy natural resources. is is
because values are dened based on what people believe is
fundamentally right or wrong (Gursoy etal., 2013). Environmental
values are conceptualized as fundamental guides in people’s lives
(Hedlund, 2011) and play a crucial role in ecient energy use (Shove
and Walker, 2014). In fact, values act as informational lters that lead
individuals to selectively accept or seek out information (Salehi etal.,
2018). For this reason, environmental values play a signicant role in
the decision-making of agricultural unit managers and in the
management of the use and application of resources in agricultural
activities. Similarly, the results concerning individuals’ environmental
beliefs regarding energy-ecient cucumber cultivation reveal that the
average value of greenhouse owners’ environmental beliefs (22.56) is
FIGURE3
Research methodology flow chart.
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
08 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
lower than the intermediate level. is is because some owners believe
that if others do not contribute to environmental protection, they
themselves bear no responsibility in this regard. Moreover, they hold
the belief that human survival does not necessitate harmony with
nature. However, environmental beliefs play an important role in
decision-making and the management of the use and application of
inputs in agricultural activities (Howley etal., 2015). is is because
environmental beliefs are a system of attitudes that determine an
individual’s behavior toward the environment and serve as a reference
framework in interactions with the environment (Corral-Verdugo
etal., 2008). e ndings concerning the environmental norms of
participants involved in energy-ecient practices within cucumber-
growing greenhouses reveal that the average score for greenhouse
owners’ environmental norms (8.51) falls below the moderate
threshold. is suggests that individuals who endorse human
intervention in environmental alteration for human benet tend to
have lower environmental norm scores. Moreover, interventions
aimed at promoting environmentally friendly practices within
greenhouse cultivation appear to have limited impact on overall
environmental protection eorts (Table 3). Since norms provide
meaningful values and orientations of others (Schwartz, 1977). And
are generally dened as rules and standards perceived by members of
a group that guide or constrain social behavior without the
enforcement of laws (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). erefore, energy use
is inuenced by social and environmental norms (Shove, 2010).
Similarly, the utilization of educational and extension services
among participants striving for energy eciency in cucumber-
growing greenhouses indicates a modest average score (4.45) among
greenhouse owners. is score falls below the moderate range,
indicating a lack of substantial engagement with educational
resources. Specically, greenhouse owners exhibit minimal utilization
of educational materials such as books and journals, infrequent
participation in online discussions related to greenhouse practices,
and limited access to educational programs oered by agricultural
experts and research institutions in the region (Table3). Considering
that the main lever for promoting agriculture among farmers is
education, educating farmers has signicant benets and substantial
economic impacts (Nguyen and Cheng, 1997). Farmers with higher
levels of education have better access to the knowledge, information,
and innovations needed for their professional activities. ey are also
more capable of analyzing the information they receive and selecting
the best approach for managing their farms (Uematsu and Mishra,
2010). erefore, continuous education over time facilitates the
enhancement of knowledge and acquisition of new skills in the
process of empowering farmers toward sustainable energy use. us,
as a prerequisite, it contributes to the development of theoretical
capabilities and practical competencies in the eld of greenhouse
cultivation. erefore, the rationale behind agricultural extension
systems for agricultural development is based on the necessity of
continuously implementing training programs for audiences. Over
time, this approach aims to enhance their practical, technical, and
social awareness, thereby improving their capacities, capabilities, and
competencies as trained individuals. Because education is a key
factor in agricultural development, and training specialized and
research-oriented human resources is the most important factor for
advancing agriculture (Cantley, 2004). erefore, successful
greenhouse management requires access to educational and
extension services (Behroozeh et al., 2022). Because the goal of
agricultural extension is to improve agricultural operations by
promoting knowledge about technologies, operations, and the
technical management of modern farming practices to farmers
(Fabusoro etal., 2008).
The findings from Table 3 reveal that the average cost per
hectare for operating cucumber-growing greenhouses amounts to
approximately $119,342.6. Additionally, the average income and
profit per hectare are reported as $180,380.9 and $61,038.4,
respectively. Notably, the profit-cost ratio stands at 0.55, indicating
that the economic viability of the greenhouses is modest. A higher
ratio suggests a more favorable economic justification for
investing in and operating these greenhouses. Because there is a
close relationship between agricultural activities and energy use,
and the productivity and profitability of this sector depend on its
energy use (Karimi etal., 2008). Therefore, efficient energy use
contributes to increased production and productivity, and
supports the profitability and sustainability of agriculture (Singh
etal., 2004).
TABLE2 The demographic properties of the studied greenhouse owners.
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation
Area of cucumber-cultivated (m2) 2000 40,000 12952.3 11,109. 8
Greenhouse’s work experience (year) 4 16 8.8 3.6
Education level (year) 5 22 11.1 5.2
Gender Female 22
Male 334
TABLE3 Descriptive statistics of energy use sustainability components.
Component Range Mean Standard
deviation
Technical management of the
greenhouse
0–21 9.83 3.61
Technical knowledge of the
greenhouse
0.40 13.65 6.53
Environmental values 12–48 21.87 9.95
Environmental beliefs 12–48 22.56 6.92
Environmental norms 4–16 8.51 1.97
e use of the educational-
extension services
0–12 4.45 1.63
Cost amount (Per hectare) ----- 119,342.6 -----
Income amount (Per hectare) ----- 180,380.9 -----
Prot amount (Per hectare) ----- 61,038.4 -----
Prot-cost ratio (Per hectare) ----- 0.55 -----
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
09 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
According to the mentioned topics and the energy equivalent
of inputs and outputs of greenhouse production (Table1), as well
as the amount of energy use, the energy equivalent of inputs used
to produce greenhouse cucumbers in the greenhouses of Kerman
province, Iran, was calculated during one cultivation period. e
results presented in Table4, show that the total energy of inputs for
cucumber production in one cultivation period and the total energy
of the produced crop in one cultivation period are 667,442,186 and
23,780,391 MJ/ha, respectively. Analyzing the amount of inputs use
per unit area show how much of each input per hectare is used for
greenhouse cucumber production. According to the results of
Table 4, the highest level of energy consumed in the studied
greenhouses is related to the fuel at the rate of 819,739 MJ/ha,
which is used to heat the greenhouse and as fuel for tools and
machinery. Due to the nature of greenhouse operations and
o-season crop cultivation, fuel inputs oen account for the largest
share of energy use. Other researchers (Zalaghi etal., 2021) have
also found in their studies on energy in agricultural greenhouses
that fuel inputs account for the highest proportion of energy use in
greenhouse crops.
