Environ Dev Sustain (2008) 10:407–426

DOI 10.1007/s10668-006-9072-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural

development models using AHP

K. Rezaei-Moghaddam Æ E. Karami

Received: 25 April 2006 / Accepted: 29 July 2006 / Published online: 5 January 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract Selection of the appropriate agricultural development model has become

an important issue in Iran. Using data from Fars province of Iran, the purpose of this
paper is to use analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting between the two
competing sustainable agricultural development models, which have been developed
based on the general tenets of Ecological Modernization (EM) and De-Moderni-
zation (DM) theories. Farmers, environmentalists, board members of rural
cooperative, rural women and experts from Fars Agricultural (Jehad-e-Keshavarzi)
Organization participated in application of AHP to this study. They applied AHP to
determine the priority of DM and EM based sustainable agricultural development
models. Each group determined the priority of the two models for sustainable
agricultural development. The findings indicated that ecological criteria i.e. wise use
of resources, environmental protection and product quality are the most important
criteria for sustainable agriculture of Iran, followed by economic criterion employ-
ment and social criterion participation. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to
determine the critical factors that affected the priority of alternatives. The results
indicated that EM-based sustainable agricultural development model has a higher
priority as the theoretical base of agricultural development of Iran.

Keywords AHP Æ De-Modernization Æ Ecological Modernization Æ Iran Æ Sustainable

agricultural development model

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of
publication of this issue

K. Rezaei-Moghaddam Æ E. Karami (&)

Department of Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
e-mail: ekarami@shirazu.ac.ir
K. Rezaei-Moghaddam
e-mail: rezaei@shirazu.ac.ir
123
408 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

1 Introduction

After World War II, most development thinkers stated that the problem of
‘‘underdevelopment’’ or ‘‘backwardness’’ could be solved by a more or less
mechanical application of the economic and political system in the west to countries
in the third world. Therefore, the central element of this theory is the metaphor of
growth, and the identification of growth with the idea of progress (Servaes, 1991). In
the modernization theory, the definition of a modern nation resembled Western
industrialized nations in terms of political and economic behavior and institutions,
attitudes toward technology, etc. (Melkote, 1998).
The crisis in development theory became visible for the first time in the 1970s,
when the notion of modernity as such was called into question. Failures, malcon-
ceptions and lack of success in the practice of development aid led to a distrust of
modernization theory and its sociological underpinnings as represented by Talcott
Parson’s duality of structure and function (Glaeser, 2000). The environmental crisis
is not simply a flaw, whether correctable or fatal, of modernity but rather something
that starts early in modernity’s history and now runs broadly through it (Norgaard,
2000). These have encouraged belief that ecological concern is central to the politics
and practice of development (Yearley, 1997). Then, it was contended that devel-
opment and the environment form a dialectical union, the separation of which would
bring harmful results for the social development of the rural poor in their achieve-
ment of self-reliance (ecodevelopment, sustainable development) (Glaeser, 2000).
Agricultural development has been based on Modernization theory in the late
decades especially in third world. The beginning of modernization of Iranian agriculture
was most marked by the land reform of 1962. The land reform was perceived as
prerequisite to any effort to modernize the traditional, prominently rural society of
Iran. However, analysis of development policies shows that this theory has produced
negative impacts such as uneven development, poverty and environmental degra-
dation (Lahsaeizadeh, 1993; Karami, 1993; Malakouti, 2000; Yazdi-Samadi, 1989).
The concern for environmental problem was the major contributing factor to loss of
faith in this path to development (Karami, 1993). The conventional development
strategies are fundamentally limited in their ability to promote sustainable agricul-
tural development of Iran (Karami, 1993; Salmanzadeh, 1996).
Considering the theoretical crises of agricultural development, using data from
Fars province of Iran, the purpose of this paper is to use analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) for selecting among the two competing sustainable agricultural development
models which have been developed based on the general tenets of Ecological
Modernization (EM) and De-Modernization (DM) theories (Rezaei-Moghaddam,
Karami, & Gibson, 2005).

1.1 The two alternatives

1.1.1 Alternative 1: DM-based sustainable agricultural development model

The ‘‘theorists of counterproductivity’’ have been very influential within the envi-
ronmental movement in the 1970s. They claimed that it was environmental and
ecological deterioration that could be held as proof of the modernization project
being a dead end. The view of these theorists about industrialization is strong
rejection of modernity and modernization as relevant categories for environmental
123
Sustainable agricultural development models 409

reform (Mol, 2003). Because of their insisting on the partial or total dismantling of
the industrial system, the counterproductivity stream of thought has been referred to
as DM theorists. DM theorists stress the all-negative influence on nature of modern
and scientific technological projects. They maintain that a radical goodbye to
advanced, complex technologies—often coupled with economic sobriety—remains
the only viable and feasible strategy for conquering the ecological crisis (Mol, 1995).
DM theorists writing from a DM perspective, see local autonomy or even autarky as
realizable (Spaargaren & Mol, 1992). DM theory stresses the lesser importance of
economic and market dynamics in ecological reform, and the role of innovators,
entrepreneurs and other economic agents (Mol, 1996). This theory believes a nec-
essary ‘‘withering away’’ of the state should go hand in hand with decentralization of
both production and government structures (Mol, 1995). Based on DM theory, only
the subordination of modern economic reason in major sectors of the economy
to- among others—ecological reason will allow for an environmentally and socially
benign development (Mol, 1996).
Figure 1 depicts the directions’ agriculture could take based on the DM and EM
approaches to development. If we accept the tenets of DM theory, the only way for
sustainable agricultural development and solution of environmental crisis, is to
neglect modernization and industrialization due to its negative impacts in this sector.
Adopting DM-based sustainable agricultural development model, agricultural

