Applied Environmental Education & Communication

ISSN: 1533-015X (Print) 1533-0389 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueec20

The status of literacy of sustainable agriculture in

Iran: A systematic review

Hassan Sadough Vaninee, Hadi Veisi, Shiva Gorbani, Peyman Falsafi &
Houman Liaghati

To cite this article: Hassan Sadough Vaninee, Hadi Veisi, Shiva Gorbani, Peyman Falsafi
& Houman Liaghati (2016) The status of literacy of sustainable agriculture in Iran: A
systematic review, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 15:2, 150-170, DOI:
10.1080/1533015X.2016.1164097

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2016.1164097

Published online: 09 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 203

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueec20
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION
, VOL. , NO. , –
http://dx.doi.org/./X..

The status of literacy of sustainable agriculture in Iran: A

systematic review
Hassan Sadough Vanineea , Hadi Veisib , Shiva Gorbanib , Peyman Falsafic , and
Houman Liaghatib
a
Research Centre of Education for Environmentally Sustainable Development, College of Earth Sciences,
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran; b Research Centre of Education for Environmentally Sustainable
Development, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran;
c
Research Centre of Education for Environmentally Sustainable Development, Institute of Higher
Education on Applied Science of Jihad for Agriculture, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT
This study analyzes heterogeneous research with a focus on the
knowledge, attitude, and behavior of farmers and the compo-
nents of sustainable agriculture literacy through an interdisci-
plinary, systematic literature review for the time frame from 1996
to 2013. The major research databases were searched and 170
papers were identified. Paper selection reduced the total to 36
primary studies bibliographically and thematically. Several stud-
ies found that farmers have the ability to carry out some aspects
of sustainable agriculture, such as integrated pest management.
The relationship between knowledge and behavior of sustainable
agriculture was relatively high. More than 70% of the correlation
coefficients between knowledge and behavior were greater than
0.4. Two strategies were recommended for enhancing sustainable
agricultural literacy: the ecosystem health approach and partic-
ipatory methods for redesigning the curriculum of sustainable
agriculture educational programs.

Introduction
Achieving sustainability is one of the biggest challenges facing agriculture and food
security (Buhllen & House, 2009). Rezaei-Moghaddam, Karami, & Gibson (2005)
stated that, in Iran, the trajectory to sustainable agriculture is not a unilinear change
with a path to a single destination. Rather, it is a recursive process and the system
operates spontaneously.
Different approaches have been employed to overcome these challenges and
encompass these diversities. Some researchers have applied a knowledge-based
approach to address the education of farmers and stockholders as an essential
tool for achieving sustainability of agriculture. It is argued that the complexity of

CONTACT Hassan Sadough Vaninee h-sadough@sbu.ac.ir Research Centre of Education for Environmentally
Sustainable Development, College of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Tehran , Iran.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueec.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 151

sustainable agriculture requires individuals to possess knowledge about agricultural

systems to allow them to behave in a sustainable way (Carreón, René, Niels, & Rob,
2011).
Individuals must acquire new insights toward sustainability. This asks for a
bottom-up approach, meaning an approach starting from the individual interpre-
tation of that context. It is relevant to understand what type of knowledge farmers
possess about sustainable agriculture. It is also relevant to identify mind-sets and
practice patterns used by farmers when using this knowledge.
This approach has three dimensions of literacy: knowledge, attitude, and behav-
ior (Teksoz, Şahin, & ve Ertepınar, 2010). Sustainable agricultural literacy is essen-
tially the capacity for agricultural systems to take appropriate action to maintain,
restore, or improve the health of those systems. Sustainable agriculture literacy com-
prises the knowledge, attitude, and ability to implement all aspects of sustainable
agriculture.
Mirovitskaya and Ascher (2001) believe that there are several aspects to achieving
such literacy. They include self-sufficiency through use of on-farm or locally avail-
able internal resources and know-how, reduced use or elimination of soluble or syn-
thetic fertilizers, and reduced use or elimination of chemical pesticides and substi-
tution of integrated pest-management practices (i.e., carefully managed use of pest
control tactics that include biological, traditional, and chemical methods to achieve
the best results with the least disruption of the environment; Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1993). Other aspects are an increase in or improved use of crop rotation
for diversification, soil fertility, and pest control; increase or improved use of manure
and other organic materials as soil amendments; increased diversity of crop and
animal species; and reliance on a broader set of local crops and local technologies.
Additional aspects are the maintenance of crop or residue cover on the soil, reduc-
ing stocking rates for animals, and full pricing of agricultural inputs and charges
for environmental damage. Although several studies addressed agricultural literacy
(Kovar & Ball, 2013), none have focused on sustainable agriculture literacy. The def-
initions developed herein are sustainability, ecological, and agricultural literacy.

Agricultural literacy

The meaning and conceptualization of agricultural literacy varies between groups.

Several universities (e.g., Texas Tech, University of Arizona, Colorado State Uni-
versity, California Polytechnic State University) associate agricultural literacy with
programs to promote the understanding and knowledge necessary to synthesize,
analyze, and communicate basic information about agriculture to students, produc-
ers, consumers, and the public (Brewster, 2012).
Meischen and Trexler (2003) asserted that if a person were literate about agricul-
ture, food, fiber, and natural resource systems, he or she would be able to engage
in social conversation; evaluate the validity of media; identify local, national, and
international issues; and pose and evaluate arguments based on scientific evidence.
Because agriculture is a unique culture, an understanding of beliefs and values
152 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

inherent in agriculture should also be included in a definition of agricultural lit-

eracy. Frick (1993) established 11 agricultural subject areas needed to achieve agri-
cultural literacy during development of a national framework for a middle school
agricultural education curriculum. These were: relationship with the environment,
agricultural processing, public policies, relationship with natural resources, animal
products, societal significance, plant products, economic impact, agriculture mar-
keting, distribution, and global significance.

