International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49

HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iswcr

Original Research Article

Pro-environmental analysis of farmers' concerns and behaviors towards soil MARK

conservation in central district of Sari County, Iran☆
⁎
Masoud Bijania, , Ezatollah Ghazania, Naser Valizadehb, Negin Fallah Haghighic
a
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran 1497713111, Iran
b
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
c
Research Institute for New Technology Development Studies (RINTDS), Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST), Tehran
3353136846, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This study aimed to pro-environmentally analyze farmers' concerns and behaviors towards soil conservation.
Soil conservation behavior This research was a descriptive, causal, and correlational and conducted through a survey technique. The study
Soil conservation concern population consisted of all farmers at the central district of Sari county, Iran (N=9621). Based on the Cochran's
Farmers formula, 120 farmers were selected using stratified random sampling. The instrument employed in this study
Sari County
was a questionnaire with its validity being confirmed by a number of academic experts and agriculture
specialists and its reliability being proved using Cronbach's alpha coefficients in a pilot study (outside the scope
of the current study). (0.66≤α≤0.90). The results of the analysis regarding the effects of independent variables
on the variables "soil conservation behavior" and "soil conservation concern" indicated that, among the
variables affecting these two variables, the variable "attitude towards soil conservation "was the most powerful
predictor of "soil conservation concerns" and the variable "social pressures on soil conservation" predicted
farmers' "soil conservation behaviors" better. Furthermore, the independent variables used in this research
could predict 42% of the variance in terms of soil conservation concern and 21% of the variance in terms of soil
conservation behavior. These findings can be practical and appropriate for executive officials since, instead of
making efforts to direct change the behavior, they can first focus on conceptual changes and persuasive changes
like changing attitudes towards soil conservation.

1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, global environment has experienced
serious issues and problems such as global warming, air pollution in
cities, noise pollution and loss of biological diversity (Hejazi &
Eshaghi, 2014; Menatizadeh & Zamani, 2012). On the other hand,
environmental challenges are not exclusively limited to developed
countries and all countries around the world may be copping with
these problems (Salehi & Imam Gholi, 2012). However, individuals'
increased quality of life at the expense of exorbitant consumption of
environmental resources has negatively impacted the lives of people
around the world (Latif, Omar, Bidin, & Awang, 2013) and caused
them numerous challenges (such as climate change, deterioration of
natural resources, and etc.) (Klöckner, 2013). Undoubtedly, one of the
most important problems in the achievement process of environmental
sustainability is soil erosion mitigation (Ghazani & Bijani, 2016;
Kibblewhite et al., 2014; Noorollah-Noorivandi, Ajili, Chizari, &
Bijani, 2009). In fact, land degradation caused by soil erosion and
food reduction is a critical issue threatening the development of
agriculture sector, food security, national security, and the like (Azizi
Khalkhili, Bakhshi Jahromi, & Bijani, 2012). Hence, the strategic
importance of soil resources is widely accepted in international fora
and soil conservation is considered as a prerequisite to achieve food
security and to adopt environmental policies (Kibblewhithe et al.,
2014; Bindraban et al., 2012). Evidences suggest that soil resources are
at risk of severe damage so that 6–7 million hectares of land are
annually degraded because of erosion (Mahboobi & Sepehrara, 2013).
In this regard, Iran is a vulnerable country in terms of soil erosion
(Agheli-e Kohneshari and Sadeghi, 2005). According to the statistics of
Iran's Soil Science Society (2013), Iran's soil erosion is three times as
much as Asia's and Iran is ranked one among the developing countries
and in the world (Ghazani & Bijani, 2016; Rouhani, 2013).
Due to the critical nature of the subject, the officials, in addition to
technical and macroeconomic proposals, have paid attention to social