DM EM

Traditional Conventional Hypermodern

ISSUES Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture

Structure of De-industrialization Hyper-industrialization

Production Indigenous structure Ecological restructuring

Traditional More modern

Technology
technology Clean-up technology

Source of Indigenous
Scientific research
knowledge knowledge

Economic
Social economy Ecological economy
relations
Withering away of Modern environmental
Role of state
the state state

Economic and
Rationality Only ecological
ecological

Primary aim of Productivity and

Conservation
development conservation

Fig. 1 Comparison of major issues of agricultural development based on DM and EM theories

123
410 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

development issues become reduced to de-modernize agriculture by using indige-

nous practices to preserve the environment. Assuming that modern technology is the
cause of all environmental problems, there is a tendency to transform conventional
agriculture to traditional farming systems. It is assumed that a traditional agriculture
system based on indigenous knowledge, technology and social organization can
maintain biological diversity and conserve natural resources. This model rejects the
importance of economic and market dynamics. Instead they emphasize the social
economy and local independence from world market for agricultural development.
DM based model believes to withering away of the state and radical decentralization
in agricultural development policies. This model says that only the subordination of
economic rationality to ecological rationality in agricultural sector, will result in an
appropriate agricultural development, so that the primary aim for agricultural
development, is conservation of nature.

1.1.2 Alternative 2: EM-based sustainable agricultural development model

EM theory was first developed in the early 1980s. The basic premise in EM theory is
the centripetal movement of ecological interests, ideas and considerations in social
practices and institutional developments, which results in the constant ecological
restructuring of modern society (Mol, 2003). EM may be viewed as an experiment in
carrying out a vital task of modern society, that of new identity construction (Fudge
& Rowe, 2001). EM theory says that the only possible way out of the ecological crisis
is by going further into the process of modernization, towards what is called hyper-or
super-industrialization (Mol, 1995). Super-industrialization involves addressing
environmental problems primarily through the transformation of production via the
development and application of more sophisticated technologies (Murphy, 2000).
Indeed EM is bound up with technological innovation. EM involves the invention,
innovation and diffusion of new clean (or cleaner) technologies that demonstrate
improved environmental and economic performance (Gouldson & Murphy, 1996).
Ecologizing the economy is central to EM theory. The ‘‘ecological economy’’ is
based on increasing efficiency and maintaining substance (Simonis, 1989). EM
amends the traditional central role of the state in environmental reform. Although
EM theory is critical of the role of a strong bureaucratic state in the redirection of
processes of production and consumption, it does not necessarily deny the indis-
pensability of the state in environmental management as some of the theory’s critics
assert (Mol, 1996). So, the integration of environmental policy goals into all policy
areas of government is considered as central to a program of EM (Murphy, 2000).
EM theory is a coming together of the ‘‘clean environment coalition’’ with the
‘‘economic feasibility coalition’’ (Marx, 2000). Rather than perceiving the goals of
environmental protection to be a brake on development, EM theory promotes the
application of stringent environmental policy as a positive influence on economic
efficiency (Gouldson & Murphy, 1996).
Through EM world-view agricultural development can be defined as transfor-
mation of conventional agriculture to hypermodern agriculture. According to
EM-based sustainable agricultural development model, the structure of production
for agricultural development should be based on hyper-industrialization in this
sector (Rezaei-Moghaddam et al., 2005). Also, policy making in this sector, due to
negative impacts of agricultural industrial practices, should be based on ecological
restructuring of these practices (in order to achieve increased production and re-
123
Sustainable agricultural development models 411

duced degradation of environment) and application of ecomodern (environmental)

technologies and new agricultural sciences in different stages of production. The
general direction of development in this respect is symbolized by the shift from the
remedial strategy involving end-of-pipe technology (science) to preventive strategies
involving clean-up technologies (sciences) based on precautionary principle. This
model says that economic concepts, mechanisms and principles should be integrated
in agricultural development policies by ‘‘economization of ecology’’, that means
increased efficiency in material cycles. Indeed, ecological and economic rationality,
are seen as having their own legitimacy in agricultural development so that primary
aim of development policies based on EM, is integration of increased productivity
and conservation of nature (Rezaei-Moghaddam et al., 2005). Based on this model,
the state can help in actions of market forces and NGOs related to agricultural
sector. Then, the role of the state in agricultural development planning changes from
curative and reactive to preventive, and from ‘‘closed’’ policy-making to participative
policy-making that farmers play a key role in decision making and implementation
of governmental policies in this sector.

2 The AHP

The AHP, proposed by Thomas L. Saaty, is one of the most commonly applied
multicriteria decision making techniques. It is a powerful and comprehensive meth-
odology designed to facilitate sound decision making by using both empirical data as
well as subjective judgments of the decision maker. It combines tangible and intan-
gible aspects in order to derive a ratio scale, the abstract scale of priorities, which is
valid to make complex decisions (Al Khalil, 2002; Escobar, Aguaron, & Moreno-
Jimenes, 2004; Solnes, 2003). The AHP was developed to solve a specific class of
problems that involves prioritization of potential alternative solutions (Byun, 2001).
It is a well-known tool for decision-making in operational analysis (Solnes, 2003).
AHP usually involves three major stages (components) i.e. decomposition,
comparative judgment, and synthesis of priorities (Chen & Huang, 2004; Wind &
Saaty, 1980):
(1) AHP starts by decomposing a complex problem into a hierarchy; each level
consists of a few manageable elements and each element is, in turn, decomposed
into another set of elements. The process continues down to the most specific
elements of the problem, typically the specific courses of action considered,
which are represented at the lowest level of the hierarchy. Structuring any
decision problem hierarchically is an efficient way of dealing with complexity
and identifying the major components of the problem. Building a hierarchy is as
much an art as it is a science. There is no single general hierarchical structure,
and one of the major attributes of the AHP is the flexibility it allows decision
makers in constructing a hierarchy to fit their idiosyncratic needs.
(2) A measurement methodology is used to establish priorities among the elements
within each stratum of the hierarchy. This is accomplished by asking the
participating decision makers (board members of environmental movements,
rural women and farmers in our study) to evaluate each set of elements in a
pairwise fashion with respect to each of the elements in a higher stratum. This
measurement methodology provides the framework for data collection and

