Samira Behroozeh
Dariush Hayati
Ezatollah Karami1
Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam- 1Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
- 2Department of Biosystems Engineering, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Introduction: Construction of agricultural greenhouses can be considered as one of the appropriate solutions to meet the growing food demands. However, high energy use in greenhouse productions on the one hand and energy limitation on the other hand are fundamental challenges facing mankind. The present study aims to measure and compare energy efficiency based on the components of energy use sustainability (Environmental Norms, Environmental Beliefs, Environmental Values, Technical Management, Technical Knowledge, Education Level, Greenhouse’s Work Experience, Cost-Effectiveness and Educational-Extension Service) among greenhouse cucumber growers.
Methods: The statistical population included cucumber production greenhouse owners in Kerman Province, Iran. Out of the total population, 356 cases were selected as a sample using two-stage cluster sampling method. The data collection tool in this study was a researcher-made questionnaire. The questionnaire validity was confirmed via the content validity method and its reliability was confirmed through the pilot test. The data obtained from the questionnaire was recorded, calculated, and analyzed by SPSS24, Excel2019, and Deap software.
Results and discussion: The results showed that the average energy efficiency in the studied units was 0.72 (out of 1), so that 21 and 335 greenhouses used energy efficient and inefficient, respectively. According to the components of energy use sustainability, a significant difference was observed between efficient and inefficient greenhouses, so that the energy efficient greenhouses have a high level of related components. It is suggested that the decision-makers, stakeholders, and active policy makers in the field of greenhouse crops should consider all the components of energy use sustainability, so that the developed policies and programs can cover all dimensions and take into account different aspects of energy use sustainability. As the results of this study can serve as a reference for other similar areas.
1 Introduction
The agricultural sector supplies food to the growing population of the earth and raw materials required for the industrial sector. There are many people, especially in rural communities, who depend on agriculture for income and employment, and a significant amount of the income of developing countries is related to the agricultural sector (Yazdani et al., 2019). Agricultural activities, however, have destructive effects on the surrounding environment such as deterioration of water and soil resources, air pollution, and the reduction of ecological diversity (Nabizadeh et al., 2018). Limitation of water and land, as well as the increase of the world’s population, have always attracted subjects for farmers to provide more food per unit area (Taki et al., 2012a). Therefore, a sustainable system with high productivity should be a priority in order to satisfy the food demands of the growing human population, and one of the appropriate ways to overcome this problem is to use new agricultural methods such as greenhouse structures.
Greenhouses are important infrastructures to meet the increasing demand for food (Kozai et al., 1997). They are the foundation of a protected cultivation system (Baeza et al., 2013), in geographical locations where the soil, climate, and social conditions are not optimal or even where it is impossible to grow and harvest any plant, they make it possible for vegetables, fruits, and flowers to grow and be harvested (Zabeltitz, 1990). Greenhouses also protect the crop from pests, insects, and extreme climate conditions such as heavy rains or draft animals and wind. It is a significant expectation that greenhouses are feasible and sustainable in terms of ecological and socioeconomic status (Bot, 2001). Despite the benefits of greenhouse cultivation, this agricultural system depends on huge resources of energy and fossil fuels (directly and indirectly) (Taki et al., 2012b). Energy intensive operations in greenhouse production and energy limitation are fundamental challenges of mankind for increasing production system performance. Therefore, it is very important to check the amount of energy use and efficiency in greenhouse production (Esfanjari Kenari et al., 2015), as low energy efficiency not only leads to energy wastage, but also causes serious environmental contamination (Liu et al., 2020). Knowledge of the energy flow in an agricultural system and its related factors allows us to develop a more accurate picture of the system in terms of energy production, resource consumption, and system efficiency. Moreover, the energy-intensive inputs are specified and the system’s reliance on the inputs is determined according to the limited energy resources, which is effective in future decisions to design sustainable ecosystems in the direction of sustainable development (Koohkan, 2017). Undoubtedly, it cannot be claimed that a non-balanced system in terms of energy consumption and production has a constant and sustainable state for energy (Asgharipour et al., 2012). Accordingly, most of the developed and developing countries have measured the energy input per unit area for the production of various agricultural crops and have attempted to optimize their agricultural systems for energy consumption by calculating the energy efficiency index (Nasirian et al., 2006). In this regard, the optimal energy consumption in agriculture can minimize environmental problems, prevent the destruction of resources, and strengthen sustainable agriculture as an economic production system as well (Kizilaslan, 2009). The first step for optimal use of available resources is to evaluate the energy efficiency in the production process (Taki et al., 2012c). As the increase in demand for food productions due to the population growth has led to excessive use of chemical fertilizers, agricultural machinery, insecticides and other production inputs, which ultimately causes environmental problems and threatens public health. The efficient energy use minimizes environmental problems, prevents the destruction of natural resources, and promotes sustainable agriculture as a production and economic system (Erdal et al., 2007).