Sustainability literacy
Understanding and knowledge about sustainability has been termed sustainabil-
ity literacy (Xia, Zuo, Skitmore, Buys, & Hu, 2014). It encompasses learning how
humans have an immediate and long-term effect on the economy and ecology of
communities (Dawe, Jucker, & Martin, 2005). The term “sustainability literacy” is
often viewed in the context of the knowledge and skills sets needed to create sus-
tainably literate people who understands the need for change to a sustainable way
of doing things individually and collectively, has sufficient knowledge and skills to
decide to act in a way that favors sustainable development, and is able to recognize
and reward other people’s decisions and actions that favor sustainable development
(Murray & Cotgrave, 2007).
Sustainability literacy is seen by its proponents as important for employability,
effective professionalism, economic performance, and social well-being (Murray,
Brown, & Murray, 2013).

Ecological literacy

In the coming decades, the survival of humanity will depend on our ecological lit-
eracy; our ability to understand the basic principles of ecology and to live accord-
ingly. This means that ecoliteracy must become a critical skill for politicians, busi-
ness leaders, and professionals in all spheres, and should be the most important part
of education from primary and secondary schools to colleges and universities, and
continuing education and training of professionals (Capra, 2002).
Ecoliteracy concerns understanding the principles of organization of ecosystems
and their potential applications to understanding how to build a sustainable human
society (Capra, 2002). It combines the sciences of systems and ecology to draw
together elements required to foster learning processes toward a deep appreciation
of nature and our role in it. Orr (1992) stated that the goal of ecological literacy is:
built on the recognition that the disorder of ecosystems reflects a prior disorder of the
mind, making it a central concern to those institutions that purport to improve minds.
In other words, the ecological crisis is in every way a crisis of education. All education is
environmental education; by what is included or excluded we teach the young that they are
part of or apart from the natural world.

He emphasizes that ecoliteracy does not only require mastery of a subject matter,
but the creation of meaningful connections between head, hands, and hearts (Stone
& Barlow, 2005).
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 153

Analysis and incorporation of these definitions for sustainable agricultural liter-

acy should consider production chains and the challenges and strategies for solving
problems. Sustainable agricultural literacy is also defined as the capacity to perceive
and interpret the health of agroecosystems and to take appropriate action to main-
tain, restore, or improve the relative health of those systems.
This definition asserts that a sustainably agricultural literate person is one who
both individually and collectively makes informed decisions concerning the agroe-
cosystems and is willing to act on these decisions to ensure intergenerational equity;
preserve the resource base of agriculture and obviate adverse environmental exter-
nalities; protect biological diversity; guarantee the economic viability of agriculture,
enhance job opportunities in farming and preserve local rural communities; pro-
duce sufficient quality food for society; and contribute to globally sustainable devel-
opment (Tisdell, 2007).
Those who are sustainable agriculture literate possess to varying degrees:
• the knowledge and understanding of a wide range of sustainable agriculture
concepts, problems, and issues (e.g., linkages between soil quality, water quality,
human health, and the agroecosystem health policy and landscape (Zhu et al.,
2012);
• a set of cognitive and affective dispositions (e.g., life has purpose, life is inter-
connected, and life is good) (Ikerd, 2009);
• a set of cognitive skills and abilities (e.g., wholeness, completeness, soundness,
strength, wholeness, diversity, interdependence, trust, kindness, courage, value,
productivity, and sovereignty; Ikerd, 2009); and
• the appropriate behavioral strategies to apply such knowledge and under-
standing in order to make sound and effective decisions on a range of
environmental, economic, and social contexts (integrated pest management
[IPM], integrated water management [IWM], integrated soil management
[ISM], and integrated plant nutrient management [IPNM]; Zhu, Wang, &
Caldwell, 2012).
This definition states that the sustainable agricultural literacy of an individual is
the outcome of a number of interplaying components which can broadly be grouped
as cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The cognitive domain refers to an individual’s
knowledge of ecological concepts and processes that provide the foundations for
comprehending human impact on agricultural systems and the cognitive skills for
analyzing agricultural problems and for the use of action strategies.
The affective domain refers to the individual’s awareness and sensitivity, attitudes,
values, and worldview regarding the sustainable agriculture. The locus of control
(sense of ability to influence a situation through personal behavior or self-efficacy)
and assumption of personal responsibility (sense of obligation toward the agroe-
cosystem or personal commitment to ecologically correct behavior). Behavior is the
ultimate expression of sustainable agriculture the individual’s ecoliteracy should be
reflected in his/her behavior concerning the agroecosystem.
It can be concluded that developing sustainable agriculture is equivalent to devel-
oping responsible sustainable behavior in the context of sustainable agriculture,
154 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

Figure . A proposed framework for assessing sustainable agriculture literacy (adapted from Hollweg
et al., ).

knowledge, disposition, and competency that enables and are expressed as behav-
iors. Although a number of studies on the components of sustainable agricultural lit-
eracy including knowledge, attitude, and behavior, systematic research on this con-
ceptual framework is lacking. This has produced inconsistent results in previous
studies. The present study has developed an explanation of the status of sustainable
agricultural literacy in Iran by weaving together and considering the results of pre-
vious studies about these components (see Fig. 1).

Methodology
A systematic literature review was chosen as the research method to explore the
condition rather than assess and measure it. Literature was also available for syn-
thesis (Kupiainen, Mäntylä, & Itkonen, 2015). The systematic review derived con-
vergent arguments from past studies about sustainable agriculture literacy in terms
of knowledge, attitude, and behavior. The guidelines provided by Kitchenham and
colleagues (2009) were used as a basis to develop the systematic literature reviews
(SLR) protocol.
The protocol was developed iteratively, by first performing a small pilot study and
iterating the details of the protocol between researchers. The validity of the study
selection and data extraction procedures was then evaluated. The primary study
selection process, pilot study, data extraction procedures, data analysis, and data
synthesis are described as follows.