123
412 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

analysis and constitutes heart of the AHP. Structurally, the hierarchy is broken
down into a series of pair comparison matrices, and the participants are asked to
evaluate the off—diagonal relationship in one half of each matrix. The 9-point
scale used in typical analytic hierarchy studies is ranging from 1 (indifference or
equal importance) to 9 (extreme preference or absolute importance) (Table 1).
This pairwise comparison enabled the decision maker to evaluate the contri-
bution of each factor to the objective independently, thereby simplifying the
decision making process. In our study, the nine criteria were compared in pairs
to measure their impacts on the overall objective. Also, the two alternatives
were compared in pairs to measure their importance under each criterion.
(3) A measurement theory to establish the priorities of the elements of the hier-
archy and the consistency of the judgmental data provided by the group of
respondents. Indeed, we calculate the priorities and the consistency in this
stage. Calculate of priorities is used to compare the relative contribution of the
elements in each level of the hierarchy to an element in the adjacent upper
level. Synthesis of priorities was conducted to calculate a composite weight for
each alternative, based on preferences drived from the comparison matrix.
Following the calculation of the composite weight, we obtained the relative
priority of the sustainable agricultural development models for agricultural
development. The consistency in AHP is defined as the cardinal transitivity
between judgments (Escobar et al., 2004). A consistency ratio provides a
measure of the probability that the pairwise comparison matrix was filled in
purely at random. The number .2 says that there is a 20% chance that the
decision maker will answer the questions in random manner (Byun, 2001). The
inconsistency measures the logical inconsistency of judgments and is useful for
identifying possible errors in judgments as well as actual inconsistencies in the
judgments themselves. In general, the consistency ratio should be less than .1
(Hafeez, Zhang, & Malak, 2002). If the consistency ratio is greater than .1 then
Table 1 The comparison scale in AHP

Intensity of Definition Explanation

Importance

1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally

3 Weak importance
of one over another
5 Essential or strong importance
7 Demonstrated importance
9 Absolute importance
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the
two adjacent judgments
Reciprocals of If activity i has one of the above
above nonzero nonzero numbers assigned
to it when compared with
activity j, then j
has the reciprocal value
when compared with i.
to the objective
Experience and judgment slightly favor
one activity over another
Experience and judgment strongly favor
one activity over another
An activity is strongly favored and its
dominance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one activity
over another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
When compromise is needed

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 413

the decision makers have to re-evaluate their judgments in pairwise comparison

matrix until the ratio is finally less than .1.
The guidelines suggested by the AHP can be subjected to a number of sensitivity
analyses aimed at establishing the critical priority range for each of the strategy
alternatives considered (Hafeez et al., 2002; Wind & Saaty, 1980).
Numerous applications of the AHP have been made since its development and it
has been applied to many types of decision problems (Byun, 2001). The AHP can be
applied to any allocation of resources, choice prediction, cases in which the buying or
marketing decision involves a number of participants with conflicting perceptions or
objectives (Wind & Saaty, 1980), sustainable development planning (Quaddus &
Siddique, 2001), risk and benefits of the alternatives for the human exploration of
Mars (Tavana, 2004), project delivery method (Al Khalil, 2002), industrial devel-
opment alternatives, risk analysis and evaluation of environmental consequences
(Solnes, 2003), and multi-media authorizing system (MAS) (Lai, Wong, & Cheung,
2002). The AHP can also be extended to more complex cases such as the con-
struction of non-linear hierarchies, time dependent judgments, and the weighting of
the judgments by the respondents’ perceived expertise (Wind & Saaty, 1980).
Schoemaker and Waid have compared several commonly used multicriteria
decision making techniques, including AHP, multiple regression, and the multiat-
tribute utility approach (Tavana, 2004). They show that all three methods produce
similar results, but each has advantages over the others under certain circumstances.
In their opinion, AHP does not assume consistency among preferences, while the
construction of a utility function by the multiattribute utility approach requires a
transitive preference relation. In addition, AHP produces more detailed information
on pairwise comparisons, and it is applicable to nonmeasurable criteria. Thus, AHP
is preferred to multiple regression for qualitative criteria because these criteria do
not allow for an easy derivation of measurable attributes (Tavana, 2004). Successful
application to different decision problems and its appropriateness for the problem at
hand was the reason for adopting AHP in the decision process of selecting
sustainable agricultural development model in this study.