Some of the factors affecting energy increasing efficiency are: management, modification of consumer behavior, modification of environmental norms, beliefs and values (Barber et al., 2009; Miafodzyeva et al., 2010; Viscusi et al., 2011; Thanh et al., 2012; Sadeghi Shahedani and Khoshkhouy, 2015; Salehi et al., 2017; Bondari et al., 2020; Behroozeh et al., 2024). Technical management of agricultural inputs consumption is one of the important topics in sustainable agriculture, because although the indiscriminate and unplanned consumption of agricultural inputs increases the yield and improves the quality of crops, it brings destructive effects that should not be ignored (Nuthall, 2006; Mohtashami and Zandi Daregharibi, 2018). Energy consumption management is based on learning and knowledge of energy consumption (Huo et al., 2022). The use of energy resources in alignment with technical management is therefore vital to optimal energy consumption (Iqbal and Kim, 2022). Thus, managing energy consumption through technical knowledge and information of energy generation and consumption can significantly improve energy economy (Shahpasand, 2016; Wang et al., 2022). On the other hand, the values, beliefs, and norms of farmers have a significant impact on their environmental behavior regarding the use of agricultural inputs (Wensing et al., 2019). This is because values are general goals that serve as principles and guides in people’s lives, influencing various environmental behaviors (Gao et al., 2017). In general, individuals with environmental values are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, such as those that reduce energy consumption (Steg et al., 2014; Behroozeh et al., 2023). Environmental values, beliefs, and norms act as key components in the adoption of sustainable production methods by agricultural greenhouse growers (Hall et al., 2009). Norms also refer to a moral obligation or duty that encourages individuals to engage in specific behaviors and are a primary predictor of intention and behavior (Wan et al., 2017). Environmental beliefs indicate a willingness to protect the environment, such as the acceptance of using clean energy (Xia et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). This is because environmental beliefs are a system of attitudes that determine an individual’s behavior toward the environment and serve as a frame of reference in interacting with the environment (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003).
In addition, the application and use of agricultural inputs is different between farmers who use extension and educational services, and farmers who do not use these services (Salehi et al., 2020). Accessibility to extension and educational services in line with the application of agricultural inputs has positive effects on agricultural productivity (Emmanuel et al., 2016). In order to achieve more sustainable farming, farmers may need to relearn and subsequently change their attitudes (Šūmane et al., 2018) through extension education (Polat, 2015) to overcome the resource-consumption approaches that have long been dominant and are deeply ingrained in the thinking and practices of many farmers (Sáenz et al., 2024). In general, the impact of extension and educational services in agriculture is positively and significantly correlated with agricultural productivity (Haq, 2012). This is because farmers who use extension and educational services achieve higher technical efficiency in agriculture compared to those who do not benefit from these services (Dinar et al., 2007; Anik and Salam, 2017). In general, the goal of agricultural extension services is to improve farmers’ knowledge, which helps increase crop production and technical efficiency (Biswas et al., 2021). In this context, low educated and low experienced farmers, compared to their more educated and experienced counterparts, tend to use more than the recommended optimal amounts of chemical fertilizers and agricultural inputs due to their limited access to information (Adesina, 1996; Ade Freeman and Omiti, 2003). In fact, farmers with higher levels of education tend to have higher technical efficiency (Haider et al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2012). Because years of experience and education enrich farmers’ knowledge, leading to improved technical efficiency (Athukorala, 2017). Additionally, the benefits of increased productivity because of the consumption of agricultural inputs have a positive relationship with the intensity of their consumption, while education has a negative relationship with it (Waithaka et al., 2007; Haq, 2015).