As aforementioned, DEA method was used to calculate the energy
eciency of the studied units. According to the results of Table5, the
mean energy use eciency is 0.72, indicating low energy eciency in
the studied greenhouses. Twenty-one greenhouses are in an ecient
state and 335 greenhouses are in an ineective state for energy use,
which indicates the inecient use of agricultural inputs in greenhouse
production. In this regard, some researchers found the excessive use
of agricultural inputs by farmers (Benli and Kodal, 2003; Nassiri and
Singh, 2009; Ghorbani etal., 2020).
According to the results in Table6, showing the application level
of dierent inputs in the minimum optimal use combination, by
reaching the optimal level of use, an average of 492,730.3 MJ/ha is
saved in energy use. is issue indicates that greenhouse growers of
cucumbers are not eectively minimizing energy use for optimal use.
erefore, there is signicant potential to enhance the eciency of
greenhouse operators, as optimizing input use can maximize
their eciency.
e student’s t-test was used to compare the mean energy use
eciency among cucumber greenhouses based on the components of
energy use sustainability (Table7). According to the Cohen’s scale
[Cohen’s d (Cohen, 2013) is a standardized eect size for measuring
the dierence between two group means]. ere is a signicant
dierence between ecient and inecient greenhouse owners in
terms of environmental norms, environmental beliefs, environmental
values, technical management, technical knowledge, education level,
greenhouse’s work experience, cost-eectiveness, and the benet of
educational-extension services. As mentioned in Table 7, the
components of energy use sustainability are signicantly higher
among the group of greenhouses with energy use eciency. In this
regard, several researchers found the importance of environmental
norms (Miafodzyeva etal., 2010; Viscusi etal., 2011; anh etal.,
2012), environmental beliefs (Sadeghi Shahedani and Khoshkhouy,
2015; Salehi etal., 2017), environmental values (Barber etal., 2009;
Bondari et al., 2020), technical management (Nuthall, 2006;
Mohtashami and Zandi Daregharibi, 2018), technical knowledge
(Mohammad-Rezaei and Hayati, 2018; Huo etal., 2022), education
level (Adesina, 1996; Ade Freeman and Omiti, 2003; Wang, 2010),
greenhouse’s work experience (Ade Freeman and Omiti, 2003; Ganji
etal., 2018), cost-eectiveness (Shahan etal., 2008; Taghinazhad and
Ranjbar, 2019), and the benet of educational-extension services
(Keshavarz and Mousavi, 2018; Salehi etal., 2020) in their research on
resource sustainability and environmental protection. In general, if
cucumber greenhouse growers believe that excessive use of
agricultural inputs can worsen environmental conditions in the
region, and if they make eorts to preserve the environment and feel
responsible in this regard; then management of individuals in
agricultural greenhouses will not seek to harm the environment
through the use and application of agricultural inputs. To the extent
that individuals recognize their equality with other living beings in
terms of using the environment, prioritize agriculture in a balanced
way with respect to the environment, avoid exploiting the environment
for increased production, and do not excessively use agricultural
inputs to maximize prots, then energy use behavior in agricultural
greenhouses will align with the ecient and eective use of energy
resources (Mousavi-Avval etal., 2011; Zangeneh etal., 2010).
4 Conclusion and implications
In this study, measuring and comparing the energy use eciency
in cucumber greenhouses was evaluated by focusing on the
comparison of ecient and inecient greenhouses based on the
components of energy use sustainability (Figure1) in the study area;
and since the comparison of energy use eciency is inuenced by
the components of energy use sustainability, the detailed
identication of these components was rst addressed based on the
fundamental studies in this eld. Accordingly, the distinguishing
components of eective and ineective greenhouses were compared
and investigated in nine dimensions, e.g., “environmental norms,”
“environmental beliefs,” “environmental values,” “technical
management,” “technical knowledge,” “education level,” “greenhouse’s
work experience,” “cost-eectiveness,” and “the beneted of
educational-extension services.” e results showed the signicance
of all these nine components in comparing the energy use eciency
in the studied greenhouses. Because greenhouse owners with energy
eciency exhibited a high level of these components related to
energy use. However, despite the lack of energy eciency (Table5)
in cucumber production in most of the greenhouses studied, the
TABLE4 The amount of energy consumed by each of the inputs.
Input Average amount of use per unit area
(MJ/ha)
Human labor 10,287.2
Electricity 239,724
Water for irrigation 12,466
Fuel 819,739
Chemicals 9,918
Chemical fertilizers 8,747
FYM 8,530
Machinery 123.6
Plastic 765,299
Seed 1.03
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
10 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
high price of greenhouse cucumbers has made cultivating this crop
economically viable. It is also worth noting that the reduction in
energy eciency in cucumber production is due to the low cost of
energy inputs in the country and the abundant availability of these
resources. In this regard, making the prices of inputs more realistic
and ensuring farmers’ access to agricultural inputs according to their
needs will play a signicant role in rationalizing farmers’ behavior
in the use of these inputs.
e results of energy use for cucumber production greenhouses
during one-year cultivation period showed that the total energy input
TABLE7 Comparison between ecient and inecient cucumber greenhouses based on the components of energy use sustainability.