Search and selection process

The strategy for finding primary studies comprised three steps:

• Stage 1: Automated search (170);
• Stage 2: Selection based on titles and abstracts (82); and
• Stage 3: Selection based on full text, data extraction, and quality assessment
(35).
Table 1 shows the number of studies selected by automated search from Google
Scholar, Scopus, Scientific Information Database (SID), and CIVILICA to determine
Table . The characteristics of the  peer-reviewed articles selected in step  for the initial material of this study.
Domain (Components)
Author(s) and Research
No. Study year Size sample Study area method Type Knowledge Attitude Behavior
√ √
 Factors affecting sustainable agricultural Sadighi & Rousta  Fars Province Survey Journal —
knowledge of exemplary corn growers () article
in the Province of Fars, Iran √ √
 Investigation of sustainable agricultural Davodi et al.  Shoshtar county Survey Journal —
knowledge among potato growers of () article
Shoshtar county √ √
 Factors affecting sustainable agricultural Daryaee et al.  Mazandaran Survey Journal —
knowledge in Iran: A case study of rice () article
cultivators in Mazandaran Province √
 Factors influencing sustainable Hayatee & Karami  Fars province Survey Journal — —
agricultural knowledge and () article
sustainability of farming systems: A
case study in Fars Province √ √
 Determine the social, economical and Omani et al.  Ahvaz, Dezful and Survey Journal —
agronomic characteristics of wheat () Behbahan article
growers in Ahvaz, Dezful and Behbahan Khozestan
counties according to acceptance of province
Low Input Sustainable Agriculture
(LISA) methods √ √
 Effective factors on agricultural Enayatirad et al.  Khozestan Survey Journal —
knowledge of corn growers about () province article
sustainable agriculture in north west
region of Khozestan √
 An analysis of farmers’ behavioral domains Shahroudi et al.  Khorasan- Razavi Survey Journal — —
regarding optimal agricultural water () Province article
management in Khorasan-Razavi
province: A comparison of participants
and non-participants in water users
cooperative
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION

√ √ √
 A determination of the farmers’ behavior Veisi et al. ()  Gilan & Survey Journal
in adoption related to the technologies Mazandaran article
of integrated pest management
(Continued on next page)
155
 156

Table . (Continued)

Author(s) and Research

No. Study year Size sample Study area method Type Knowledge Attitude Behavior
√ √ √
 A study of the behavior of Ghazvin Bigdeli & Sedighi  Ghazvin Survey Journal
Province’s extension workers towards () article
adoption of sustainable agricultural
practices √ √
 The study of relationship between Chaharsough-  Bandar Anzali Survey Journal —
H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

personal and economic-social amin & article

characteristics of rice-field women in Mirdamadi
Bandar Anzali township with ()
sustainable agriculture criteria √ √
 Regression analysis of factors effective on Maghsoodi et al.  Fereidoon shahr Survey Journal 
sustainability of potato cultivation in () article
Fereidounshahr County of Iran √ √
 A study of factors influencing Sharifi et al. ()  Jiroft and Kohnuj Survey Journal 
sustainability of greenhouse cultivation article
system in Jiroft and Kohnuj Region √ √
 Exploring the determinants of adoption Veisi ()  Mazandaran & Survey Journal 
behavior of clean technologies in Ghilan article
agriculture: A case of integrated pest
management √ √
 Predicting sprinkler irrigation adoption: Karami et al.  Fars, Boshehr, Survey Journal —
Comparison of models () Kohgiluyeh, article
Boyer-Ahmad,
Chaharmahal
and Bakhtiari √ √ √
 Predicting adoption behavior of farmers Omani et al.  Ahvaz Survey Journal
regarding on-farm sustainable water () article
resources management (SWRM):
Comparison of models √ √ √
 Determinants of crop residues Nahid & Karami — Marvdasht Survey Journal
management in Marvdasht County, Iran () article √ √ √
 The influence of water users’ cooperative Shahroudi et al.  Khorasan-Razavi Survey Journal
on farmers’ attitude toward agricultural () article
water management: A case study in
Khorasan-Razavi
 √
 Attitudes of potato farmers toward Bagheri &  Ardebil Survey Journal — —
sustainable agricultural practices in Shahpasand article
Ardabil Plain () √ √
 The relationship between social Mosavi et al.  Jahrom & Survey Journal —
characteristics and users’ attitudes () Arsanjan article
toward sustainable water management √ √
 Sustainable agricultural attitudes and Karami &  Kazerun Survey Journal —
behaviors: A gender analysis of Iranian Mansoorabadi article
farmers () √ √
 Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes Karami et al. — Bushehr Survey Journal —
towards use of water desalination plant () article
in agriculture in Bushehr Province, Iran √ √ √
 An investigation of attitude towards Afshari et al.  Isfahan Survey Journal
sustainable agricultural activities () article
among Isfahan cotton producers √ √
 Codification of farmers environmental Mennatizadeh &  Shiraz county Survey Journal —
behavior model of Shiraz county Zamani () article √ √
 An analysis of educational needs of Aazami et al.  Songhor, Survey Journal —
farmers equipped with sprinkler () Kermanshah article
irrigation systems in Kermanshah province
Province (Case study in Songhor
Township) √ √ √
 Determinants of crop residues Nahid et al. ()  Marvdasht, Fars Survey Journal
management in Marvdasht County, province article
Iran. √ √ √
 Comparison of soil conservation adoption Noorollah-  Khuzestan Survey Journal
model in Khuzestan province Noorivandi, province article
et al. () √ √
 Measuring sustainability level of wheat Arabion et al.  Fars Survey Journal —
cropping system in Fars Province and () article
determining affecting factors √ √
 Soil conservation behavior of farmers: The Azizi-Khalkheili  Khuzestan Survey Journal —
role of information and communication et al. () article
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION

media √ √
 Adoption of dry seeding in rice cultivation: Kolahi ()  Khuzestan Survey Journal —
The case of Khuzestan province article
(Continued on next page)
157
 158

Table . (Continued)