☆
Peer review under responsibility of International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mbijani@modares.ac.ir (M. Bijani), e.ghazani@gmail.com (E. Ghazani), naservalizadeh7@gmail.com (N. Valizadeh), nfallah@irost.ir (N. Fallah Haghighi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.03.001
Received 20 November 2016; Received in revised form 28 January 2017; Accepted 2 March 2017
Available online 18 March 2017
2095-6339/ © 2017 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
M. Bijani et al.
aspects of solution-making to protect natural resources (such as soil)
(Valizadeh, Bijani, & Abbasi, 2016). On the other hand, land degrada-
tion caused by soil erosion and depletion of food is one of the major
problems limiting the development of the agriculture sector (Azizi
Khalkhili et al., 2012; Ghazani & Bijani, 2016). In Iran, management
affairs and conservation of soil resources are mainly affected by two
factors (namely natural and/or climatic conditions and management
and conservation of soil resources by human activities) (Bayat,
Rastegar, & Azizi, 2011). Thus, human beings would cause environ-
mental degradation (Bijani & Hayati, 2015; Steg & Vlek, 2009),
including soil degradation, by their behaviors towards the environment
and making changes in the environment, resulting in alarming threats
(Steg & Vlek, 2009). As a result, systematic investigations of the
behavior and the factors affecting its formation (such as environmental
concerns, attitudes, and so on) are of paramount importance with
regard to soil conservation (Abbasian, Chizari, & Bijani, 2017; Adams,
2014; Aguilar‐Luzón, García‐Martínez, Calvo‐Salguero, & Salinas,
2012; Stern, 2000; Andersson, Shivarajan, & Blau, 2005).
On the other hand, a thorough review of the studies on factors
explaining individuals' behaviors towards issues such as soil, water, air,
and environment, in general, has provided a wide range of classifica-
tions (Valizadeh et al., 2016). In a general classification, however,
studies conducted in this field can be divided into two categories: (1)
Studies employing a particular theoretical model; and (2) Studies on
pro-environmental opinions, concerns, and behaviors that do not
utilize a specific theoretical framework (Yazdanpanah, Hayati, &
Zamani, 2011). Both categories have widely been of interest in the
fields of environmental sociology (Gross & Heinrichs, 2010), human
ecology (Tien, 2009), and environmental psychology (Hsu, 2003).
Abundant research in the fields of environmental psychology, human
ecology, environmental sociology and others resulted in an assumption
indicating that "a part of the environmental damage is the consequence
of humans' inappropriate behavior towards it". Consequently, to
improve the environment, the factors affecting (and shaping) the
human behavior should be explained and identified. It should be noted
that a lot of studies have examined the factors shaping individuals'
behaviors towards the environment and natural resources, i.e. pro-
environmental behaviors. For example, Niaura analyzed the factors
influencing pro-environmental behaviors of young people, according to
the theory of planned behavior and revealed that pro-environmental
attitudes affect the pro-environmental behavior. In this study, the
analysis also showed that social pressure imposed by friends, family
and others has little effect on their pro-environmental behavioral
intentions, compared with the perceived behavioral control (Niaura,
2013).
In another study conducted by Karppinen to assess private forest
owners' attitude towards reforestation, it was found that attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control have a significant
impacts on the forest owners' intention to accept natural reforestation.
The results of path analysis showed that study variables as a whole and
together could predict 39% of the dependent variable variance. The
intention was to approach the highest predicting power. In this case,
the most powerful predictor of intention was attitude. The findings of
correlation analysis also suggested a positive correlation between
attitudes towards reforestation and intentions towards reforestation,
subjective norms and intentions with reforestation, and the perceived
behavioral control and intentions towards reforestation (Karppinen,
2005).
Trumbo and O'Keefe (2005) conducted a study entitled "Intention
to conserve water: Environmental values, reasoned action, and infor-
mation effects across time" to examine attitudes and behaviors towards
water conservation by using the theory of reasoned action. This study
employed an online survey during 1999–2000 in Nevada, America. The
results of correlation analysis for the components of the theory of
reasoned action indicated that all relationships predicted in this model
were proved. However, the results of the path analysis on the causal
44
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49
effects of the theory variables revealed that the causal relationships
predicted in this model were repeated in accordance with the men-
tioned theory. Evaluating Utah landowners' intentions towards invol-
vement in the improvement of coastal areas, Corbett (2002) came to
the conclusion that among the components of the theory of planned
behavior, only the effect of subjective norms on water resources was
statistically significant. The author's justification is that there is a series
of social barriers affecting people's behaviors and they are ignored in
the theory of planned behavior. On the other hand, the researcher
argues that the theory of planned behavior is of no use in terms of
farmers' cooperative behaviors.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), quoting Fetcao and Cassel, pre-
sented the factors affecting pro-environmental behavior in a frame-
work. In this framework, the factors "awareness the behavioral con-
sequences", "incentives for pro-environmental behavior", " environ-
mental attitudes and values" and "feasibility of pro-environmental
measures" directly affect the pro-environmental behavior. In addition,
the factor "environmental knowledge" indirectly has an effect on it
through influencing the environmental attitudes and values. The
researchers analyzed theoretical foundations and models and showed
that some factors including personality traits, internal factors (envir-
onmental incentive, environmental knowledge, environmental aware-
ness, environmental consciousness, values, attitudes, emotions, pre-
ferences, etc.), and external factors (economic, social, cultural and
institutional) affect the environmental behavior. In this regard, Price
and Leviston (2014) researched the effect of psychological, back-
ground, and social factors on land management measures in line with
a pro-environmental activity. In this research, the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of value-belief-norm were used as the models
predicting pro-environment agricultural activities. The findings showed
that values, beliefs, and norms are major factors influencing pro-
environmental behaviors. In general, farmers' social and psychological
background predicts their pro-environment agricultural activities. It
was also concluded that attitudes and values interact with feedback
mechanisms, motivating farmers to adopt such behaviors.
According to the literature review and inspired by its rationality
(where pro-environmental attitudes and social pressures act as in-
dividuals' behavioral bases and environmental concern is an important
factor in shaping pro-environmental behavior), this study primarily
aimed to investigate the below objectives.
1. Investigating the effect of two variables "attitude" and "social
pressure" on the variable "soil conservation concern", and
2. Analyzing the effect of the variable "soil conservation concern" on
"soil conservation behavior".
These objectives provided the grounds for the realization of the
study overall objective, i.e. analysis of the factors affecting farmers' soil
conservation behavior in the central district of Sari, Iran. The study
conceptual framework is presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
M. Bijani et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49