Component Energy use
eciency Frequency Mean Standard
deviation tsig Cohen’s d
Environmental Norms Ecient 21 12 0.01 37.44 0.001 2.89
Inecient 335 8.29 1.81
Environmental Beliefs Ecient 21 30.9 6.94 5.96 0.001 1.31
Inecient 335 22.04 6.59
Environmental Values Ecient 21 31.1 4.65 9.94 0.001 2.17
Inecient 335 21.29 4.37
Technical Management Ecient 21 17 0.01 43.18 0.001 3.33
Inecient 335 9.38 3.23
Technical knowledge Ecient 21 1 0.01 4.23 0.001 0.46
Inecient 335 0.95 0.22
Education Level Ecient 21 21.9 0.44 42.41 0.001 3.48
Inecient 335 10.45 4.63
Greenhouse’s work
experience
Ecient 21 15.9 0.44 37.91 0.001 3.3
Inecient 335 8.39 3.18
Cost-Eectiveness Ecient 21 1.02 0.09 23.04 0.001 3.33
Inecient 335 0.52 0.19
Educational -Extension
Service
Ecient 21 8 0.01 49.17 0.001 3.80
TABLE5 Energy eciency indicators in studied greenhouses.
Eciency Maximum Minimum Mean Standard
deviation
=1% (Ecient) <1% (Inecient)
Energy use eciency 1 0.45 0.72 0.13 21 335
TABLE6 The amount of dierent inputs in the minimum-optimal combination.
Input Input current level (MJ/ha) The optimal level of use
(MJ/ha)
Excess use energy (MJ/ha)
Chemical fertilizers 8747.1 ± 4501.3 6371.1 ± 1345.1 2,376 ± 4515.8
Human labor 10287.2 ± 1002.3 8117.6 ± 1467.9 2169.6 ± 1509.7
Chemicals 9,919 ± 1068.4 7955.5 ± 1411.6 1963.5 ± 1507.2
Electricity 239,724 ± 16009.7 187679.1 ± 36827.8 52044.9 ± 35534.7
Water for irrigation 12466.2 ± 897.9 9816.8 ± 1794.6 2649.4 ± 1840.6
FYM 8530.9 ± 3895.3 6166.8 ± 2872.9 2364.1 ± 2554.1
Fuel 819739.1 ± 10,117,276 576387.1 ± 685797.8 243,352 ± 539892.1
Seed 1.03 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.16 0.23 ± 0.2
Machinery 123.6 ± 34.6 97.2 ± 35 26.4 ± 22.2
Plastic 765299.5 ± 124273.8 579515.3 ± 116,341 185784.2 ± 155945.2
Tot a l 1874837.6 ± 1025856.4 1382107.3 ± 727546.2 492730.3 ± 600633.1
Mean ± SD.
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
11 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
in cucumber production is 667,442,186 MJ/ha. e most energy use
of inputs was related to fuel. is can bedue to the high use of this
input especially in the cold season to keep the greenhouses warm and
the need of the cucumber crop for a relatively high temperature to
grow. Accordingly, replacing the method that can reduce the amount
of fuel use in the greenhouse, such as modern heating devices which
provide the required heat for the greenhouses by using the hot water
ow system, can reduce fuel use and consequently reducing the total
energy of inputs used in the greenhouse.
e results indicated that a high percentage of the studied
greenhouses did not have the required eciency and the increase
in the input use in the above units exceeded the increase in the
production of these units and caused a decrease in energy
eciency, which resulted in irreparable damages to the
environment due to improper use of resources. erefore, it is
suggested that by improving management operations in the
optimal use of inputs such as fuel and fertilizers and the technical
knowledge of greenhouse owners about the importance of energy
use, and conducting production units in line with the rational and
timely energy use and energy saving methods, they should take
steps in the direction of reducing energy losses and increasing
performance per surface unit. is is because the average score for
the technical management of greenhouse operators (Table3) is
below the average level. is situation stems from a lack of
sucient information on greenhouse management and principles
of optimal energy use. Furthermore, the average technical
knowledge of greenhouse owners (Table 3) is also below the
average level. is issue is due to their relatively low awareness
about the use and application of various agricultural inputs
throughout the growing period.
Considering that only a few greenhouse units have 100 percent
eciency, and there is a dierence in energy use sustainability
components between high-eciency and low-eciency production
greenhouses. erefore, policymakers aiming to improve energy
eciency should focus on strategies that enhance environmental
values, beliefs, and norms, and institutionalize them among
greenhouse owners. is is because, according to the research
results, the average values, beliefs, and environmental norms of
greenhouse operators (Table3) are below the average level. For this
purpose, eld extension and agricultural education agents can
be utilized. Considering that the average level of utilization of
educational and extension services (Table7) in the study area is
below the average level. Agricultural managers should provide
educational and extension services by expanding successful methods
used in ecient units and enhancing management knowledge and
experience among units. ey should train other units on the
optimal use of resources through exemplary units. In addition, the
expansion of educational classes related to identifying the types of
pests and diseases and timely diagnosis of these factors and how to
use inputs such as chemicals and pesticides which are required for
these situations can eectively aect the eciency of these units.
Hence, it is suggested that the decision-makers, stakeholders, and
active policy-makers on greenhouse crops should consider all the
components of energy use sustainability, so that the policies and
plans developed can cover all dimensions and take into account
dierent aspects. Consequently, the results of this study can apply as
a reference for other similar areas.