Author(s) and Research

No. Study year Size sample Study area method Type Knowledge Attitude Behavior
√ √ √
 An analysis of farmers’ behavioral domains Shahroudi &  Razavi Khorasan Survey Journal
regarding optimal agricultural water Chizari () article
management in Khorasan-Razavi
H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

province: A comparison of participants

and non-participants in water users
cooperative √
 Farmers water management skills: Mohammadi  Fars province Survey Journal — —
Zarindasht county of Fars province et al. () article √
 Studying farmers’ practices related to rice Sharifi et al.  Fars province Survey Journal — —
integrated pest management Fars () article
Province √ √
 The economic study of farmers’ behavior Hosseinzadeh &  Esfarayen North Survey Conference —
on animal manure use at farm level of Ghorbani () Khurasan
Esfarayen √ √ √
 Appropriate model for predicting Tohidyan, Far,  Fars province Survey Journal
adoption of model irrigation channels Rezaei, &, article
(Case study: Syakh Daranjan region in Moghaddam
Fars province) () √ √ √
 An investigation of sustainable activities Enayatirad et al.  Khuzestan Survey Journal
among corn producer farmers in () Province article
Khuzestan Province √
 Water management knowledge among Forouzani & — Marvdasht Survey Journal — —
wheat producers in Marvdasht County, Karami (). County, Fars article
Fars Province Province √ √
 Economic factors effective in adopting an Pezeshki-Raad &  Isfahan Province Survey Journal —
integrated campaign in rice stem borer Masaeli () article
control in Isfahan √ √ √
 The socio-economic characteristics of Noorivandi et al.  Khuzestan Survey Journal
wheat farmers regarding adoption of (). Province article
Sustainable Soil Management (SSM)
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 159

the primary studies. The keywords were knowledge, attitude, behavior, literacy, and
sustainable agriculture.
The search was improved incrementally in three phases because some key papers
and conferences were not found initially. Table 1 shows the search strings, hits, and
dates. The selection of the primary studies was based on the following inclusion
criteria:
• The literature should address sustainable agriculture literacy and its compo-
nents as either a main or secondary subject.
• All predefined keywords should exist in at least one of the fields: title, abstract,
or keywords.
• The paper should have been published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal or
a conference.
• The paper should have been published from 1996 to 2013.
In stage 1, Scopus, SID, and CIVILICA were the search engines used because
they contained the most relevant databases and because they contained conference
papers.
In stage 2, papers were included or excluded based on their titles and abstracts.
Because the quality of abstracts can be poor in sustainable agricultural literacy, full
texts were also skimmed when the abstracts were unclear.
Stage 3 included multiple activities in one workflow. They included selection by
full text, data coding, and quality assessment.

Pilot study
A pilot study was conducted after the first database searches to refine the aim of
the research and become familiar with the research method (Suh et al., 2009). It
was possible to modify the method and tools before applying them to the full set of
primary studies.
Ten papers were selected for the pilot; four by relevance, three by number of cita-
tions, and three by random selection. Based on the findings from the pilot study,
some improvements were made to the SLR protocol. First, the articles selected in
the title and selection and abstract steps were combined to improve the reliability of
the first selection round. Next, a quality assessment checklist was developed based
on the results of the pilot. Ultimately, the results prompted changes in the citation
management tools.

Data extraction

Data extraction was conducted and managed using Microsoft Access 2010. It was
carried out by a single reviewer focusing on general information about each study,
study characteristics, participant characteristics, and measurement of sustainable
agriculture literacy, its components were knowledge, attitude, and behavior.
During data extraction, the selected publications were scanned to identify and
extract formation in the form of research and to identify labels for automated
160 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

sorting using a custom bibliographic matrix. The literature search attempted to

find studies meeting the criteria of a field paper available through indexed biblio-
graphic databases. The literature search, thus, did not include books, grey literature,
extended abstracts, or presentations.
A quality assessment form adapted from Dybå and Dingsøyr (2008) was used to
evaluate the quality of each primary study. A list of relevancy factors were used to
describe how useful a primary study was for this study. The relevancy factor was
evaluated subjectively by the researcher. The scale for the factors was:
• 0: contains no information on sustainable agriculture literacy;
• 1: contains only descriptions of sustainable agriculture literacy;
• 2: contains useful information related to sustainable agriculture literacy;
• 3: contains a good amount of relevant information regarding sustainable
agriculture literacy, its components, and their relationships.

Data analysis and synthesis

The results of the initial review were further synthesized using similarity-based cate-
gorization. The process began by scanning all quotes within one code and describing
each quote with a more descriptive high level code.
The high level codes were then organized into groups based on similarity. The
groups were then given names as categories including: knowledge of sustainable
agriculture, attitude of sustainable agriculture, behavior of sustainable agriculture,
relationship between knowledge and attitude, knowledge and behavior, and attitude
and behavior.

Research findings

Knowledge of sustainable agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is knowledge-based agriculture; hence knowledge is the key

to realization of sustainable agriculture (McElroy, 2008). Several studies have exam-
ined the status of knowledge among agricultural stakeholders, especially farmers.
Veisi, Hematyar, and Azarkerda (2008) listed three categories of knowledge: agri-
cultural systems, agricultural policies, and agricultural activities
Several authors (Hayatee & Karami, 1999; Omani & Chizari, 2006; Sadighi &
Rousta, 2003) have defined sustainable agriculture knowledge as knowledge about
sustainable agriculture practices. The results of the present research showed that
28 of 36 studies investigated the status of knowledge of farmers. Ten studies (35%)
reported that the knowledge level is low (Enayatirad et al., 2010; Hayatee & Karami,
1999; Omani et al., 2009). About 40% of those respondents have little knowledge of
sustainable agriculture. Forouzani and Karami (2012) found that the farmer knowl-
edge of water management was low. Fourteen studies (50%) reported that more than
40% respondents had average knowledge. Sadighi and Rousta (2003) and Davodi &
Maghsodi (2011) found a moderate level of knowledge about sustainable agriculture
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 161

Figure . Barograph of the number of respondents in each of the three components of SAL in
reviewed studies.

among corn growers in Fars province and potato growers in Khuzestan province,
respectively. Daryaee, Rezaeemoghadam, and Salmanzadeh (2011) and Sharifi,
Rezaei, and Boromand (2011) investigated the level of knowledge about sustainable
agricultural among greenhouse owners and paddy growers and reported a moderate
level about water management, crop rotation, weed management, and soil fertility.
In 14% of studies, 20% of respondents had a high level of knowledge
(Chaharsough-amin & Mirdamadi, 2007; Karami, Rezaei-Moghaddam, &
Ebrahimi, 2006; Veisi, Mahmodi, & Sharifi Mogadam, 2011; Figs. 2 and 3).
Chaharsough and Mirdamadi (2007) explained that women farmers of Anzali have
rich and valuable traditional knowledge about the stages of rice production, such
as nursery preparation, seedlings, and transplanting, fertilization, control of pests,
diseases, and weed management.