Table 1 study were as follows: gender, age, education, farming experience,

Rice farmers in central district of Sari and selected samples. drought experience, attending classes on water and type of residence in
the village. Descriptive statistics of the variables is also presented
No. Rural Rice farmers
District below:
Population Sample
3. Results and discussion
1 Esfivard-e 3378 42 N (t . s )2
n=
Shurab Nd 2 + (t . s)2
2 Mazkureh 2194 27 9621(2 * 0.93)2
The results of ranking the survey items (Table 1) revealed that
n= ⇒ n ≈ 120 mean most items measuring farmers' soil conservation behavior were
9621 * 0.172 + (2 * 0.93)2
3 Kolijan 432 6 higher than medium, and in total farmers had positive soil conserva-
Rostaq-e tion behavior. Behavior A (In order to fight against diseases and pests, I
Sofra
4 Mian 3617 45
use pesticides correctly as instructed, M=5.03, SD=1.05) and behavior
Doroud-e B (According to rice cultivation requirements, I try to plow rice fields
Kouchak with proper depth and at the right time, M=4.74, SD=1.17) had the
Total 9621 120 highest rating among the items of soil conservation behavior and
behavior K (I do not use sewage effluent to irrigate my rice field,
M=2.66, SD=1.88) and behavior L (After harvesting the rice, I grow
2. Materials and methods
dicotyledonous plants (peas, beans, beans, etc.), M=2.43, SD=1.55)
also had the lowest rank among the soil conservation measures.
The overall goal of the research was to pro-environmentally analyze
Furthermore, the results of ranking the items of other variables
the factors affecting farmers' concerns and behaviors towards soil
(soil conservation concern, attitude towards soil conservation, and
conservation in the central district of Sari, Iran. The study was carried
social pressures on soil conservation) in the conceptual framework (see
out in 2014. This research was a descriptive, causal, and correlational
Fig. 1) were presented in Table 2. These results showed that concern A
research in terms of data analysis. The study population consisted of all
(Litters around the rice fields make me worried about my family's
paddy farmers (N=9621) at the central district of Sari county (Jihad-e
health, M=5.23, SD=1) had the highest rating among the items of soil
Agriculture Organization of Sari County, 2014). Based on the Cochran's
conservation concern and concern F (I am concerned that the use of
formula, 120 farmers were selected using stratified random sampling
chemical fertilizers in my rice field results in the soil salinity, M=4.54,
proportional to size (Calculation of the sample size and the population
SD=1.52) had the lowest rank among the soil conservation concern
size in each stratum are presented in Table 1). The instrument
items. On the other hand, attitude A (Nature must be protected because
(research tool) employed in this study was a closed questionnaire
it is a sign of the existence of God, M=5.71, SD=0.50) and social
and self-administrated with its validity being confirmed by a number of
pressure A (Religious leaders recommend environmental conservation
agricultural extension and education and Jihad-Agriculture specialists.
as a matter of divine, M=4.68, SD=1.53) had the highest rank among
The reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's
the measures of attitude towards soil conservation and social pressure
alpha test for the variables measured by the Likert scale. The reliability
on soil conservation, respectively.
was also confirmed (0.66≤α≤0.90). The data analysis was performed
Demographic characteristics of the study are shown in Table 3. Of
using the SPSS22 software.
the respondents, there were 10% female and 90% male. The respon-
The major dependent variable in this study was "soil preservation
dents' mean age was about 46.59 years. Descriptive statistical findings
behavior", defined as "behaviors that people consciously do to reduce
for the classification of the participants with respect to education level
the negative effects of their actions on soil". With modifications to
showed that 7.6% of the respondents were illiterate, 11.7% had
comply with the study, a number of items were adapted from the
primary education, and 22.5 were of primary school education,
studies conducted by Salehi and Imam Gholi (2012), Azizi Khalkhili
29.2% had high school education, 17.5% have AA degree and 12.5%
et al. (2012), and Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002). Some items were also
of the participants were graduated. Moreover, 62.5% of rice farmers
researcher-made, developed by the authors. Further, the independent
were growing rice in their own rice farm and 19.2% of them were
variables affecting dependent variables consisted of: "Social pressures
working on rented rice farms and 15.8% of rice farmers were
on soil conservation", "attitude towards soil conservation", and "soil
simultaneously farming on their own and rented rice farms. The
conservation concern ". In order to design the items of these variables,
descriptive statistics for the variable "attending extension-training
the approaches and guidelines mentioned in Kollmuss and Agyeman
classes on soil conservation revealed that, out of 119 rice farmers,
(2002) was used; however, the final item design was done by the
90% (75%) had no such experience and only 29 rice farmers had
authors. To measure all the variables, a 6-point Likert scale (never (1),
benefited from such classes.
very low (2), low (3), medium (4), high (5), and very high (6)) was used.
To examine the relationship between variables, Pearson correlation
Ajzen (1991) defined attitude as "the extent on which a person
was primarily used. According to the correlation results (Table 4), the
evaluates the behavior favorable or unfavorable". In this regard, the
variables "attitude towards soil conservation" and "social pressures on
study variable "attitude towards soil conservation", inspired by the
soil conservation" have a significant positive correlation (p=0.01) with
definition provided by Ajzen, is defined as "the amount or extent that
the variable "soil conservation concern". The significant relationship
farmers consider soil conservation favorable or unfavorable". On the
between "attitude towards soil conservation" and "soil conservation
other hand, the variable social pressure is also defined as "the extent to
concerns" is consistent with the findings of Kollmuss and Agyeman
which farmers practices in the field of soil conservation are influenced
(2002) and Trumbo and O'Keefe (2005). However, it is not in line with
by those around them". This definition also inspired by the explanation
the findings of Corbett (2002). On the other hand, the relationship
presented by Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002). Moreover, based on a
between the variables "social pressures on soil conservation" and "pro-
thorough review of all studies in the field of environmental psychology
environmental concerns" confirms the findings of Price and Leviston
which were conducted up to 2002, the researchers in their study
(2014), Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), Trumbo and O'Keefe (2005)
introduced another variable called "pro-environmental concern" and
and Karppinen (2005) and rejects the findings of Corbett (2002) and
claimed that this variable acts as a mediating variable between some
Niaura (2013).
variables such as "attitude, social pressure" and "behavior". In this
It should be noted that some of scholars cited interesting findings
study, pro-environmental concern is defined as "farmers' sensitivity
about the relationship of social pressure on soil conservation and soil
and obsession for soil conservation". Other variables examined in this
conservation concerns. For instance, Willy and Holm-Müller (2013)