5 Limitations and avenues for future
research
Numerous notable constraints were encountered during the
research process. Initially, it is important to highlight that the
assessment of energy use sustainability in agricultural greenhouses
focused specically on cucumber cultivation. A sample group
consisting of greenhouse cucumber growers was selected to facilitate
the comparison and measurement of sustainability indicators. is
approach aimed to oer fresh insights into sustainable energy use
criteria, which could potentially bevaluable for other greenhouse
operators, including those cultivating tomatoes, eggplants,
strawberries, and similar crops.
Moreover, spatial restrictions coupled with the limited
accessibility to other greenhouse owners, exacerbated by the
COVID-19 outbreak, were primary factors contributing to the
unavailability of pioneering farmers engaged in diverse greenhouse
crop cultivation. Consequently, future research endeavors are
advised to explore sustainable energy use components among
farmers cultivating crops such as eggplants, tomatoes, strawberries,
and similar produce. is exploration could greatly contribute to
recognizing disparities and thus facilitate more targeted agricultural
policy formulation across dierent regions and a wider spectrum of
greenhouse crop varieties. Secondly, the components utilized in this
study have been derived from a literature review; endeavors have
also been made in this study to utilize the most prevalent
components; however, it should be noted that components for
energy use sustainability, akin to the notions of stability and
sustainability, are highly dynamic. Hence, future researchers may
employ alternative components for energy use sustainability in
agriculture depending on the scope of their investigations.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed
to the corresponding author/s.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and
institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained
from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal
guardian/next of kin to participate in this study in accordance with
the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
SB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,
Soware, Writing – original dra, Writing – review & editing. DH:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review &
editing. EK: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing –
review & editing. SN: Formal analysis, Methodology, Soware,
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
12 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Validation, Writing – review & editing. KR-M: Formal analysis,
Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
e author(s) declare that no nancial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
e authors hereby express their special gratitude to all experts
and greenhouse owners who completed the study questionnaires with
great patience as well as the surveyors and interviewers who did their
best in the data collection process.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may beevaluated in this article, or
claim that may bemade by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abtew, A., Niassy, S., Aognon, H., Subramanian, S., Kreiter, S., Garzia, G. T., et al.
(2016). Farmers' knowledge and perception of grain legume pests and their management
in the eastern province of Kenya. J. Crop Protect. 87, 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.
cropro.2016.04.024
Ade Freeman, H., and Omiti, J. M. (2003). Fertilizer use in semi-arid areas of Kenya:
analysis of smallholder farmers' adoption behavior under liberalized markets. J. Nutrient
Cycl. Agroecosyst. 66, 23–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1023355011400
Adesina, A. A. (1996). Factors aecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in
cote d'Ivoire. J. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosyst. 46, 29–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00210222
Agricultural Statistics (2015). Statistics and information Technology Oce of the
Ministry of Jihad agriculture. Crop Products 1:117.
Anderson, A. (2010). Combating climate change through quality education.
Washington, DC: Brookings Global Economy and Development.
Anik, A. R., and Salam, M. A. (2017). Assessing and explaining vegetable growers’
eciency in the south-eastern hilly districts of Bangladesh. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 22,
680–695. doi: 10.1080/13547860.2017.1345113
Asgharipour, M. R., Mondani, F., and Riahinia, S. (2012). Energy use eciency and
economic analysis of sugar beet production system in Iran: a case study in Khorasan
Razavi province. J. Ener. 44, 1078–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.023
Ataei-Asad, M., and Movahedi, R. (2021). Association of knowledge, attitude and
behavioral intention with the potato farmers' behavior toward using fertilizers in
Hamadan. J. Agric. Educ. 12, 38–54. doi: 10.22092/jaear.2021.352989.1783
Athukorala, W. (2017). Identifying the role of agricultural extension services in
improving technical eciency in the paddy farming sector in SriLanka. Sri Lanka J.
Econ. Res 5, 63–78. doi: 10.4038/sljer.v5i1.58
Baeza, E. J., Stanghellini, C., and Castilla, N. (2013). Protected cultivation in Europe.
J. Int. Symp. High Tunnel Horticultural Crop Product. 987, 11–27. doi: 10.17660/
ActaHortic.2013.987.1
Banaeian, N., Omid, M., and Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and economic analysis of
greenhouse strawberry production in Tehran province of Iran. J. Ener. Convers. Manag.
52, 1020–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.08.030
Barber, N., Taylor, C., and Strick, S. (2009). Wine consumers’ environmental
knowledge and attitudes: inuence on willingness to purchase. Int. J. Wine Res. 1, 59–72.
doi: 10.2147/IJWR.S4649
Barr, S., Ford, N. J., and Gilg, A. W. (2003). Attitudes towards recycling household
waste in Exeter, Devon: quantitative and qualitative approaches. J. Local Environ. 8,
407–421. doi: 10.1080/13549830306667
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2022). Determining and validating criteria
to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 185:122077. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122077
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2023). Energy consumption behaviors in
greenhouse production systems based on the value-belief-norm theory: the case of
Kerman Province. Iran Agric. Extension Educ. J. 18, 163–180. Available at: https://dorl.
net/dor/20.1001.1.20081758.1401.18.2.10.5
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2024). Factors inuencing energy
consumption eciency in greenhouse cropping systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–36.
doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04851-8
Benli, B., and Kodal, S. (2003). A non-linear model for farm optimization with
adequate and limited water supplies: application to the south-east Anatolian project
(GAP) region. J. Agric. Water Manag. 62, 187–203. doi: 10.1016/
S0378-3774(03)00095-7
Biswas, B., Mallick, B., Roy, A., and Sultana, Z. (2021). Impact of agriculture extension
services on technical eciency of rural paddy farmers in Southwest Bangladesh.