Attitude toward sustainable agriculture

Changing the attitudes of world citizens is, in many cases, a necessary prerequi-
site to behavior change (Nickerson, 2003). Attitude is the state of willingness that
influences a person to act in a given manner (Liaghati, Veisi, Hematyar, &
Ahmadzadeh, 2008). Surveys and investigations of attitudes of farmers can help
stockholders and planners predict the economic behavior and sustainability of farm-
ers (Karami & Mansoorabadi, 2008).
Researchers have studied farmer attitudes about sustainable agriculture. The
results of their studies showed that 19 studies explained farmer attitudes (Fig. 1).
Of these, more than 50% (10 studies) reported that more than 45% of respondents
had a moderate and, to some extent, positive attitude toward sustainable agricul-
ture (Fig. 4). In more than 30% (six studies), about 18% of respondents had positive
and appropriate attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. In approximately 15% of
studies (3 studies), about 22% of respondents had unfavorable attitudes toward sus-
tainable agriculture.
Bagheri and Shahpasand (2011) stated that potato growers of Ardebil had pos-
itive attitudes toward the basic principles of sustainability and practices such as
162 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

Figure . Distribution of the farmers according to their knowledge of sustainable agricultural

practices.

protection of water and soil and the negative effects of chemical agricultural inputs.
They practiced crop rotation and understood the environmental effects of excessive
farming and the necessity of environmental protection. These respondents also
had negative attitudes to reducing the use of modern agricultural technologies,
fertilizer, pesticides, and tillage and showed average moderate attitudes for other
agricultural operations.
Karami and Mansourabadi (2008) compared the attitudes of men and women
and stated that women had more positive attitudes than did men toward
sustainable agriculture. Sharifi and colleagues (2011) reported that 16.33% of green-
house owners had unfavorable attitudes, 42.22% had relatively favorable attitudes,
and 41.45% had favorable attitudes toward sustainable agriculture. Shahroudi,
Chizari, & Pezeshki Rad (2008) reported that the attitudes of more than half of farm-
ers (55.1%) toward agricultural water management were relatively positive.

Competency and behavior of sustainable agriculture

Competency is defined as a cluster of skills and abilities that can be called upon and
expressed in the real world and assessment settings for a specific purpose (Holl-
weg et al., 2011). Each competency is defined by a set of behaviors. In this study,
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 163

Figure . Distribution of the farmers according to their attitude toward sustainable agricultural
practices.

behavioral competencies were activities that farmers perform to adopt ecological

technologies such as IPM, IWM, integrated soil fertility management, and a combi-
nation of these.
More than 26 studies investigated the behavior of farmers. Three levels of behav-
ior were measured (low, medium, and high). The results were based on maximum
frequency and showed that 30% of studies (eight studies) reported a low level of
sustainable agricultural behavior, more than 45% (12 studies) reported a moderate
level, and 23% (six studies) reported a high level. The results shown in Fig. 5 indicate
that the majority of respondents had a low level of competence and a small percent-
age had a high level. The number of respondents with a low level of competence
ranged from <20% to over >60%.
Five studies explained water management behavior, four studies investigated the
behavior of IPM, three studies investigated soil protection behavior, and two studies
explained behaviors from combined viewpoints. Mennatizadeh and Zamani (2013)
reported on the combined viewpoint about environmental behavior of farmers.
They reported that farmers overuse chemical pesticides and a few use irrigation
systems and protective tillage. Sharifi, Sharifzadeh, Mahboobi, and Abdollahzadeh
(2006) stated that farmers accepted IPM through agricultural practices (e.g., crop
rotation to reduce pests on rice farms, weed management to reduce pests and
disease, nursery management and transplanting at the right time, appropriate
164 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

Figure . Distribution of the farmers according to their competency and capability levels in operating
sustainable agricultural practices.

plowing methods, and spraying at the right time to reduce pests). Practices such as
destruction of propagation and overwintering places of rice pests, use of light traps,
avoiding pesticide spraying during activity periods of the insects, and controlling
pests by means of beneficial insects were of low priority.
Azizi-Khalkheili, Jahromi, and Bijani (2012) reported on soil protection behav-
ior of farmers. They found that they used maximum level of green manure (2.33
to 5) and minimum level of used certified seeds (3.46 to 5). They also reported a
mean index score of 2.98 to 5, which represents a moderate level of soil protection
behavior of farmers. Mohammadi, Sha’aban Alifami, and Asadi (2009) examined
water resource management behavior of farmers for 20 items in Zarrin Dasht in Fars
province. Their results showed that the skills of farmers was low for servicing elec-
tro pumps, use of PVC pipes, and method of groundwater charging. They reported
that 52.09% of farmers had a low level of skill for the technologies of agricultural
water management and 47.76% had high level skills, especially for traditional water
technologies.