3 Research method

This study was conducted in Fars province of Iran. Data were collected in different
stages: first, 15 farmers, 15 agricultural specialists and managers of Fars Agricultural
(Jehad-e-Keshavarzi) Organization and 5 board members of environmental move-
ments associations were interviewed to determine the sustainable agricultural
development criteria. A discussion of the nine criteria developed in this stage is
presented in next section. Then, we interviewed four groups (see next section) to
determine how they perceived the relative importance of these criteria. A ques-
tionnaire was developed based on the AHP. Each question consisted of a pairwise
comparison of two criteria. Therefore, the nine criteria resulted in a total of 36
questions. The respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of the two
criteria with respect to the overall goal. Finally, the authors compared the alterna-
tives (DM- and EM-based sustainable agricultural development models) with
respect to each criterion in a consensus fashion.
The analytic hierarchy was programmed in Expert Choice-a decision support
system that implements the process. We first calculated the geometric means of the
123
414 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

marked responses in each question from each of the participants. Then, the com-
parison matrix was input into Expert Choice to produce local weights at each level of
the hierarchy. These were then combined using an additive value model to produce a
set of global weight or priorities for the alternatives. Finally, a sensitivity analysis
was performed to determine the critical evaluation criteria that affect the selection
strategy.

3.1 The groups involved in the decision process

One of the main characteristics of the AHP is the possibility that AHP offers
in-group decision making (Byun, 2001; Chen & Huang, 2004; Escobar et al., 2004;
Lai et al., 2002). The AHP can be used by a team to enhance the quality of group
decisions by bringing structure to the decision making process and by synthesizing
different points of view. Dyer and Forman commented that the AHP, when used in a
group setting, can (1) accommodate both tangible and intangible characteristics,
individual values and shared values in the group decision process, (2) help structure
a group decision so that the discussion centers on objectives rather than on alter-
natives, (3) allow discussion to continue until all available and pertinent information
have been considered and a consensus choice of the alternative most likely to
achieve the organization’s stated objectives is achieved (Lai et al., 2002). The
application of the AHP to support group decisions has proven to be contributive in
several research studies (Byun, 2001; Chen & Huang, 2004; Lai et al., 2002; Solnes,
2003). Lai et al. (2002) report the results of a case study where the AHP was
employed to support the selection of a MAS in a group decision environment. Byun
(2001) has applied the AHP for deciding on car purchase between 13 managers as a
group of decision makers. The AHP has been used between seven experts to eval-
uate the risks and benefits associated with three alternative mission architecture
scenarios for the human exploration of Mars (Tavana, 2004). Their findings have
validated the AHP as an effective and flexible tool for group decision making
because it can form a systematic framework for conducting structured group
sessions. Different groups were involved in three stages in this study. A brief
discussion of these stages and the groups is presented below.

3.1.1 Stage one: Selection of criteria

At this stage of building the model we faced the crucial question of who should
determine the criteria of sustainable agriculture. The stakeholders of agriculture are
the one who could legitimize these criteria. In-depth interview technique was used to
collect information from stakeholders with regard to the criteria of a sustainable
agriculture. Farmers are among the most important stakeholders who should have a
voice in selecting the criteria of sustainable agriculture. In all, 15 farmers including 7
elite farmers (see next section for description) and 8 randomly selected farmers who
visited Fars Jehad-e-Keshavarzi organization were interviewed. The second group
was 15 agricultural specialists including subject matter specialists and head of
different departments of Fars Jehad-e-Keshavarzi organization. They were included
because they are policy makers, planners and leaders of agricultural development
plans. In a multifunction agriculture, environmental movement associations are
strong stakeholders, therefore, their views should be considered. Five board
members of Green Development Society, a well-known environmental movement
123
Sustainable agricultural development models 415

Table 2 The criteria for sustainable agriculture

Criteria Different groups of study

Farmers Agricultural Environmental Literature review
specialists movements

Economic
1. Productivity * * * *
2. Profitability * * * *
3. Employment * *
Social
4. Life quality * *
(Health, well-being, ...)
5. Equity (Poverty alleviation) * * * *
6. Participation * * *
Ecological
7. Environmental protection * * * *
(Biodiversity, inhibition of
emissions, ...)
8. Wise use of resources * * * *
9. Product quality * * *

association were also interviewed. Furthermore, existing literature was considered

an important source for mining the criteria of sustainable agriculture.
End results of this stage was selection of nine criteria for sustainable agriculture
(Table 2) including productivity, profitability, employment, quality of life, equity,
participation, environmental protection, wise use of resources and quality of prod-
ucts. These criteria could be classified into three main categories of economic, social
and ecological, which will be briefly described below:

Economic criteria The analysis indicated that sustainable agriculture is not eco-
nomically viable if it is not profitable, productive and does not reduce unemployment.

Social criteria The in-depth interviews with stakeholders revealed that the quality
of farmers’ life, equity and participation are important social criteria of sustainable
agriculture. In all, it should be socially supportive.

Ecological criteria The stakeholders believed that sustainable agriculture should be

ecologically sound. They included preservation of environment, wise use of
resources and quality of products as required criteria of sustainable agriculture.

Although, there was a general consensus about these criteria there were some
exceptions. Employment and life quality were considered only by farmers and in the
literature as important criteria. Participation of stakeholders in development process
and quality of products were not considered by farmers and environmentalists to be
criteria of sustainable development, respectively.

3.1.2 Stage two: Pairwise comparison of criteria

At this stage the following four groups were involved in pairwise comparison of the
nine criteria.

123
416 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

Green Development Society Green Development Society was established in 2001.

It is a public and non-governmental organization (NGOs). The Society believes that
the major obstacle to sustainable development of Iran is insufficient knowledge of
people with regard to environmental hazards. As a result, the Society’s main
objective is to increase the people’s knowledge and environmental awareness to
achieve sustainable development. The Society has 400 members and the structure of
Society consists of board of trustees, board of directors and board of executives. Its
scientific activities is divided in following committees: scientific committee of agri-
cultural and natural resources, scientific committee of environment and sustainable
development, scientific committee of energy and materials, scientific committee of
hygiene and health, scientific committee of pollutants and environmental pollutants,
scientific committee of biodiversity, committee of law affairs in environmental
problems and cultural, economical and social committee. Three board members of
this Society with agricultural specialties in agriculture and sustainable development
were selected for pairwise comparison of the criteria.