Environ. Chall. 5:100261. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100261
Bojaca, C. R., and Schrevens, E. (2010). Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture
and its uncertainty: case study for Bogota, Colombia. J. Ener. 35, 2109–2118. doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2010.01.029
Bondari, A., Bagheri, A., and Sookhtanlo, M. (2020). Investigating the environmental
behavior of farmers on the use of agricultural pesticides in Moghan plain. J. Human
Environ. 18, 67–84. Available at: https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/847736
Bot, G. P. (2001). De velopments in indoor sustainable plant production with emphasis
on energy saving. J. Comput. Electron. Agric. 30, 151–165. doi: 10.1016/
S0168-1699(00)00162-9
Bourdeau, P. (2004). e man nature relationship and environmental ethics. J.
Environ. Radioact. 72, 9–15. doi: 10.1016/S0265-931X(03)00180-2
Brownea, N. A., Eckarda, R. J., Behrendt, R., and Kingwell, R. S. (2011). A comparative
analysis of on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural enterprises in south
eastern Australia. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166-167, 641–652. doi: 10.1016/j.
anifeedsci.2011.04.045
Canakci, M., and Akinci, I. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse
vegetable production. J. Ener. 31, 1243–1256. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2005.05.021
Cantley, M. (2004). How should public policy respond to the challenges of modern
biotechnology? Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 15, 258–263. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2004.04.007
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the eciency of
decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). “Social inuence: social norms, conformity
and compliance” in e hand-book of social psychology. eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske
and G. Lindzey, vol. 2. 4th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill), 151–192.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. London:
Routledge.
Cooper, J. M., Butler, G., and Leifert, C. (2011). Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without
bio-energy options. J. Life Sci. 58, 185–192.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R. B., and Fraijo-Singc, B. (2003). Environmental beliefs
and water conservation: an empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 247–257. doi:
10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00086-5
Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., and Sinha, J. B. (2008).
Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water
conservation: toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ. Behav.
40, 703–725. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308786
Croppenstedt, A. (2005). Measuring technical eciency of wheat farmers in Egypt.
ESA Working Paper, PP.05–06, 2005.
Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H. M., Akbolat, D., and Ekinci, C. (2006).
Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study
from Isparta province. Ener. Convers. Manag. 47, 1761–1769. doi: 10.1016/j.
enconman.2005.10.003
Dinar, A., Karagiannis, G., and Tzouvelekas, V. (2007). Evaluating the impact of
agricultural extension on farms performancein Crete: a nonneutral stochastic frontier
approach. Agric. Econ. 36, 133–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00193.x
El-Helepi, M. M. (1997). Energy and economic analysis of pepper production under
plasticulture and conventional systems. Master Science esis. Montreal, QC: McGill
University, 143.
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
13 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Emmanuel, D., Owusu-Sekyere, E., Owusu, V., and Jordaan, H. (2016). Impact of
agricultural extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: implications for rice
productivity and development in Ghana. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci. 79, 41–49. doi:
10.1016/j.njas.2016.10.002
Erdal, G., Esengün, K., Erdal, H., and Gündüz, O. (2007). Energy use and economic
analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. J. Ener. 32, 35–41. doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.007
Esfanjari Kenari, R., Shaabanzadeh, M., Jansooz, P., and Omidi, A. (2015). Analysis
energy consumption in greenhouse cucumber production (a case study in Tehran
province). Iranian J. Biosyst. Eng. 46, 125–134. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.100
1.1.20084803.1394.46.2.5.1
Fabusoro, E., Awotunde, J. A., Sodiya, C. I., and Alarima, C. I. (2008). Status of job
motivation and job performance of eld level extension agents in Ogun state:
implications for agricultural development. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 14, 139–152. doi:
10.1080/13892240802019113
Fartout Enayat, F., Mousavinik, S. M., and Asgharipour, M. R. (2017). Evaluation of
energy use eciency, green house gases emission and economic analysis of Sorghum
production in Sistan. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Product. 27, 33–43.
Ganji, N., Yazdani, S., and Saleh, I. (2018). Identifying factor aecting eciency of
water use in wheat production, Alborz province (dat a envelopment analysis approach).
Iranian J. Agricult. Econ. Dev. Res. 49, 13–22. doi: 10.22059/ijaedr.2018.66029
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., and Li, H. (2017). Application of the extended theory of
planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030
Ghochebeyg, F., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H., and Delshad, D.. (2010). Evaluation and
improvement of energy consumption for cucumber production using data envelopment
analysis (DEA). Te chnique in Tehran, 6th National Congress of agricultural machinery
engineering and mechanization, Tehran, Iran.
Ghorbani, M., Mahmoudi, A., Shookat Fadaei, M., and Khaledi, M. (2020). Optimal
economic model of cultivation to reduce the impacts of environmental pollution in
Mazandaran Province. J. Econ. Model. 13, 69–98. Available at: https://sid.ir/
paper/389998/en
Ghorbani, R., Mondani, F., Amirmoradi, S., Feizi, H., Khorramdel, S., Teimouri, M.,
et al. (2011). A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland
wheat production systems. J. Appl. Ener. 88, 283–288. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
Giampietro, M., Cerretelli, G., and Pimentel, D. (1992). Energy analysis of agricultural
ecosystem management: human return and sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 38,
219–244. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(92)90146-3
Gün, S., and Kan, M. (2009). Pesticide use in Turkish greenhouses: health and
environmental consciousness. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 18.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. Q., and Karadag, E. (2013). Generational dierences in work
values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.
32, 40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002
Haider, M. Z., Ahmed, M. S., and Mallick, A. (2011). Technical eciency of
agricultural farms in Khulna, Bangladesh: stochastic frontier approach. Int. J. Econ.