Correlation between knowledge, attitude and behavior of sustainable

agriculture
Sustainable agricultural literacy is promoted through the relationship between
knowledge, attitude, and behavior (Teksoz et al., 2012). Increasing knowledge
directly increases awareness and attitudes, which results in more favorable behaviors
about sustainable agriculture, including water management, soil management, and
pest management (Fig. 6). More than 15 studies explored the relationships between
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 165

Figure . Relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and behavior towards sustainable agriculture.

knowledge, attitude, and behavior simultaneously or separately. Fig. 6 indicates the

correlation coefficients between knowledge and attitude that vary from 0.1 to 0.6.
More than 75% of correlations scores were above 0.3, which represents a significant
correlation between them.
Fig. 6 also shows the correlation between attitude and behavior ranged from 0.1
to 0.5. Nahid and Karami (2012) reported a significant relationship (0.16) between
behavior and attitude; however, the correlation between knowledge and behavior
was higher (0.2 to 0.8) and the mean of the correlation was higher (0.4). Veisi (2012)
reported that knowledge correlates with behavior (0.57%), which confirms that sus-
tainable agriculture is knowledge based.
Forouzani and Karami (2012) reported that the correlation coefficient between
water management knowledge and optimal behavior of water management is 0.20.
Noorivandi, Ajili, Chizari, and Bijani (2009) found that farmer perception of soil
erosion and knowledge about soil conservation practices had a strong correlation
with adoption of conservation practices by farmers.

Discussion and conclusions

Sustainable agricultural literacy is necessary as the global population expands, com-
pounding issues of feeding the world, while establishing and maintaining a sustain-
able, viable agricultural system (Kovar & Ball, 2013). The goal of the educational
programs of sustainable agriculture is to increase sustainable agriculture literacy.
Farmers can obtain new capabilities, knowledge, and attitudes and perform well on
their farms.
166 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

The results of the present study explain that the sustainable agricultural literacy
is influenced by education programs of sustainable agriculture. In this sense, results
revealed that educational programs of sustainable agriculture promoted farmer
knowledge about IPM and integrated management of water and soil; however, these
programs were incapable of raising knowledge about integrated plant nutrients
management. These findings may point to an inadequate coverage of agricultural
sustainable literacy (ASL) programs thematically. This could be because the pro-
grams are not comprehensive or are intermittent (Jepsen, Pastor, & Elliot, 2007):
1. Results revealed that farmers possessed a favorable attitude toward sustain-
ability of agricultural development. In other words, results were of high pri-
ority to them. More than 50% of studies reported a highly favorable attitude
(high priority) or a moderate attitude. It can be concluded that the need to
proceed toward more sustainable agriculture is a common goal for farmers.
The values and convictions of the farmers combined with a new model of sus-
tainable agriculture can help Iranian agriculture move toward sustainability.
2. The results indicate that farmers had adequate capabilities for IPM and ISM;
however, they were poor in IWM and INPM. This is probably because of the
traditional approach used in educational programs of sustainable agriculture.
As Hassink, Hulsink, and Grin (2014) argued, an integrated and comprehen-
sive approach is critical to encompass changes in the care regime and promote
new farming practices.
Based on these conclusions, recommendations to improve sustainable agricul-
tural literacy in Iran are as follows:
1. Redesign the curriculum of the sustainable agriculture educational pro-
grams. Considering the knowledge of farmers about sustainable agriculture
as insufficient, that can be a significant barrier to practice and development
of sustainable agriculture systems (Reganold et al., 2011).It can be concluded
that the current performance of educational programs lacks content. It is
important to develop education that encompasses the practices which were
found to have substantial knowledge gaps, such as integrated water manage-
ment and integrated soil and plant nutrient management. A holistic approach
such as an agroecosystem health approach (IPM, IWM, ISM and IPNM) is
recommended when redesigning the curriculum of educational programs
about sustainable agriculture.
2. Use of a participatory approach in education of sustainable agriculture.
Scholars have called for more a participatory approach to extension and
education programs that require holistic approaches (e.g., sustainable agri-
culture and agroecosystem health management; Krasny & Lee, 2002; Lopez
et al., 1999; Krasny et al., 2002; Veisi, Liaghati, & Alipour, 2016). Participa-
tory methods such as Farmer Field School as a group learning approach is
suggested to build knowledge and capacity among farmers and enable them
to diagnose their problems, identify solutions, develop plans, and implement
them with or without outside support (Asiabaka & James, 1999).
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 167