Elite farmers Ministry of Agriculture (Jehad-e-Keshavarzi) annually chooses elite

farmers to create motivation and competition in agricultural sector of Iran. These
farmers are selected because they have exceptional production records or they have
carried out appropriate operations in different stages of production and have
increased production with minimum and wise use of resources such as fertilizer,
pesticides and water. Seven elite farmers were involved in this stage.

Lapuei’s Sustainable Development Cooperative Lapuei district is near Shiraz in

Fars province of Iran. The board of directors consists of 7 specialists and farmers
interested in sustainable development of the region. The purpose of the Cooperative
is poverty alleviation, application of new sciences, increasing environmental
knowledge, participation of people and wise use of resources to achieve sustainable
development. The coop was established in 2001. The Cooperative has carried out
many activities such as training men and women, providing comprehensive study of
Lapuei, establishing a technical center for employment, and increasing knowledge
of environmental protection and self-reliance among people. Four board members of
Lapuei’s Sustainable Development Cooperative participate in this stage of research.

Lapuei’s Women Committee This Committee was established in Lapuei’s

Sustainable Development Cooperative in 2002. The purpose of this committee is
empowerment of women in the Lapuei district by employment and participation of
women in society to achieve sustainable development. The board of directors con-
sists of 9 women and the Committee has a representative in the board of directors of
Lapuei’s Sustainable Development Cooperative. The Committee has carried out
many activities in the past 2 years and played a key role in poverty alleviation among
women in Lapuei. Establishing an information bank in Lapuei, providing advisory
services in health, food and education to families, organizing a symposium with
cooperation of UNESCO on women participation and sustainable development,
establishing an educational center to empower women are some of the activities of
the Committee. Since this is the most active women organization with regard to
sustainable development, 9 board members of this organization were involved in
selection of sustainable agriculture criteria.

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 417

In a group setting, many methods can be used to accommodate the views and
judgments of group participants in the priority setting process. In a common
objective context where all participants share the same objectives, there are four
ways to set the priorities: consensus, vote or compromise, geometric mean of the
individuals’ judgments, and separate models or players (Lai et al., 2002). Consensus
refers to the achievement of a consensus of group participants in constructing a
hierarchy and making judgments. If a consensus cannot be reached, the group may
then choose to vote or compromise on a judgment. If a consensus cannot be achieved
and the group is unwilling to vote or to compromise, then a geometric mean
(average) of the individuals’ judgments can be calculated. The geometric mean is an
appropriate rule for combining individual judgments to obtain the group judgment
for each pairwise comparison. In this study we first calculated the geometric means
of the marked responses in each question from each of the respondents. Then, they
were input the comparison matrix into Expert Choice to produce local weights at
each level of the hierarchy.

3.1.3 Stage three: Pairwise comparison of alternatives with regard to criteria

We can combine different parts of a model with different sets of active participants
in-group decision-making. For example, people with expertise in one area might
make judgments about one cluster of objectives in the decision hierarchy, while
another group of people expert in another area doing the same for a different
cluster. Still another group might enter ratings or data in all or parts of the data grid
(Expert Choice, 2000). The researchers who had a strong background on theoretical
base of the models (EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural development)
preformed the analysis of this stage. At this stage, pairwise comparisons on the
alternative sustainable agricultural development models with respect to the nine
criteria were performed. Consensus method was used to set the priorities at this
stage of the research.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Decision hierarchy model

The first stage of AHP is the construction of a hierarchical network to present the
problem, with the top representing the overall goal, the middle representing the
criteria, and the bottom representing the alternatives. In this study, the overall
objective was to evaluate what theortical model (EM and DM) would be best for the
sustainable agricultural development of Fars province, Iran. Therefore, the overall
goal ‘‘selection of sustainable agricultural development model’’ is placed at the top
level of the analytic hierarchy shown in Fig. 2. Then, we identified key evaluation
criteria for assessing the objective. The nine key criteria, as described previously
were identified in the first stage of this research. The criteria include productivity,
profitability, employment, quality of life, equity (poverty alleviation), participation,
environmental protection, wise use of resources and product quality. As shown in
Table 2, these criteria are defined in more tangible criteria as ‘‘economic’’, ‘‘social’’
and ‘‘ecological’’, which are three primary dimensions of sustainable development

123
418 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

Fig. 2 Hierarchical model for selection of sustainable agricultural development model

(Kelly, 1998; Quaddus & Siddique, 2001). Finally, two alternatives were placed at
the bottom of the AHP model. These included DM- and EM-based sustainable
agricultural development models.

4.2 Pairwise comparisons

The use of AHP model requires determining the relative importance of each of the
elements in the hierarchy. Each element in a level is compared pairwise with other
elements at the same level, with respect to an element at a higher level. Twenty-
three participants in four groups examined the criteria with respect to the overall
goal (selection of sustainable agricultural development model). Before the perfor-
mance of pairwise comparisons, all members of the groups were given instruction on
how to conduct comparison among criteria with respect to overall goal. Their
judgment of the importance of one criterion over another can be made subjectively
and converted to a numerical value using a scale of 1–9 (Table 1). Table 3 shows the
normalized weights and the rank for the nine criteria with the overall goal in each

Table 3 Synthesized priorities and ranks for criteria

Criteria Elite Lapuei’s Lapuei’s Sustainable Green Overall

farmers Women Development Development groups
Committee Cooperative Society

Productivity .058(5) .027(7) .024(9) .024(8) .046(6)

Profitability .033(8) .019(9) .025(8) .017(9) .023(9)
Employment .080(4) .106(4) .076(5) .036(5) .082(4)
Life quality .042(7) .024(8) .033(7) .031(7) .031(8)
Equity .033(8) .067(6) .068(6) .078(4) .043(7)
Participation .052(6) .071(5) .166(3) .033(6) .070(5)
Environmental protection .187(3) .190(2) .220(2) .282(2) .192(2)
Wise use of resources .291(1) .339(1) .251(1) .325(1) .327(1)
Product quality .224(2) .158(3) .137(4) .173(3) .186(3)
C.R. .09 .09 .08 .07 .09

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 419

four groups and as a whole. The results of pairwise comparison of criteria by the four
groups and the overall comparison (all respondents) are presented below.