Financ. 3, 248–256. doi: 10.5539/ijef.v3n3p248
Hall, C. H. (2003). Issues aecting protability of the nursery and greenhouse
industry. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 88–97.
Hall, T. J., Dennis, J. H., Lopez, R. G., and Marshall, M. I. (2009). Factors aecting
growers' willingness to adopt sustainable oriculture practices. HortScience 44,
1346–1351. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.44.5.1346
Hanan, J. J., Holley, W. D., and Goldsberry, K. L. (2012). Greenhouse management,
vol. 5. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Haq, A. Z. M. (2012). e agricultural extension contacts in Bangladesh. J. Agric.
Informat. 3.
Haq, A. Z. M. (2015). Farmers ‘education and farmers ‘wealth in Bangladesh. Turkish
J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 3, 204–206. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v3i4.204-206.247
Hedlund, T. (2011). e impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to
accept economic sacrices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy
ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tour. Hosp. Res. 11, 278–288. doi:
10.1177/1467358411423330
Heidari, M. D., and Omid, M. (2011). Energy use patterns and econometric models
of major greenhouse vegetable production in Iran. J. Ener. 36, 220–225. doi: 10.1016/j.
energy.2010.10.048
Howley, P., Buckley, C., Donoghue, C. O., and Ryan, M. (2015). Explaining the
economic ‘irrationality’of farmers' land use behaviour: the role of productivist attitudes
and non-pecuniary benets. Ecol. Econ. 109, 186–193. doi: 10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.11.015
Huo, W., Chen, D., Tian, S., Li, J., Zhao, T., and Liu, B. (2022). Lifespan-consciousness
and minimum-consumption coupled energy management strategy for fuel cell hybrid
vehicles via deep reinforcement learning. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47, 24026–24041. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.05.194
Iqbal, N., and Kim, D. H. (2022). Iot task management mechanism based on predictive
optimization for ecient energy consumption in smart residential buildings. J. Ener.
Build. 257:111762. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111762
Karimi, K., Beheshti Tabar, I., and Khubbakht, G. M. (2008). Energy production in
Iran’s agronomy. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci 4, 172–177.
Keshavarz, S., and Mousavi, M. (2018). Study of the problems and factors aecting the
development of organic farming case study: kitchen garden city Marvdasht. J. Agr ic. Econ.
Res. 10, 151–172. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20086407.1397.10.39.7.1
Khoshnevisan, B., Raee, S., Omid, M., and Mousazadeh, H. (2013). Reduction of
CO2 emission by improving energy use eciency of greenhouse cucumber production
using DEA approach. J. Ener. 55, 676–682. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.021
Khoshnevisan, B., Raee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., and Clark, S. (2014).
Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses
using life cycle assessment and adaptive neurofuzzy inference system. J. Clean. Prod. 73,
183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.057
Kitani, O., Jungbluth, T., Peart, R. M., and Ramdani, A. (1999). CIGR handbook of
agricultural engineering. J. Energy Biomass Eng. 5:330.
Kizilaslan, H. (2009). Inputeoutput energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat
province of Turkey. J. Appl. Ener. 86, 1354–1358. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.07.009
Koohkan, S. (2017). Integrated evaluation of emergy, energy and economy for three
cropping systems in Sistan. esis submitted in partial fulllment of the requirement
for the philosophy degree (PHD) in agronomy. Zabol: University of Zabol.
Kozai, T., Kubota, C., and Kitaya, Y. (1997). Greenhouse technology for saving the
earth in the 21th century. J. Plant Product. Closed Ecosyst., 139–152. doi:
10.1007/978-94-015-8889-8_9
Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. J. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 30, 607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308
Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, T., and Wang, L. (2020). Revisiting China’s provincial
energy eciency and its inuencing factors. J. Ener. 208:118361. doi: 10.1016/j.
energy.2020.118361
Marr, C. W. (1995). Commercial greenhouse production series (greenhouse
cucumbers). Available at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/hort2/mf2075.pdf
Masson-Delmotte, V. P., Zhai, P., Pirani, S. L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., et al.
(2021). Ipcc, 2021: summary for policymakers. Climate change 2021: the physical
science basis. Contribution of working group ito the sixth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Mehrabi Basharabadi, M. (2008). Economic analysis of production of greenhouse
products in Kerman Province. J. Water Soil Sci. 12, 373–384. Available at: http://dorl.
net/dor/20.1001.1.22518517.1387.12.44.29.9
Meyer, N. I. (2010). New systems thinking and policy means for sustainable energy
development. Paths Sustain. Ener.
Miafodzyeva, S., Brandt, N., and Olsson, M. (2010). Motivation recycling: pre-
recycling case study in Minsk, Belarus. J. Waste Manag. Res. 28, 340–346. doi:
10.1177/0734242X09351331
Mirzabaev, A., Olsson, L., Kerr, R. B., Pradhan, P., Ferre, M. G. R., and
Lotze-Campen, H. (2023). Climate change and food systems. Science and innovations
for food systems transformation. Berlin: Springer International Publishing AG,
511–529.
Mohammad-Rezaei, M., and Hayati, D. (2018). Factors aecting integrated Pest
management (IPM) knowledge of pistachio growers in Kerman Province. Iran. Agric.
Extension Educ. J. 14, 199–214.
Mohtashami, T., and Zandi Daregharibi, B. (2018). Factors Aecting Excessive
Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in Saron Cultivation: case study of torbat heydarieh area. J.
Saron Res. 6, 127–140. doi: 10.22077/jsr.2018.921.1040
Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Raee, S., Jafari, A., and Mohammadi, A. (2011). Energy ow
modeling and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. J. Clean. Prod.