References
Aazami, A., Zarafshani, K., Dehghanimanij, H., & Gorji, A. (2011). An analysis of educational
needs of farmers equipped with sprinkler irrigation systems in Kermanshah province. Soil
and Water Journal (Agricultural Sciences and Technology), 25(5), 1119–1127.
Afshari, Z., Ajili A., Rezai-Mogadam, K., & Bijani, M. (2012). An investigation of attitude towards
sustainable agricultural activities among Isfahan cotton producers. Iranian Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics and Development, 42(2), 423–431.
Arabion, A. G., Kalantari, K., Asadi, A., & Fami, H. S. (2010). Measuring sustainability level of
wheat cropping system in Fars Province and determining affecting factors. Iranian Agricul-
tural Extension and Education Journal, 5(2), 17–29.
Asiabaka, C. C., & James, B. B. (1999). Farmer Field Schools for participatory cassava IPM tech-
nology development in West Africa. In G. Renard et al. (Eds), Farmers and scientists in a
changing environment: Assessing research in West Africa. Weikersheim, Germany: Margrat
Verlag.
Azizi-Khalkheili, T., Jahromi, A. B., & Bijani, M. (2012). Soil conservation behavior of farmers:
The role of information and communication media. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Edu-
cation Journal, 7(2), 51–62.
Bagheri A., & Shahpasand, M. (2011). Attitudes of potato farmers toward sustainable agricultural
practices in Ardabil plain. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 41(2),
231–242.
Bigdeli, A., & Sedighi, H. (2010). A study of the behavior of Ghazvin Province’s extension work-
ers towards adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics and Development Research, 41(3), 405–412.
Bohlen, P. J., & House, G. (2009). Sustainable agroecosystem management: Integrating, ecology,
economics and society. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Brewster, C. (2012). Toward a critical agricultural literacy. In K. Donehower, C. Hogg, & E. Schell
(Eds.), Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy (pp. 34–51). Carbondale,
IL: South Illinois University Press.
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: A science of sustainable living. New York, NY: Anchor
Books.
Carreón, J. R., René, J. J., Niels F., & Rob, V. H. (2011). A knowledge approach to sustainable agri-
culture. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com-/978-94-007-0889-1
Chaharsough-amin, H., & Mirdamadi, S. M. (2007). A study of the behavior of Ghazvin Province’s
extension workers towards adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. New Findings in
Agriculture, 1(3), 251–265.
Daryaee, N., Rezaeemoghadam, K., & Salmanzadeh, S. (2011). Factors affecting sustainable agri-
cultural knowledge in Iran: A case study of rice cultivators in Mazandaran Province. Journal
of Rural Development Studies, 14(2), 185–201.
Davodi, H., & Maghsodi, T. (2011).Investigation of sustainable agricultural knowledge among
potato grower of Shoshtar County. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Develop-
ment, 42(2), 265–275.
Dawe, G., & Jucker, R., & Martin, S. (2005). Sustainable development in higher edu-
cation: Current practice and future developments—A report for the higher education
academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/was%20York%20%20delete%
20this%20soon/documents/ourwork/sustainability/sustdevinHEfinalreport.pdf
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Strength of evidence in systematic reviews in software engineer-
ing. Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement. Kaiserslautern, Germany: ACM.
Enayatirad, M., Ajili, A., Rezaeemoghadam, K., & Bijani, M. (2010). An investigation of sustain-
able activities among corn producer farmers in Khuzestan Province. Iranian Journal of Agri-
cultural Economics and Development, 40(4), 59–68.
168 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). EPA for your information. Prevention, pesticides and
toxic substances (H7506C). Arlington, VA: Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental
Protection Agency.
Forouzani, M., & Karami, E. (2012). Water management knowledge: Among wheat producers in
Marvdasht County, Fars Province. Journal of Agricultural Education Research, 21, 34–43.
Frick, M. J. (1993). Developing a national framework for a middle school agricultural education
curriculum. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(2), 77–84.
Hassink, J., Hulsink, W., & Grin, J. (2014). Care farms in the Netherlands: An underexplored
example of multifunctional agriculture—Toward an empirically grounded, organization-
theory-based typology. Rural Sociology, 77(4), 1–11.
Hayatee, D., & Karami, E. (1999). The effective structures on sustainable agricultural knowledge
and sustainability of crop systems (Case study: Wheat grower of Fars province). Science and
Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 3, 21–33.
Hollweg, K. S., Taylor, J. R., Bybee, R. W., Marcinkowski, T. J., McBeth, W. C., & Zoido, P.
(2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. Washington, DC: North
American Association for Environmental Education. Retrieved from http://www.naaee.
net
Hosseinzadeh, M., & Ghorbani, M. (2011) The economic study of farmers, behavior on animal
manure use at farm level of Esfarayen. Journal of Economics and Agricultural Development,
25(3), 295–305.
Ikerd, J. E. (2009) Rethinking the first principles of agroecology. In P. J. Bohlen & G. House (Eds.),
Sustainable agroecosystem management: Integrating ecology, economics, and society (pp. 41–
52). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Jepsen, H., Pastor, M., & Elliot, J. (2007). Agricultural perceptions of the participants of the Summer
Agricultural Institute. Proceedings of the 2007 Association for Career and Technical Educa-
tion Research 41st Annual Research Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Karami, E., & Mansoorabadi, A. (2008). Sustainable agricultural attitudes and behaviors: A gender
analysis of Iranian farmers. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(6), 883–898.
Karami E., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Ebrahimi, H. (2006). Predicting sprinkler irrigation adop-
tion: Comparison of models. The Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Water and Soil Science, 10(1), 71–90.
Karami, S., Karami, E., & Zamani, G. H. (2013). Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes towards
use of water desalination plant in agriculture in Bushehr Province, Iran. Iranian Agricultural
Extension and Education Journal, 8(2), 1–18.
Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). System-
atic literature reviews in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Information
and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15.
Kolahi, M. G., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Ajili, A. (2010). Adoption of dry seeding in rice cul-
tivation: The case Khorasan province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal,
6(1), 59–70.
Kovar, K. A., & Ball A. L. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy research: A synthesis of the
literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 1–7.
Krasny, M. E., & Lee S-K. (2002). Social learning as an approach to environmental education:
Lessons from a program focusing on non-indigenous, invasive species. Evironmental Educa-
tion Research, 8(2),101–19.
Kupiainen, E., Mäntylä, M. V., & Itkonen J. (2015). Using metrics in agile and lean software
development—A systematic literature review of industrial studies. Information and Software
Technology, 62, 143–163.
Liaghati, H., Veisi, H., Hematyar, H., & Ahmadzadeh, F. (2008). Assessing the student’s attitudes
towards sustainable agriculture. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Sciences, 3(2), 227–232.
 APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION 169