Elite farmers The results indicate that the criterion wise use of resources has the
highest weight of .291, followed by the criteria product quality and environmental
protection which have relative weights of .224 and .187, respectively, among elite
farmers (Table 3). That is, they perceive the wise use of resources to be the most
important criterion in selection of sustainable agricultural development model and
followed by product quality and environmental protection. Employment and pro-
ductivity have weights of .080 and .058, respectively. It is interesting that criterion
equity has the least weights of .033 (Table 3). Perhaps the characteristics of elite
farmers can explain this later finding. Elite farmers are often from the higher socio-
economic strata of rural population therefore; their lack of concern for equity is
understandable. Table 3 indicates that the inconsistency ratio for the pairwise
comparisons in this group is .09, which is below the tolerable level of .10.

Lapuei’s Women Committee The board members of Lapuei’s Women Committee

see wise use of resources and environmental protection as two most important criteria
in selection of sustainable agricultural development model. They have weights of .339
and .190, respectively (Table 3). As indicated in Table 3, the weights of product
quality (.158) and employment (.106) are noteworthy (Table 3). Profitability, life
quality and productivity have relative weights of .019, .024 and .027, respectively and
are comparatively unimportant. Productivity was considered to be more important by
elite farmers than by Lapuei’s Women Committee. The inconsistency ratio for
women’s pairwise comparison matrix is .09, that is satisfactory (Table 3).

Lapuei’s Sustainable Development Cooperative The results of pairwise compari-

sons of this group is shown in Table 3. The board members of this cooperative
portrayed that the criteria wise use of resources and environmental protection have
the highest weights of .251 and .220, respectively (Table 3). After these two criteria,
participation has high priority for selection of agricultural development model. This
criterion has the weights of .166 (Table 3). As indicated in Table 3, productivity
(.024) and profitability (.025) have the least weights to selection of sustainable
agricultural development model (Table 3). Table 3 shows that the inconsistency
ratio for this group is .08.

Green Development Society The fourth participant group in our study included
three board members of Green Development Society who were specialists in agri-
culture. They preferred wise use of resources, environmental protection and product
quality as three most important criteria in selection of sustainable agricultural
development model. The weights of these criteria were .325, .282 and .173, respec-
tively (Table 3). This group of decision makers assigned the least weights to
profitability (.017) and productivity (.024) in selection of sustainable agricultural
development model (Table 3). The inconsistency ratio related to their comparisons
(.07) is less than .1 (Table 3).

Overall groups Sustainable development is a complex phenomenon that can be

realized only through participation of different stakeholders. This makes the
aggregate views of different stakeholders (the four groups) with regard to priorities
123
420 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

Fig. 3 Priority of EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural development models as perceived by c
Elite farmers (A), Lapuei Women Committee (B), Lapuei Sustainable Development Coop (C) and
Green Development Society (D)

of the criteria used in selection of sustainable agricultural development model

imperative. Table 3 presents the results of these comparisons. The results indicate
that the criterion wise use of resources has the highest weight of .327, followed by the
criteria environmental protection and product quality which have relative weights of
.192 and .186 respectively (Table 3). These results show that wise use of resources,
environmental protection and the products quality are the most important criteria to
consider in the selection of sustainable agricultural development model. Employ-
ment, participation and productivity have weights of .082, .070 and .046, respectively
(Table 3). This indicates that comparatively they are perceived as the secondary
level of criteria and are important. Table 3 shows that profitability and life quality
have relative weights of .023 and .031, respectively and are comparatively unim-
portant. The inconsistency ratio related to this pairwise comparisons matrix is .09,
which is less than tolerable level of .1 (Table 3).

4.3 Comparisons of the sustainable agricultural development models

with respect to the criteria

After pairwise comparisons for all the criteria, the next step was making compari-
sons of the sustainable agricultural development models with respect to the criteria.
We performed pairwise comparisons on the alternatives DM- and EM-based
sustainable agricultural development models with respect to each criteria. The
procedures followed in this step are explained in stage three of methodology section.

4.3.1 Synthesizing judgments

Sensitivity analysis allows us to verify the results of the decision. A sensitivity

analysis was formed to see how sensitive the alternatives are to change with the
importance of the criteria. The Expert Choice implementation of AHP provides four
graphical sensitivity analysis modes: dynamic, gradient, performance and two-
dimensional analysis (Expert Choice, 2000). Here performance sensitivity analysis is
employed. It depicts how well each alternative (DM- and EM-based sustainable
agricultural development models) performs on each criterion by increasing or
decreasing the importance of the criteria.

Elite farmers Figure 3A shows how the alternative was prioritized relative to an-
other alternative with respect to each criteria as well as overall. To see how the best
sustainable agricultural development model compared to the second model, read the
overall priority from the intersection of ‘‘right y-axis’’. In our study, for elite farmers,
EM-based sustainable agricultural development model has higher priority (Fig. 3A).
As we see in Table 4, EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural development
models have weights of .631 and .369, respectively. Indeed, EM-based sustainable
agricultural development model has the highest priority among elite farmers
(Table 4).