Agricultural production system contributes 14% of the net global CO2 emissions (Cooper et al., 2011) from greenhouse gases (GHG) (Pishgar Komleh et al., 2011), and leading to the release of 30–50% of insecticides in the air (Khoshnevisan et al., 2014). In general, the energy consumed for various agricultural activities includes land preparation, irrigation, planting, fertilization, pest control, harvesting, processing, transportation, and distribution of agricultural products (Mirzabaev et al., 2023). This has contributed to global warming since the 1950s (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2021). The global climate is warming, and various studies (Outhwaite et al., 2022) have confirmed that this is due to human activities that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions account for 40 to 60 percent (Omotoso and Omotayo, 2024) of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming and drought (Brownea et al., 2011; Khoshnevisan et al., 2013). Therefore, reducing global warming is a major challenge for energy consumption management, as a significant portion of global warming and climate change results from the combustion of fossil fuels that releases greenhouse gases (Meyer, 2010). Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are released by various human activities, including deforestation, disruption of natural land use, industrial operations, and unsustainable agricultural practices (such as excessive use of energy resources, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.), as well as the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and petroleum products (Scott et al., 2023). For this reason, land degradation through the emission of greenhouse gases is a significant driver of climate change (Tione et al., 2022). Therefore, the efficient use of energy in agricultural production systems, including greenhouse cultivation, as a crop production system with energy compression, is the highest priority to achieve energy use sustainability (Ghorbani et al., 2011). Accordingly, energy analysis in agriculture plays a significant role in the development of human’s perspective toward agricultural ecosystems and improves the quality of decisions and planning in the management and development of the agricultural sector (Rathke and Diepenbrock, 2006). The statistics of the Agricultural Jihad Organization indicate that the area of greenhouses in Iran has increased from 3,380 hectares to 6,630 hectares during 2003–2011. According to the above statistics, the production of greenhouse cucumbers, which is one of the main greenhouse crops in the world, has increased rapidly in the country, and therefore, after China and Turkey, Iran ranked in third place with production of more than two million tons of cucumbers annually (Heidari and Omid, 2011). According to the agricultural statistics of 2016, the cultivated area of greenhouse crops in Iran was 8,820 hectares, among which the cultivated area of cucumber, tomato, pepper, strawberry, and eggplant was 72.8, 8.1, 5, 5.2, and 2.6% of the total area under cultivation in greenhouses, respectively (Agricultural Statistics, 2015). Cucumber is the most commonly greenhouse vegetable worldwide (Nassiri and Singh, 2009) and is a warm-season plant and grows quickly at 24–29°C (Marr, 1995). Since Kerman province has a unique climate, it is considered as one of the largest natural greenhouses in Iran, where it allows to grow all kinds of greenhouse vegetables (Saei, 2019) and it is the largest producer of greenhouse cucumbers in Iran (Mehrabi Basharabadi, 2008). According to the literature and in order to achieve the objectives in the study, it is concluded that the consumption of agricultural inputs and as a result, achieving the energy use efficiency depends on several factors, based on which the conceptual framework is designed and analyzed (Figure 1). Because many studies have investigated energy consumption from the point of view of technical issues (Giampietro et al., 1992; Nassiri and Singh, 2009; Fartout Enayat et al., 2017); In several instances where the impact of non-technical factors on energy input usage has been examined, the research has focused more specifically on the consumption of particular inputs, such as fertilizers and chemicals (Gün and Kan, 2009; Zhou et al., 2010; Ataei-Asad and Movahedi, 2021). Accordingly, the main objective of this study is to measure and compare energy use efficiency among cucumber greenhouse growers. To save energy, improve energy use efficiency, and increase resource productivity, a better understanding of sustainable energy use models can enhance economic performance and reduce environmental impacts. Although numerous studies have been conducted on energy use efficiency in agriculture, only a limited number have specifically analyzed energy use efficiency in cucumber greenhouses based on sustainable energy use components. Furthermore, many of these studies have not compared energy-efficient and inefficient greenhouses based on sustainable energy use components. Therefore, in this study, to achieve the main research objective, the energy use efficiency in the greenhouses under investigation will first be examined and assessed. Subsequently, energy-efficient and inefficient greenhouses will be compared and analyzed based on sustainable energy use components. This innovative approach not only aids in identifying the best energy use practices but also provides solutions for optimizing energy use based on sustainable energy use components.