45
M. Bijani et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49

Table 2
Survey items and Cronbach's alpha coefficients.

Mean SD Rank Source

Soil conservation behavior (α=0.67)

1 In order to fight against diseases and pests, I use pesticides correctly as instructed. 5.03 1.05 A Researcher-made
2 According to rice cultivation requirements, I try to plow rice fields with proper depth and at 4.74 1.17 B Researcher-made
the right time.
3 I prefer organic and green fertilizers to chemical fertilizers. 3.64 1.64 C Azizi Khalkhili et al. (2012)
4 I will use conservative plow if the rice field is steep. 3.54 1.68 D Azizi Khalkhili et al. (2012)
5 In order to prevent pests (e.g. rice stem borer), I benefit from biological control 3.39 1.81 E Researcher-made
(Trichogramma).
6 After harvesting, I do not burn the remaining rice stalks (straws) left on the land. 3.17 1.69 G Azizi Khalkhili et al. (2012)
7 I use soil testing to determine fertilizer needs for soil. 2.88 1.64 J Researcher-made
8 I refuse the root and tuber crops (such as potatoes, carrots, etc.) as a second crop on my 3.22 1.85 F Researcher-made
farmland.
9 I gather the empty pesticide bottles and submit them to recycling operators. 3.13 1.87 H Salehi and Imam Gholi (2012); Kollmuss and
Agyeman (2002)
10 After harvesting the rice, I grow dicotyledonous plants (peas, beans, beans, etc.). 2.43 1.55 L Researcher-made
11 I avoid disposing household wastes on or around the farm. 3.09 2.18 I Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002)
12 I do not use sewage effluent to irrigate my rice field. 2.66 1.88 K Researcher-made