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 421

123
422 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

Lapuei’s Women Committee As we see in Fig. 3B, the board members of Lapuei’s
Women Committee depicted higher priority for EM-based sustainable agricultural
development model. In their opinion, EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural
development models have weights of .612 and .388, respectively (Table 4). They
evaluate EM-based sustainable agricultural development model to have higher
priority for sustainable agricultural development of Fars province, Iran.

Lapuei’s Sustainable Development Cooperative Figure 3C illustrates the priorities

of sustainable agricultural development models for board members of Lapuei’s
Sustainable Development Cooperative. They perceive EM-based sustainable agri-
cultural development model as a better alternative for sustainable agricultural
development of Fars province. However, the priority of the two alternatives are
close. EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural development models have
weights of .538 and .462, respectively (Table 4).

Green Development Society The priority of two alternative (EM and DM) sus-
tainable agricultural development models as evaluated by this group is close
(Fig. 3D). Although like other groups, they see EM-based sustainable agricultural
development model as a better alternative. The weights of EM- and DM-based
sustainable agricultural development models were .586 and .414, respectively
(Table 4).

Overall groups A sensitivity analysis was performed for the four groups of decision
makers as a whole (Fig. 4). The all participants represent EM-based sustainable
agricultural development model as best alternative for sustainable agricultural
development of Fars province, Iran. Table 4, shows that the weights of EM- and
DM-based sustainable agricultural development models are .614 and .386, respec-
tively. In sum, the all decision makers in this study emphasize the role of EM-based
model in agricultural development of Fars province, Iran.

5 Conclusions

Currently, at the global level, evaluations of the measures of environmental sus-

tainable development that are applied in a country or program are being used to
evaluate the stage of its development. A country may be considered to be developed
when it has appropriate environmental protection policies and programs in place.

Table 4 Summary of results for AHP analysis

Alternatives Elite Lapuei’s Lapuei’s Green Overall

farmers Women Sustainable Development groups
Committee Development Society
Cooperative

DM-based sustainable .369(2) .388(2) .462(2) .414(2) .386(2)

agricultural model
EM-based sustainable .631(1) .612(1) .538(1) .586(1) .614(1)
agricultural model

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 423

Fig. 4 Priority of EM- and DM-based sustainable agricultural development models as perceived by
overall participants

Agricultural development in Iran has been based on modernization theory in the

late decades. The consequences of implementation of modernization based agri-
cultural development policies, particularly with regard to environmental impact,
have been negative. Iran’s agriculture is facing serious environmental pollution and
degradation problems.
Agriculture is unique and most essential activity in every society. Beyond its
primary role of producing food and fiber agriculture also contributes to the viability
of rural areas, food security, the cultural heritage and environmental benefits such as
the agricultural landscape, agro-biological diversity, land conservation and high
standards of plant, animal and public health. These additional functions of the
multifunctional agriculture are often referred to as non-trade concerns (NTCs). Due
to its multifunctionality, agriculture is increasingly in the center of multiple interests.
The traditional view of the farmers and/or agricultural experts as sole authority over
agriculture has been openly challenged. Interest has been surged in promoting more
direct participation by local people and other stakeholders in selecting the path to
sustainable agricultural development. Agricultural development decision-making is
becoming more pluralistic. How can people coordinate these interests to develop
agriculture to meet a set of often conflicting objectives? This is the challenge facing
students of agricultural development in the next decade.
Since we live in an era of theory-based actions there is a felt need for alternative
conceptual agricultural development models. Two competing sustainable agricul-
tural development models have been developed based on general tenets of EM and
DM theories (Rezaei-Moghaddam et al., 2005). Where multiple positions are not
compatible conflicts occur. Under these circumstances, three outcomes are possible:
commitment to a single, preferred position, acceptance of all positions or rejection of
all position. The only logical position is commitment to a reasoned position, even if
one to be carefully monitored and evaluated. How do different stakeholders of
Iran’s agriculture can achieve commitment to a single model of sustainable
agricultural development?

123
424 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

This paper argues that AHP (in group decision support mode) is a useful tool to
reach a decision regarding commitment to a theoretical base for sustainable agri-
cultural development among stakeholders of agriculture. Rural women, farmers,
members of environmental movements and agricultural experts are the stakeholders
of Fars province agriculture who were involved in AHP decision process. The
stakeholders identified nine criteria for sustainable agriculture including productiv-
ity, profitability, employment, quality of life, equity, participation, environmental
protection, wise use of resources and quality of products. These criteria could be
classified into three main categories of economic, social and ecological. Stakeholders
perceived sustainable agriculture to be economically profitable, socially and eco-
logically sound. Ecological criteria including wise use of resources, environmental
protection and product quality are the most important criteria for sustainable agri-
cultural development of Fars province, Iran, followed by economic criterion
employment and social criterion participation.
Although, there were differences between stakeholder groups regarding the
magnitude of priority of EM- over DM-based sustainable agricultural develop-
ment models, all groups and the aggregate analysis of decisions confirmed the
priority of EM-based sustainable agricultural development model for Fars
province, Iran.
EM-based sustainable agricultural development model is a hypermodern agri-
culture (Fig. 1). This agricultural development model adopts that the application of
new technologies causes negative impacts, but solution of these problems is possible
by more scientific research and providing more appropriate and sophisticated
technologies. Environmental technology is usually considered to comprise products
and services developed for purposes of environmental improvement. Use of these
technologies can decrease demands on natural systems and increase our ability to
control the environmental consequences of production. EM-based model proposes
cleaner production strategy as a holistic and integrated strategy for Fars province,
Iran. Cleaner production is an operational approach to the development of the
system of production and consumption, which incorporates a preventive approach to
environmental protection. Cleaner production not only reduces environmental
impacts but may also reduce economic costs. The government should support the
development and implementation of cleaner production practices in agriculture
through financial motivation, legal obligations, pressure on the governmental orga-
nizations, training experts needed to implement this strategy, rendering information
and technological services, imposing environmental fines for non-compliance with
environmental regulations and norms, cooperation with international organizations
and through other means.
The premises of EM-based sustainable agricultural development model provides
the general guidelines for policy making and planning of agriculture. Detail design
and implementations of sustainable agricultural development model for Fars
province dependents upon the identification and development of an appropriate
information infrastructure to support decision-making. This information infrastruc-
ture must support the identification of objectives, the development and selection of
appropriate actions toward those objectives, and the evaluation of progress toward
those objectives within the framework of EM-based sustainable agricultural
development model.