19, 1464–1470. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.013
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R., Raee, S., and Mobtaker, H. G. (2014). Optimization
of energy required and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for orange producers using
data envelopment analysis approach. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.08.019
Nabizadeh, S., Mahboobi, M., and Abdollah-Zadeh, G. (2018). Analyzing factors
aecting unsustainably of agricultural lands in East Azerbaijan Province (case of Malekan
County). Iranian J. Agric. Econ. Dev. Res. 48, 611–619. doi: 10.22059/ijaedr.2018.65236
Nasirian, N., Almasi, M., Minaee, S., and Bakhoda, H. (2006). “Study of energy ow
in sugarcane production in an agro-industry unit in south of Ahwaz” in In proceedings
of 4th National Congress of agricultural machinery engineering and mechanization,
28–29 Aug (Tabriz: Tabriz University).
Nassiri, S. M., and Singh, S. (2009). Studyon energy use eciency for paddy crop using
data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. J. Appl. Ener. 86, 1320–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.
apenergy.2008.10.007
Nguyen, T., and Cheng, E. (1997). Productivity baines from farmer education in
Chaina. Australian J. Agric. Resour. 41, 471–497. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.t01-1-00025
Nuthall, P. L. (2006). Determining the important management skill competencies: the
case of family farm business in NewZealand. J. Agric. Syst. 88, 429–450. doi: 10.1016/j.
agsy.2005.06.022
Behroozeh et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
14 frontiersin.orgFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Omotoso, A. B., and Omotayo, A. O. (2024). e interplay between agriculture,
greenhouse gases, and climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Reg. Environ. Change
24:1. doi: 10.1007/s10113-023-02159-3
Outhwaite, C. L., McCann, P., and Newbold, T. (2022). Agriculture and climate change
are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. J. Nature 605, 97–102. doi: 10.1038/
s41586-022-04644-x
Ozkan, B., Fert, C., and Karadeniz, C. F. (2007). Energy and cost analysis for
greenhouse and open-eld grape production. J. Energy 32, 1500–1504. doi: 10.1016/j.
energy.2006.09.010
Pishgar Komleh, S., Keyhani, A., Raee, S., and Sefeedpary, P. (2011). Energy use and
economic analysis of corn silage production under three cultivated area levels in Tehran
province of Iran. J. Ener. 36, 3335–3341. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.029
Pishgar-Komleh, S. H., Ghahderijani, M., and Sefeedpari, P. (2012). Energy
consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on dierent farm
size levels in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 183–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.008
Polat, F. (2015). Organic farming education in Azerbaijan, present and future. Procedia
Soc. Behav. Sci. 197, 2407–2410. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.302
Rahman, K. M. M., Mia, M. I. A., and Bhuiyan, M. K. J. (2012). A stochastic frontier
approach to model technical eciency of rice farmers in Bangladesh: an empirical
analysis. e Agriculturists 10, 9–19. doi: 10.3329/agric.v10i2.13132
Rathke, G.-W., and Diepenbrock, W. (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape
(Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur. J.
Agron . 24, 35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.003
Sadeghi Shahedani, M., and Khoshkhouy, M. (2015). Analysis of resources and social
institutions aecting on improving the urban household consuming behavior (the case
of energy consuming behavior). J. Urban Econ. Manag. 3, 29–43. Available at: http://dorl.
net/dor/20.1001.1.23452870.1393.3.9.3.5
Saei, M. (2019). Examining barriers and problems of greenhouse vegetables
production in the south of Kerman province. J. Veg. Sci. 3, 67–81. Available at: https://
dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26764814.1398.3.1.6.2
Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., Alcalde-Heras, H., and Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2024).
Technical knowledge acquisition modes and environmental sustainability in Spanish
organic farms. J. Rural. Stud. 109:103338. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103338
Salehi, M., Abbasi, E., Bijani, M., and Shahpasand, M. R. (2020). e impact of
agricultural extension site approach on optimizing agricultural input consumption and
increasing the yield of dominant products in Hamedan Province, Iran. J. Agric. Educ.
Adm. Res. 12, 53–76. doi: 10.22092/jaear.2021.342572.1716
Salehi, S., Chizari, M., Sadighi, H., and Bijani, M. (2017). e eect of environmental
beliefs on farmers' sustainable behavior toward using groundwater resources in Fars
Province. Iran. Agric. Extension Educ. J. 13, 175–193. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/2
0.1001.1.20081758.1396.13.1.12.0
Salehi, S., Chizari, M., Sadighi, H., and Bijani, M. (2018). Assessment of agricultural
groundwater users in Iran: a cultural environmental bias. Hydrogeol. J. 26, 285–295. doi:
10.1007/s10040-017-1634-9
Schultz, P. W., and Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: a
ve-country survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29, 540–558. doi: 10.1177/0022022198294003
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). “Normative inuences on altruism” in Advances in
experimental social psychology, vol. 10 (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 221–279.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Rushton, B., and Gössling, S. (2023). A review of the IPCC sixth
assessment and implications for tourism development and sectoral climate action. J.
Sustain. Tour., 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2023.2195597
Shahan, S., Jafari, A., Mobli, H., Raee, S., and Karimi, M. (2008). Energy use and
economical analysis of wheat production in Iran: a case study from Ardabil province. J.
Agric. Technol. 4, 77–88.
Shahpasand, M. (2016). Analyzing the role of individual and cognitive factors on the
level of fertilizer consumption, among farmers in the city of Bajestan. Iranian J. Agric.