Lopez, M., Peterson, S. S., Craigmill, A., Martinez, N., Parnell, S., Rene, P., &
Turner, B. (1999). Building community collaboration for lead safety education:
Extension educators take the lead. Journal of Extension, 37(1). Retrieved from
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999february/a2.html
Maghsoodi, T., Iravani, H., Movahed Mohammadi, H., & Asadi, A. (2006). Regression analysis
of factors effective on sustainability of potato cultivation in Fereidounshahr County of Iran.
Journal of Rural Development Studies, 3, 154–171.
McElroy, M. W. (2008). Social footprints. Measuring the social sustainability performance of orga-
nizations (Dissertation). University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Meischen, D. L., & Trexler, C. J. (2003). Rural elementary students’ understandings of science
and agricultural education benchmarks related to meat and livestock. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 44(1), 43–55.
Mennatizadeh, M., & Zamani, Gh. (2013).Codification of farmer’s environmental behavior model
of Shiraz County. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal, 8(2), 63–75.
Mirovitskaya, N., & Ascher, W. (2001). Guide to sustainable development and environmental policy.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mohammadi, Y., Sha’aban Alifami, H., & Asadi, A. (2009). Farmers water management skills:
Zarindasht County of Fars, Province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal,
5(1), 97–107.
Mosavi, F., PezeshkiRad, Gh., & Chizari, M. (2008). The relationship between social characteris-
tics and users’ attitudes toward sustainable water management. Iranian Agricultural Extension
and Education Journal, 4(2), 43–52.
Murray, P. E., Brown, N., & Murray, S. (2013). Deconstructing sustainability literacy: The corner-
stone of education for sustainability? The role of values. The International Journal of Environ-
mental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability, 2(7), 83–92.
Murray, P. E., & Cotgrave, A. J. (2007) Sustainability literacy: The future paradigm for construc-
tion education? Structural Survey, 25(1), 7–23.
Nahid, N., & Karami, E. (2012). Determinants of crop residues management in Marvdasht
County, Iran. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal, 8(1), 1–15.
Nickerson, R. S. (2003). Psychology and environmental change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Noorivandi, A. N., Ajili, A., Chizari, M., & Bijani, M. (2009). The socio-economic characteris-
tics of wheat farmers regarding adoption of sustainable soil management (SSM). Journal of
Human Ecology, 27(3), 201–205.
Noorollah-Noorivandi, A., Ajili, A., Chizari, M., & Bijani, M. (2012). Comparison of soil conser-
vation adoption model in Khuzestan province. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education
Journal, 7(2), 21–34.
Omani, A., & Chizari, M. (2006). Determine the social, economic and agronomic characteristics
of wheat growers in Ahvaz, Dezful and Behbahan counties according to acceptance of Low
Input Sustainable Agriculture (LISA) methods. Journal of Science and Technology of Agricul-
ture and Natural Resources, 10(1), 107–119.
Omani, A. R., Chizari, M., Salmanzadeh, C., & Farajahhahhosaini, J. (2009). Predicting adoption
behavior of farmers regarding on-farm sustainable water resources management (SWRM):
Comparison of models. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33(5), 595–616.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. New York,
NY: SUNY Press.
Pezeshki-Raad, G., & Masaeli, M. (2003). Economic factors effective in adopting an integrated
campaign in rice stem borer control in Isfahan. Journal of Science and Technology of Agricul-
ture and Natural Resources, 6(4), 53–65.
Reganold, J. P., Jackson-Smith, D., Batie, S. S., Harwood, R. R., Kornegay, J. L., Bucks, D., … Willis,
P. (2011). Transforming U.S. agriculture. Science, 332, 670–671.
170 H. S. VANINEE ET AL.

Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Karami, E., & Gibson, J. (2005). Conceptualizing sustainable agriculture:
Iran as an illustrative case. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 27(3), 25–56.
Sadighi, H., & Rousta, K. (2003). Factors affecting sustainable agricultural knowledge of exem-
plary corn growers in the province of Fars, Iran. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(4),
913–924.
Shahroudi, A. A., Chizari, M., & Pezeshki Rad, Gh. (2008).The influence of water users’ cooper-
ative on farmers’ attitude toward agricultural water management: A case study in Khorasan-
Razavi Province, Iran. Journal of Economic and Agricultural Development, 21(1), 23–33.
Shahroudi, E., & Chizari, M. (2009). An analysis of farmers’ behavioral domains regarding opti-
mal agricultural water management in Khorasan-Razavi province: A comparison participants
and non-participants in water users cooperative. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Educa-
tion Journal, 4(2), 81–99.
Sharifi, A., Rezaei, R., & Boromand, N. (2011). A study of factors influencing sustainability of
greenhouse cultivation system in Jiroft and Kohnuj Region. Iranian Journal of Agricultural
Economics and Development, 42(1), 143–152.
Sharifi, M., Sharifzadeh, A., Mahboobi, M. R., & Abdollahzadeh, Gh. (2006, December 15–16).
Studying farmer’s practices related to rice integrated pest management Fars Province. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd National Conference of Agro-ecology of Iran-Gorgan, Gorgan Province,
Iran.
Stone, M. K., & Barlow, Z. (2005). Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable
world. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Suh, E. E., Kagan, S., & Stumpf, N. (2009). Cultural competence in qualitative interview methods
with Asian immigrants. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 20, 194–201.
Teksöz, G., Sahin, E., & Tekkaya-Oztekin, C. (2012). Modeling environmental literacy of univer-
sity students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 157–166.
Teksöz, G., Şahin, E., & ve Ertepınar, H. (2010). Environmental literacy, pre-service teachers, and
a sustainable future. Bir Gelecek, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 307–320.
Tisdell, C. (2007). An assessment of the UN’s millennium development goals and its millennium
declaration. In C. A. Tisdell (Ed.), Poverty, poverty alleviation, and social disadvantage: Anal-
ysis, case studies, and policies (pp. 74–87). New Delhi, India: Serials Publications.
Tohidyan Far, S., & Rezaei Moghaddam, K. (2013). Appropriate model for predicting adoption
of modern irrigation channels (Case Study: Syakh Darnjan region in Fars province). Water
and Soil Conservation, 1, 29–53.
Veisi, H. (2012). Exploring the determinats of adoption behavior of clean technologies in agri-
culture: A case of integrated pest management. Asian Journal if Technology Innovation, 20(1),
67–82.
Veisi, H., Hematyar, H., & Azarkerda, H. (2008). Exploring the relationship between students
knowledge and perceptions towards sustainable agriculture. Environmental Sciences, 5(2), 39–
50.
Veisi, H., Liaghati, H., & Alipour, A. (2016). Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators
of sustainable agriculture using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Ecological Indicators, 60,
644–654. doi.10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.012.
Veisi, H., Mahmodi, H., & Sharifi Mogadam, M. (2011). Determining farmers behavior in adop-
tion of the technologies of integrated pest management. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Eco-
nomics and Development Research, 41–42(4), 481–490.
Xia, B., Zuo, J., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., & Hu, X. (2014). Sustainability literacy of older people in
retirement villages. Journal of Aging Research, 2, 12–22. doi.org/10.1155/2014/919054.
Zhu, W., Wang, S., & Caldwell, C. D. (2012). Pathways of assessing agroecosystem health and
agroecosystem management. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32, 9–17.