123
Sustainable agricultural development models 425

References

Al Khalil, M. I. (2002). Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. International
Journal of Project Management, 20, 469–474.
Byun, D. H. (2001). The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Information &
Management, 38, 289–297.
Chen, C. J., & Huang, C. C. (2004) A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the
science-based industrial park in Taiwan. Information & Management, 41(7), 839–851.
Escobar, M. T., Aguaron, J., & Moreno-Jimenes, J. M. (2004). A note on AHP group consistency for
the row geometric mean priorization procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 153,
318–322.
Expert Choice. (2000). Expert Choice Tutorials. Pittsburgh: Expert Choice, Inc.
Fudge, C., & Rowe, J. (2001). Ecological modernisation as a framework for sustainable development:
A case study in Sweden. Environment and Planning A, 33, 1527–1546.
Glaeser, B. (2000). Environment and developing countries. In: M. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.),
The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 101–118). USA: Edward Elgar.
Gouldson, A., & Murphy, J. (1996).Ecological modernization and the European Union. Geoforum,
27(1), 11–21.
Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. B., & Malak, N. (2002). Determining key capabilities of a firm using analytic
hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 76, 39–51.
Karami, E. (1993). Sustainable agriculture and agricultural policy. Proceedings of the Second
Symposium on Agricultural Policy of Iran, Shiraz University, Shiraz. pp. 37–59 (in Farsi).
Kelly, K. L. (1998). A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable
development. European Journal of Operational Research, 109, 452–464.
Lahsaeizadeh, A. (1993). Contemporary rural Iran. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria envi-
ronment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational
Research, 137, 134–144.
Malakouti, M. J. (2000). Sustainable agriculture and yield increase through balanced fertilization.
Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Education Press (in Farsi).
Marx, A. (2000). Ecological modernization, environmental policy and employment: Can environ-
mental protection and employment reconciled? European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(11),
311–326.
Melkote, S. R. (1998). Communication for development in the third world. London: Sage Publications.
Mol, A. P. J. (1995). The refinement of production: Ecological modernization theory and the chemical
industry. Utrecht: Van Arkel.
Mol, A. P. J. (1996). Ecological modernisation and institutional reflexivity: Environmental reform in
the late modern age. Environmental Politics, 5(2), 302–323.
Mol, A. P. J. (2003). The environmental transformation of the modern order. In: T. J. Misa, P. Brey
& A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and Technology (pp. 303–327). Cambridge: MIT-Press.
Murphy, J. (2000). Editorial: Ecological modernization. Geoforum, 31, 1–8.
Norgaard, R. B. (2000). A coevolutionary environmental sociology. In: M. Redclift & G. Woodgate
(Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 158–168). USA: Edward
Elgar.
Quaddus, M. A., & Siddique, M. A. B. (2001). Modeling sustainable development planning: A
multicriteria decision conferencing approach. Environment International, 27, 89–95.
Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., & Gibson, J. (2005). Conceptualizing sustainable agriculture:
Iran as an illustrative case. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(3), 25–56.
Salmanzadeh, C. (1996). Sustainable agriculture and some issues in sustainability of agriculture in
Iran. Proceedings of the First Agricultural Economics Conference of Iran, Sistan and Bluchestan
University, Zabol, pp. 650–664 (in Farsi).
Servaes, J. (1991). Toward a new perspective for communication and development. In: F. L. Casmir
(Ed.), Communication in development (pp. 51–85). Albex Publishing Corporation.
Simonis, U. E. (1989). Ecological modernization of industrial society: Three strategic elements.
International Social Science Journal, 121, 347–361.
Solnes, J. (2003). Environmental quality indexing of large industrial development alternatives using
AHP. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(3), 283–303.
Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. (1992). Sociology, environment and modernity: Ecological
modernization as a theory of social change. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 323–344.

123
426 K. Rezaei-Moghaddam, E. Karami

Tavana, M. (2004). A subjective assessment of alternative mission architectures for the human
exploration of Mars at NASA using multicriteria decision making. Computers & Operations
Research, 31, 1147–1164.
Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Man-
agement Science, 26(7), 641–658.
Yazdi-Samadi, B. (1989). The role and importance of research in achieving self-reliance of
agricultural productions. Proceedings of the First National Congress on Agricultural Devel-
opment Problems of Iran, Agricultural Research and Natural Resources Organization,
Tehran, pp. 179–195 (in Farsi).
Yearley, S. (1997). Social movements and environmental change. In: M. Redclift & T. Benton (Eds.),
Social theory and the global environment, (pp. 150–168). London: Routledge.

123