Econ. Dev. Res. 46-2, 749–763.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social
change. Environ Plan A 42, 1273–1285. doi: 10.1068/a42282
Shove, E., and Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for? Social practice and energy
demand. eory Cult Soc. 31, 41–58. doi: 10.1177/0263276414536746
Singh, K. M., and Meena, M. S. (2019). Eorts of government on reforming
agricultural extension in Bihar: the ATMA approach. MPRA Paper No. 104306, p osted
03 December 2020. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/104306/
Singh, G., Singh, S., and Singh, J. (2004). Optimization of energy inputs for wheat crop
in Punjab. J. Energy Convers. Manag. 45, 453–465. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00155-9
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Wer, E., and Lurvink, J. (2014). e signicance of
hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ.
Behav. 46, 163–192. doi: 10.1177/0013916512454730
Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Des Ios Rios, I., et al.
(2018). Local and farmers' knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal
knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 59, 232–241.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020
Taghinazhad, J., and Ranjbar, F. (2019). Economic assessment of energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions from wheat production in Ardabil Provience. J. Environ.
Sci. 17, 137–150. doi: 10.29252/envs.17.3.137
Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., and Mahmoudi, A. (2012a). Prediction of output energy for
wheat production using articial neural networks in Esfahan province of Iran. J. Agric.
Tec h nol . 8, 1229–1242.
Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., and Mahmoudi, A. (2012b). Application of parametric and
nonparametric method to analyzing of energy consumption for cucumber production
in Iran. J. Modern Appl. Sci. 6, 75–87. doi: 10.5539/mas.v6n1p75
Taki, M., Mahmoudi, A., Ghasemi-mobtaker, H., and Rahbari, H. (2012c). Energy
consumption and modeling of output energy with multilayer feed-forward neural
network for corn silage in Iran. J. Agric. Eng. Int. 14, 93–101.
anh, N. P., Matsui, Y., and Fujiwara, T. (2012). An assessment on household
attitudes and behavior towards household solid waste discard and recycling in the
Mekong Delta region-southern Vietnam. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 11, 1445–1454. doi:
10.30638/eemj.2012.180
Tione, S. E., Nampanzira, D., Nalule, G., Kashongwe, O., and Katengeza, S. P. (2022).
Anthropogenic land use change and adoption of climate smart agriculture in sub-
Saharan Africa [article]. J. Sustain. 14:14729. doi: 10.3390/su142214729
Uematsu, H., and Mishra, A. K. (2010). Net eect of education on technology
adoption by US farmers, 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida
56450, Southern Agricultural Economics Association. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.56450
Vesely, S., and Klöckner, C. A. (2018). Global social norms and environmental
behavior. J. Environ. Behav. 50, 247–272. doi: 10.1177/0013916517702190
Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., and Bell, J. (2011). Promoting recycling: private values, social
norms, and economic incentives. J. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 65–70. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.3.65
Waithaka, M. M., ornton, P. K., Shepherd, K. D., and Ndiwa, N. N. (2007). Factors
aecting the use of fertilizers and manure by smallholders: the case of Vihiga, western
Kenya. J. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 78, 211–224. doi: 10.1007/s10705-006-9087-x
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., and Choi, S. (2017). Experiential and instrumental attitudes:
interaction eect of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. J. Environ.
Psychol. 50, 69–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.006
Wang, X. Y. (2010). Irrigation water use eciency of farmers and its determinants:
evidence from a survey in northwestern China. J. Agric. Sci. China 9, 1326–1337. doi:
10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60223-6
Wang, J., Li, Y., Wu, J., Gu, J., and Xu, S. (2020). Environmental beliefs and public
acceptance of nuclear energy in China: a moderated mediation analysis. Energy Policy
137:111141. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111141
Wang, Y., Li, K., Zeng, X., Gao, B., and Hong, J. (2022). Energy consumption
characteristics-based driving conditions construction and prediction for hybrid electric
buses energy management. J. Ener. 245:123189. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123189
Wanigasundera, W. A. D. P., and Atapattu, N. (2019). “E xtension reforms in SriLanka:
lessons and policy options” in Agricultural extension reforms in South Asia (Cambridge,
MA: Academic Press), 79–98.
Wensing, J., Carraresi, L., and Bröring, S. (2019). Do pro-environmental values, beliefs
and norms drive farmers' interest in novel practices fostering the bioeconomy? J.
Environ. Manag. 232, 858–867. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.114
Xia, D., Li, Y., He, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., and Gu, J. (2019). Exploring the role of
cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy
Policy 132, 208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.014
Yazdani, S., Ramezani, M., Ghasemi, A., and Ghaem-Maghami, S. (2019). Analysis of
factors aecting the reduction in fertilizer use to achieve sustainable saron production
(case study: Gonabad County). Iranian J. Agric. Econ. Dev. Res. 50, 421–435. doi:
10.22059/ijaedr.2019.266784.668662
Zabeltitz, C. V. (1990). “Advanced greenhouse technologies for industrial crop
production in closed systems” in Proceedings of articial climate conference (Moscow:
UNIDO), 91–123.
Zalaghi, A. H., Lotfalian Dehkordi, A., Abedi, A., and Taki, M. (2021). Applying data
envelopment analysis (DEA) to improve energy eciency of apple fruit, focusing on
cumulative energy demand. Ener. Equipment Syst. 9, 37–52. doi: 10.22059/ees.2021.243258
Zangeneh, M., Omid, M., and Akram, A. (2010). A comparative study on energy use
and cost analysis of potato production under dierent farming technologies in Hamadan
province of Iran. Energy 35, 2927–2933. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.024
Zhou, Y., Yang, H., Mosler, H. J., and Abbaspour, K. C. (2010). Factors aecting
farmers' decisions on fertilizer use: a case study for the Chaobai watershed in northern
China. J. Sustain. Dev. 4, 80–102.
Content uploaded by Samira Behroozeh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samira Behroozeh on Sep 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