Soil conservation concern (α=0.90)

1 Litters around the rice fields make me worried about my family's health. 5.23 1 A Researcher-made
2 I am too concerned about tillage to grow rice and the loss of fertile soil. 4.85 1.08 E Researcher-made
3 In most cases, in not to contaminate the environment, I ask about the dosage of pesticides 5.09 1.23 C Researcher-made
prior to using them.
4 In most cases, the burning of rice straw by farmers obsesses me with the environment and 4.89 1.26 D Researcher-made
people's health.
5 I am concerned that the use of chemical fertilizers in my rice field results in the soil salinity. 4.54 1.52 F Researcher-made
6 Litters around the rice fields make me worried about my family's health. 5.22 1 B Researcher-made

Attitude towards soil conservation (α=0.90)

1 Nature must be protected because it is a sign of the existence of God. 5.71 0.50 A Researcher-made
2 Environment also belongs to the next generation so it must be protected. 5.57 0.75 C Researcher-made
3 Man is a part of the environment so its protection leads to his survival. 5.57 0.62 B Researcher-made
4 While using natural resources such as water and soil in their fields, farmers shall consider 5.48 0.67 D Researcher-made
their conservation too.
5 All creatures such as animals and plants have the right to live. 5.33 0.92 E Researcher-made

Social pressures on soil conservation (α=0.66)

1 Religious leaders recommend environmental conservation as a matter of divine. 4.68 1.53 A Researcher-made
2 Most villagers are sensitive about maintaining the sanitation of the fields around the village 4.16 1.44 B Researcher-made
by farmers.
3 If the empty pesticide bottles are left on the rice fields, other farmers criticize me. 3.97 1.65 C Researcher-made
4 Agriculture experts always recommend me to use organic and green fertilizers. 3.52 1.59 E Researcher-made
5 I do not burn rice straw after harvest, according to my wife and children' recommendation. 3.67 1.70 D Researcher-made

demonstrated that social influences could either be positive (encoura-
ging soil conservation) or negative (discouraging soil conservation).
But, the social pressure we considered in the study was the belief that
individuals would adopt a behavior (or not adopt) just because those
important to them think they should do so. Farmers who held such
belief had a higher soil conservation concerns and/or behaviors.
The findings also showed a significant positive correlation between
the variable "soil conservation concern" and "soil conservation atti-
tude". Such correlation is similar to the results obtained by Kollmuss
and Agyeman (2002). Further findings on the correlation between the
variables are provided in Table 4.
The ENTER analysis and path analysis were employed in order to
determine the explanatory power of the variables "soil conservation
behavior "and" soil conservation concern". Therefore, all independent
variables were simultaneously and in two stages (Since the study
conceptual framework was divided into two sub-models for the path
analysis) included in the analysis (Table 5) and direct, indirect, causal
and non-causal effects of the independent variables on the dependent
variable " soil conservation behavior" were investigated (Tables 5, 6).
Regarding the direct effects of independent variables on the dependent
variable "soil conservation behavior", the variable "social pressures on
soil conservation" had the highest direct and standard effect (β=0.389),
representing the relative importance of this variable compared to other
variables in explaining the variable "soil conservation behavior". As
indicated by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), social pressure has an
interwoven relationship with subjective norms. In other word, sub-
jective norms mirrors some degree of social pressure and therefore the
behavior of farmers may impact a farmer's intention on accepting a
particular practice.
Moreover, as shown in Fig. 2, the direct effect of the variables
"attitude towards soil conservation" and " soil conservation concerns "
on the variable "soil conservation behavior" was also significant (beta
values greater than 0.05 are considered significant). However, it should
be considered that the direct effects of these two variables on the soil
conservation behavior are lower than the direct effect of the variable
"social pressures on soil conservation". On the other hand, the results
of the analysis in terms of the direct effects of the variables "attitude
towards soil conservation "and "social pressures on soil conservation"
on the variable "soil conservation concerns" indicated that both
variables were of significant importance (predictive power) in explain-
ing the dependent variable. Comparing the direct effects of these two
variables reveals that the explanatory power of the variable "attitude
towards soil conservation" is greater than that of the variable "social
pressures on soil conservation ". To put in another words, these two
variables could predict 42% of the variance for the variable "soil
conservation concerns".
Considering the indirect effects (Table 6), the findings suggested
that the indirect effect of the variable "attitudes towards soil conserva-

46
M. Bijani et al. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49

Table 3 Table 5
Descriptive statistics of the study sample and population. Calculation of direct effects on the soil conservation behavior and concern.