Figure 1. Study’s conceptual model.
Therefore, the present study specifically examines the energy use situation in the cucumber greenhouse by considering components such as Environmental values, Environmental beliefs, Environmental norms, Technical knowledge of the greenhouse, Technical management of the greenhouse, The use of the educational- extension services, Education level, Benefit/Cost and Greenhouse’s work experience. Consequently, the necessity of measuring and comparing the energy use efficiency in cucumber cultivation greenhouses according to the components of the energy use sustainability is felt because it helps managers and executives to understand the difference in energy use efficiency in cucumber cultivation greenhouses based on these components, and if required, design programs to strengthen and benefit from these components for the greenhouse owners. Therefore, it is required to measure and compare the energy use efficiency among cucumber cultivation greenhouses in order to make energy use sustainability programs in agricultural greenhouses effective. To that end, the present study investigated the energy use efficiency among the cucumber growers in Kerman province, Iran with the aim of measuring the energy use efficiency and comparing it based on the components of energy use sustainability (Figure 1).
2 Materials and methods
The present study is practical purposefully, it is a survey research in terms of data collection, and descriptive for data analysis, which was conducted in greenhouse cucumber production farms in Kerman province, Iran (Figure 2) in the crop year of 2020–2021 (From the middle of September 2020 to the middle of June 2021). The population studied were the greenhouse cucumber growers (N = 4,946), whose number was obtained through the resources available in the Agricultural Jihad Organization of the province. The two-stage cluster sampling method was used considering the wide distribution of cucumber production greenhouses in different cities of the province and the coverage of 92.81% of cucumber production greenhouses in Jiroft, Kahnuj, Anbarabad, and Ghalae-Ganj counties among all the production greenhouses in the province. In the first step, the studied area was divided into two high-density (counties with cultivated area above 100 ha) and low-density (counties with cultivated area less than 100 ha) clusters in terms of cultivated area; and in the second step, Jiroft was selected from the high-density cluster and Kerman was selected from the low-density cluster. These two counties were selected due to the diversity of the climate. The number of samples in each cluster was also selected using the proportional assignment method. In addition, Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table was used to determine the sample size (n = 356).
Figure 2. The site of the study area.
The data collection tool in this study was a researcher-made questionnaire, including eight main items as follows:
1. Energy use efficiency: It is the level of energy used (MJ) to produce a unit of crop in term of energy (Demircan et al., 2006), i.e., this index shows how much energy has been harvested for each mega Joule of energy consumed per hectare for production purposes. The larger the ratio, the higher the energy efficiency (Singh et al., 2004; Banaeian et al., 2011; Ghorbani et al., 2011). Accordingly, the level of energy use of a greenhouse cucumber cultivation period was investigated using questionnaires prepared including information on the application value of agricultural inputs (Irrigation water, Fertilizers, Chemical pesticides, Machinery, Fuel, Manpower, Plastic, Seeds, and Electricity). In order to measure the energy use efficiency among cucumber growers, the level of energy available in all inputs and outputs was estimated using their energy equivalents recorded in Table 1, and then the energy efficiency index was calculated using Deap software and using the DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) method [that was first introduced by Charnes et al. (1978)]. A comparison of the average factors affecting energy use in two groups of efficient and inefficient (Nassiri and Singh, 2009) greenhouses was made by dividing the evaluated greenhouses based on the energy use efficiency.
2. Environmental values: They include the basic orientation of an individual in the field of environment and show the worldview of people toward the natural world (Schultz and Zelezny, 1998; Barr et al., 2003). Accordingly, environmental values with twelve items (1- In my view, human beings hold superior rights to utilize the environment compared to other living beings such as plants and animals. 2- Farmers are entitled to utilize the environment in any way they see fit to enhance agricultural productivity. 3- I prioritize agriculture over environmental concerns. 4- I believe the key to human survival lies in increasing production rather than maintaining the health of natural resources. 5- The marketability and perceived quality of products are paramount considerations in greenhouse management. 6- I am of the opinion that chemical residues in fruits and vegetables do not pose risks to human health. 7- I prioritize human welfare over the protection of animal and plant species. 8- I prioritize increasing agricultural output for human sustenance over environmental preservation. 9- My primary objective in farming is to maximize production and profits. 10- I assert my right to utilize agricultural inputs to their maximum extent in pursuit of maximizing profits. 11- The management of my greenhouse and my methods are my exclusive prerogative, and I reject any interference or supervision from others. 12- Given the current economic climate, considerations for the environment or collective interests are not feasible for me) were investigated.