Variable Level/Category Frequency Percent Valid Mean Independent B Beta t Sig. t

percent variables

Age (years) Young 10 8.3 9.8 46.59 First sub-model Constant 17.130 – 2.15 0.033
Middle-aged 44 36.7 43.1 (direct effects on Attitude towards soil 0.236 0.070 0.691 0.491
Elderly 40 33.3 39.2 behavior) conservation
Old 8 6.7 7.8 Soil conservation 0.160 0.084 0.770 0.439
No response 18 15 concerns
Social pressures on soil 0.682 0.398 4.450 0.001
Gender Male 108 90 conservation
Female 12 10
R=0.461 R2=0.213 R2Adj=0.192 F=10.45 Sig. F=0.001
Level of Illiterate 8 6.7 6.7
Education Primary 14 11.7 11.8 Second sub-model Constant - 0.6.92 – - 1.97 0.050
Secondary 27 22.5 22.7 (direct effects on Attitude towards soil 0.947 0.537 7.53 0.001
Diploma 35 29.2 29.4 concern) conservation
AA 21 17.5 17.6 Soil conservation 0.259 0.286 4.01 0.001
Bachelor 12 10 10.1 concerns
Postgraduate 3 1.7 1.7
No reply 1 0.8 R=0.652 R2=0.425 R2Adj=0.415 F=43.19 Sig. F=0.001

land Rented 23 19.2 19.7

ownership Property 75 62.5 64.1 Table 6
Rented–Property 19 15.8 16.2 Analysis of direct, indirect, causal and non-causal effects of variables affecting soil
No response 3 2.5 conservation behavior.

Attending the Yes 29 24.2 24.4 No. Variables Direct Indirect Total Non-
extension- No 90 75 75.6 effects effects effects causal
training No response 1 0.8 effects
classes on
soil 1 Attitude towards 0.070 0.045 0.116 0.075
conserva- soil conservation
tion in rice 2 Social pressures on 0.398 0.024 0.422 0.137
fields soil conservation
3 Soil conservation 0.084 – 0.084 0.194
concerns
tion" (0.537×0.084=0.045) is greater than the indirect effect of the
variable "social pressures on soil conservation" (0.286×0.084=0.024).
One of the main reasons for this result is that the direct effect of the
variable "attitude towards soil conservation" on the variable "soil
conservation concerns" (β=0.537) is greater than the direct effect of
its corresponding variable (β=0.286) on "soil conservation concern ".
Despite that fact, the total effect of the variable "social pressures on soil
conservation" (0.398+0.024=0.422) compared to the total effects of the
variables "attitude towards soil conservation" (0.070+0.045=0.116)
and "soil conservation concern" (0.084) was slightly greater. This is
also because the direct effects of the variables "attitude towards soil
conservation" and "soil conservation concern" in the analysis were
lower. With regard to the non-causal effects of the variables in the given
path analysis, it was observed that, of the variables affecting "soil Fig. 2. Casual (path) model and path coefficients of the variables.
conservation behavior", the variable "soil conservation concern" re-
presents the greatest non-causal effect (0.191–0.016=0.075) and this for the variable "soil conservation concern" is at an acceptable and/or
shows that other variables or factors may have affected the relationship favorable level (R2 =0.42). One reason for the low explanatory power of
between these two variables. In general, considering direct, indirect, the variable behavior can be found in the study conducted by Valizadeh
causal and non-causal effects of the independent variables on the et al. (2016). They reached results similar to the findings of the present
variables "soil conservation protection" and "soil conservation con- study to explain the farmers' participatory behavior towards conserva-
cerns", it can be said that explanatory power of the independent tion of water resources. One of the justifications mentioned to explain
variables for the soil conservation behavior is not at a high level (R2 the low explanatory power of the behavior was that the chain behavior
=0.21); however, the explanatory power of the independent variables was long in their behavior framework (three loops); however, farmers'

Table 4
Correlation matrix of the conceptual framework variables.