3. Environmental beliefs: They are a system of attitudes determining an individual’s behavior toward the environment and are the frame of reference in interacting with the environment (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2003). Consequently, environmental beliefs with twelve items (1- I believe that nature possesses inherent resilience to counteract the impacts of modern industrialization. 2- The ingenuity of humanity assures us that we will not render the Earth uninhabitable. 3- The purported environmental crisis facing humanity has been overly sensationalized. 4- Human survival does not hinge on aligning ourselves with nature. 5- I am of the opinion that haphazard use of agricultural inputs does not exacerbate environmental conditions in the area. 6- I do not subscribe to the notion that environmental issues such as water and soil pollution can be attributed to agricultural input usage. 7- Assertions regarding phenomena like climate change are exaggerated. 8- Concerns about the environment are unwarranted as future generations will possess greater capabilities to address present challenges. 9- The responsibility for addressing environmental crises lies solely with the government. 10- I disclaim any responsibility for mitigating environmental issues stemming from the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture. 11- It is not incumbent upon me to divulge information about energy use sustainability in my greenhouse to other greenhouse owners. 12- If others make no efforts to protect the environment, I would feel no responsibility to do so.) were evaluated.
4. Environmental norms: They are formal and informal rules that express the type of behavior (environmental behavior) and individual relationships in the community (Vesely and Klöckner, 2018). In this regard, environmental norms with four items [1- I believe that the implementation of environmentally friendly practices in greenhouse cultivation and the adoption of eco-conscious interventions have limited impact on environmental conservation. 2- I strongly feel that adherence to environmental principles and regulations is not merely a choice but a mandatory obligation. 3- It is my view that concern over environmental pollution is unwarranted, as technological advancements will inevitably resolve such issues. 4- From my perspective, humans possess the capability to manipulate the environment to suit their requirements] were investigated.
5. Technical management: Greenhouse management includes planning, directing, and controlling the operations before cultivating, harvesting, producing, and supplying (Hanan et al., 2012). Technical management with 11 items including 1- Which cases have you analyzed to optimize fuel consumption in greenhouse design? 2- What measures do you implement to minimize energy waste within the greenhouse? 3- In a fan-and-pad cooling system, where is the fan positioned within your greenhouse? 4- What are your greenhouse’s temperature settings for daytime and nighttime operation? 5- What cooling mechanisms do you employ to reduce temperatures inside the greenhouse? 6- How do you prevent energy wastage, particularly concerning light and heat? 7- What method do you use to ensure even heat distribution throughout the greenhouse? 8- What types of heating equipment is utilized in your greenhouse? 9- What type of air circulation system is installed within the greenhouse? 10- What fuel source is used for heating the greenhouse? 11- Are there any subsidies available for the purchase of fuel? were evaluated in this study.
6. Technical knowledge: Technical knowledge is a set of principles for the application of agricultural inputs, which includes the two dimensions of “knowledge of application” and “knowledge of environmental benefits” (Abtew et al., 2016). Accordingly, measurement and analysis of technical knowledge were conducted with 17 items including: 1- What issues arise for cucumbers when excessive nitrogen fertilizer is applied before flowering? 2- At which stage of cucumber growth was nitrogen fertilizer administered? 3- What are the impacts of applying phosphate fertilizers on cucumbers? 4- Which elements’ proportion is crucial for regulating both vegetative and reproductive growth in cucumber plants? 5- Where are ticks most active during the cold season? 6- What factors contribute to reductions in sulfur levels in plants? 7- How does ensuring the appropriate moisture level benefit plant growth? 8- What type of fertilizer should be fully applied to the soil before planting? 9- If harvest time is expected within the next eight days and chemical intervention is necessary in the greenhouse, what is the maximum pre-harvest interval for the chemical to be used? 10- How does light intensity affect plant development? 11- What impacts do elevated EC levels have on cucumber plants? 12- What is the primary limiting factor for greenhouse cultivation? 13- What is the EC level of the soil in which cucumbers are grown? 14- What is the soil pH for cucumber cultivation? Additionally, which elements are used to, respectively, increase and decrease soil acidity? 15- How frequently, in what forms, and on what occasions do you conduct soil sampling and testing? 16- What methods do you employ for non-chemical control of cucumber downy mildew? 17- What strategy do you employ to enhance the volume of cucumber plant roots?
7. Educational extension services: Educational extension services are responsible for disseminating technological knowledge to farmers (Singh and Meena, 2019) and helping them improve agricultural practices and increase management skills (Wanigasundera and Atapattu, 2019). In this study, 12 items including 1- Do the experts of Agricultural Jihad (Iranian public agricultural organization who responsible to supply extension and educational services) or the related research center visit your greenhouse during the cultivation period? 2- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or the related research center visit your greenhouse on a monthly basis? 3- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or the related research center offer you services related to cucumber greenhouses? 4- Do the experts from the Agricultural Jihad or the related research center provide you with training regarding cucumber greenhouses? 5- Are you a member of online groups related to greenhouses? 6- Have you so far received advisory services and counseling through virtual groups about the greenhouses for growing cucumber? 7- Have you used educational- extension books regarding the greenhouses for growing cucumber? 8- Have you used educational- extension journals regarding the greenhouses for growing cucumber? 9- Have you used educational- extension films regarding the greenhouses for growing cucumber? 10- Do the information resources cover your information needs about greenhouses for growing cucumber? 11- Do you have access to appropriate information resources about the greenhouses for cultivating cucumber? 12- Have you taken part in the educational classes and workshops regarding the greenhouses for growing cucumber? were used to evaluate the benefit of promotional-educational services.
8. Individual characteristics: A demographic survey of greenhouse cucumber growers was conducted by considering the income from cucumber cultivation, the cost of cucumber cultivation, the level of cucumber cultivation experience, and the level of education.
Table 1. Energy equivalents of inputs and output in cucumber production.
The questionnaire validity was confirmed via the content validity method by expert professors and its reliability was confirmed through the pilot test. In addition, the number of studied greenhouse owners was obtained through the resources available in the Agricultural Jihad Organization. The steps of conducting the research are shown in Figure 3. The data obtained from the questionnaire was recorded, calculated, and analyzed by SPSS24, Excel2019, and Deap software.
Figure 3. Research methodology flow chart.
3 Results and discussion
Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of greenhouse owners. It illustrates that the average area of land dedicated to cucumber cultivation in the surveyed region is 12,952.3 square meters. Moreover, the average duration of greenhouse cucumber cultivation is reported as 8.8 years, with a standard deviation of 3.6. The respondents’ average educational attainment stands at 11.1 years, with a standard deviation of 5.2. Furthermore, the study reveals that 6% (22 individuals) of participants are female, while 94% (334 individuals) are male.
Table 2. The demographic properties of the studied greenhouse owners.
The findings concerning the technical management of individuals studied in cucumber cultivation within greenhouses, aimed at optimizing energy use, reveal that the average technical management score among greenhouse owners (9.83) falls below the intermediate level. This deficiency stems from a lack of essential information and knowledge necessary for efficient greenhouse management and optimal energy use. For instance, owners neglect crucial solutions for greenhouse design to minimize fuel use and prevent energy waste. Additionally, they fail to regulate greenhouse temperatures adequately throughout the day and night, and they do not employ suitable cooling and heating systems to maintain favorable conditions for plant growth (Table 3). Consequently, the greenhouse manager’s decisions regarding greenhouse unit implementation and management, as well as agricultural input utilization, do not result in efficient energy use. In fact, energy use sustainability in agriculture cannot be achieved solely through technology for environmental protection but requires changes in behavior, improved management, and enhanced knowledge of farmers about energy use and identifying the factors affecting it (Bourdeau, 2004). This is because sustainability in energy use and energy systems management helps enhance energy use efficiency (Behroozeh et al., 2022). Furthermore, the technical knowledge of greenhouse owners (with a mean score of 13.65) regarding cucumber cultivation in greenhouses falls below the intermediate level. This deficiency primarily arises from their limited understanding of various agricultural inputs’ proper usage during the cultivation process. This includes aspects such as observing the latent period, soil sampling and testing, the effects of high electrical conductivity (EC) on cucumber, non-chemical methods for plant disease control, and regulating optimal plant temperature. Often, this lack of knowledge leads to haphazard and unprincipled input usage, thereby decreasing energy efficiency in cucumber-growing greenhouses (Table 3). Therefore, excelling in greenhouse crop production requires an increase in technical knowledge (Hall, 2003). Thus, achieving energy use efficiency requires utilizing technical knowledge for sustainability in energy use (Anderson, 2010; Croppenstedt, 2005).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of energy use sustainability components.