Soil conservation behavior Soil conservation concern Social pressures Attitude towards soil conservation

Soil conservation behavior 1

Soil conservation concern 0.278** 1
Social pressures 0.422** 0.382** 1
Attitude towards soil conservation 0.191* 0.588** 0.178* 1

**
Sig. at 0.05 error

47
M. Bijani et al.
participatory behavior, in practice, does not follow such a long causal
chain. Inspired by this argument to explain the variables soil con-
servation behavior and soil conservation concerns, it can be claimed
that the causal framework provided in this study is appropriate. This
conclusion can be justified in two ways. First, the variable soil
conservation behavior is considered as a subsequent variable for the
variable soil conservation concern. Theoretically, the amount of
variance explained for it will be lower than the pro-environmental
concern. Second, the (overall) causal effects of three variables (includ-
ing attitude towards soil conservation, soil conservation concern and
social pressures on soil conservation) on farmers' soil conservation
behaviors have been significant.
4. Conclusion and recommendations
Since the effects of variables "attitude towards soil conservation",
"social pressures on soil conservation" and "soil conservation concern"
on “soil conservation behavior" showed that these variables have a
significant effects on the soil conservation behavior. Accordingly, it can
be claimed that the presented framework (causal chain) and its
variables are of an acceptable reliability. Hence, it is highly recom-
mended that the role and status of such empirical frameworks are
taken into consideration in social and encouraging soil conservation
programs.
Of the variables having a direct effect on the soil conservation
behavior, the variable "social pressures on soil conservation" had the
most significant beta coefficient, compared to other variables. In this
regard, the officials of institutions and organizations such as
Agriculture Extension Organization which are directly interact with
farmers, with a focus on issues related to agricultural soils, can result in
farmers' higher sensitivity and higher social pressures on soil con-
servation. In other word, the current extension policies need to be
reinforced to incorporate trends that recognize the critical role played
by social environment of farmers and subjective norms in enlight-
enment and diffusion of information and manners including soil
conservation activities. Willy and Holm-Müller (2013) have also
focused on this milestone and have recommended that one possible
approach to attain soil conservation is through strategies that consider
local groups and facilitate capacity building and social capital strength-
ening through training of trainers within the community to strengthen
local knowledge, leadership and innovativeness in the field of soil
conservation. In addition, community participatory policies could be
enhanced as an incentive for cooperation in participatory action on
management of soil resources.
Although research findings suggest that a "favorable attitude
towards soil conservation" has no remarkable direct effect on the soil
conservation behavior (though it had a significant effect on the
behavior), when these findings are compared with the findings on the
total effect of attitude towards soil conservation (significant total effect
in explaining behavior), it can be concluded that the executive officials
of the Ministry of Agriculture and prospective researchers can still
regard "farmers' attitudes towards soil conservation" as a factor
affecting their soil conservation behavior. These findings can be
practical and appropriate for executive officials since, instead of making
efforts to direct change the behavior, they can first focus on conceptual
changes and persuasive changes like changing attitudes towards soil
conservation. This suggestion is of use since it is has been proven that
conceptual changes and persuasive changes (such as changes in
attitude) are much easier than changing individuals' behaviors. On
the other hand, it was also suggested that future researchers can benefit
from the findings regarding the effect of farmers' attitudes towards soil
conservation on soil conservation behavior since further research
would provide more rational reasons and argumentation on the
development of a comprehensive model to investigate the factors
affecting farmers' participation in soil conservation practices.
48
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49
References
Abbasian, A. R., Chizari, M., & Bijani, M. (2017). Farmers' views on the factors inhibiting
the implementation of soil conservation practices (The case of Koohdasht Township,
Iran). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology (JAST), 19(4).
Adams, E. A. (2014). Behavioral attitudes towards water conservation and re-use among
the United States public. Resources and Environment, 4(3), 162–167.
Agheli-e Kohneshari, L., & Sadeghi, H. (2005). Estimating the economic impacts of soil
erosion in Iran. Quarterly Journal of the Economic Research, 15, 87–100.
Aguilar‐Luzón, M. D. C., García‐Martínez, J. M.Á., Calvo‐Salguero, A., & Salinas, J. M.
(2012). Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the value–
belief–norm model regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives' recycling
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2797–2833.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Andersson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability in the
MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of Business Ethics,
59(3), 295–305.
Azizi Khalkhili, T., Bakhshi Jahromi, A., & Bijani, M. (2012). Soil conservative behavior
of farmers: The role of information and communication media. Iranian Agricultural
Extension and Education Journal, 7(2), 51–61.
Bayat, N., Rastegar, A., & Azizi, F. (2011). Environmental conservation and management
of soil resources in Iran's rural areas. Journal Management System, 1(2),
63–78 (In Persian).
Bijani, M., & Hayati, D. (2015). Farmers' perceptions toward agricultural water conflict:
The case of Doroodzan dam irrigation network, Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science
and Technology (JAST), 17(3), 561–575.
Bindraban, P. S., van der Velde, M., Ye, L., van den Berg, M., Materechera, S., Kiba, D. I.,
& van Lynden, G. (2012). Assessing the impact of soil degradation on food
production. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(5), 478–488.
Corbett, J. B. (2002). Motivations to participate in riparian improvement programs
applying the theory of planned behavior. Science Communication, 23(3), 243–263.
Ghazani, E., & Bijani, M. (2016). Application of environmental attitudes toward
analyzing farmers’ pro-environmental behavior in order to soil conservation (the
case of rice farmers in the central part of Sari Township). Iranian Journal of
Agricultural Economic and Development Research, 2–47(1), 81–91 (In Persian).
Gross, M., & Heinrichs, H. (Eds.). (2010). Environmental sociology (In Persian). .
Springer.
Hejazi, Y., & Eshaghi, S. R. (2014). Explaining rural people environmental behavior
based on the theory of planned behavior: A case from west provinces of Iran. Iranian
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 45(2),
257–267 (In Persian).
Hsu, Y. H. (2003). An integrated model for investigation of social-psychological
influences on college students' attitudinal Tendencies toward appropriate
environmental behavior: A study in Taiwan (Ph.D. Dissertation )(Not published).
The Ohio State University.
Jihad-e Agriculture Organization of Sari County (2014). Statistics of Farmers in
Mazandaran Province. Unpublished report, (In Persian).
Karppinen, H. (2005). Forest owners' choice of reforestation method: An application of
the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 393–409.
Kibblewhite, M. G., Bellamy, P. H., Brewer, T. A., Graves, A. R., Dawson, C. A., Rickson,
R. J., & Stuart, J. (2014). An exploration of spatial risk assessment for soil
protection: Estimating risk and establishing priority areas for soil protection. Science
of the Total Environment, 473, 692–701.
Klöckner, C. A. (2013). A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental
behavior-A meta-analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1028–1038.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8(3), 239–260.
Latif, S. A., Omar, M. S., Bidin, Y. H., & Awang, Z. (2013). Role of environmental
knowledge in creating pro-environmental residents. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 105, 866–874.
Mahboobi, M., & Sepehrara, M. (2013). Farmers' professional ethics toward soil
conservation. Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology, 8(3), 25–35.
Menatizadeh, M., & Zamani, G. H. (2012). Development of farmers’ environmental
behavior model in Shiraz County. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education
Journal, 7(2), 63–74 (In Persian).
Niaura, A. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to investigate the determinants
of environmental behavior among youth. Environmental Research, Engineering and
Management, 63(1), 74–81.
Noorollah-Noorivandi, A., Ajili, A., Chizari, M., & Bijani, M. (2009). The socio-economic
characteristics of farmers regarding adoption of sustainable soil management.
Journal of Human Ecology, 27(3), 201–205.
Price, J. C., & Leviston, Z. (2014). Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices:
The social, psychological and contextual influences on land management. Journal of
Rural Studies, 34, 65–78.
Rouhani, B. (2013). Soil protection becomes legal in Iran. Journal of Food Knowledge
and Agriculture, 11(104), 22.
Salehi, S., & Imam Gholi, L. (2012). Investigation of social capital impact on the
environmental behavior (case study: Kurdistan province). Iranian Journal of
Sociology, 13(4), 90–115 (In Persian).
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
M. Bijani et al.
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Tien, H. N. (2009). Human ecological analysis of land and forest use by the Hmong
people for harmonising with the governmental reforestation program in Vietnam.
Institut für Internationale Forst- und Holzwirtschaft.
Trumbo, C. W., & O'Keefe, G. J. (2005). Intention to conserve water: Environmental
values, reasoned action, and information effects across time. Society and Natural
Resources, 18(6), 573–585.
Valizadeh, N., Bijani, M., & Abbasi, E. (2016). Pro-environmental analysis of farmers'
49
International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5 (2017) 43–49
participatory behavior toward conservation of surface water resources in southern
sector of Urmia Lake's catchment area. Iranian Agricultural Extension and
Education Journal, 11(2), 183–201 (In Persian).
Willy, D. K., & Holm-Müller, K. (2013). Social influence and collective action effects on
farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya. Ecological Economics, 90, 94–103.
Yazdanpanah, M., Hayati, D., & Zamani, G. H. (2011). Application of cultural theory in
analysis of attitude and behavior toward water resource conservation: The case of
Jahad-Keshavarzi staffs in Bushehr Province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and
Education Journal, 7(2), 1–19 (In Persian).