The findings regarding individuals’ environmental values in relation to efficient energy use in cucumber-growing greenhouses indicate that the average value among greenhouse owners (21.87) falls below the intermediate level. This discrepancy arises from the owners prioritizing agricultural activities for sustenance over environmental protection. They perceive increased production as more crucial for human survival than preserving healthy natural resources. This is because values are defined based on what people believe is fundamentally right or wrong (Gursoy et al., 2013). Environmental values are conceptualized as fundamental guides in people’s lives (Hedlund, 2011) and play a crucial role in efficient energy use (Shove and Walker, 2014). In fact, values act as informational filters that lead individuals to selectively accept or seek out information (Salehi et al., 2018). For this reason, environmental values play a significant role in the decision-making of agricultural unit managers and in the management of the use and application of resources in agricultural activities. Similarly, the results concerning individuals’ environmental beliefs regarding energy-efficient cucumber cultivation reveal that the average value of greenhouse owners’ environmental beliefs (22.56) is lower than the intermediate level. This is because some owners believe that if others do not contribute to environmental protection, they themselves bear no responsibility in this regard. Moreover, they hold the belief that human survival does not necessitate harmony with nature. However, environmental beliefs play an important role in decision-making and the management of the use and application of inputs in agricultural activities (Howley et al., 2015). This is because environmental beliefs are a system of attitudes that determine an individual’s behavior toward the environment and serve as a reference framework in interactions with the environment (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2008). The findings concerning the environmental norms of participants involved in energy-efficient practices within cucumber-growing greenhouses reveal that the average score for greenhouse owners’ environmental norms (8.51) falls below the moderate threshold. This suggests that individuals who endorse human intervention in environmental alteration for human benefit tend to have lower environmental norm scores. Moreover, interventions aimed at promoting environmentally friendly practices within greenhouse cultivation appear to have limited impact on overall environmental protection efforts (Table 3). Since norms provide meaningful values and orientations of others (Schwartz, 1977). And are generally defined as rules and standards perceived by members of a group that guide or constrain social behavior without the enforcement of laws (Cialdini and Trost, 1998). Therefore, energy use is influenced by social and environmental norms (Shove, 2010).
Similarly, the utilization of educational and extension services among participants striving for energy efficiency in cucumber-growing greenhouses indicates a modest average score (4.45) among greenhouse owners. This score falls below the moderate range, indicating a lack of substantial engagement with educational resources. Specifically, greenhouse owners exhibit minimal utilization of educational materials such as books and journals, infrequent participation in online discussions related to greenhouse practices, and limited access to educational programs offered by agricultural experts and research institutions in the region (Table 3). Considering that the main lever for promoting agriculture among farmers is education, educating farmers has significant benefits and substantial economic impacts (Nguyen and Cheng, 1997). Farmers with higher levels of education have better access to the knowledge, information, and innovations needed for their professional activities. They are also more capable of analyzing the information they receive and selecting the best approach for managing their farms (Uematsu and Mishra, 2010). Therefore, continuous education over time facilitates the enhancement of knowledge and acquisition of new skills in the process of empowering farmers toward sustainable energy use. Thus, as a prerequisite, it contributes to the development of theoretical capabilities and practical competencies in the field of greenhouse cultivation. Therefore, the rationale behind agricultural extension systems for agricultural development is based on the necessity of continuously implementing training programs for audiences. Over time, this approach aims to enhance their practical, technical, and social awareness, thereby improving their capacities, capabilities, and competencies as trained individuals. Because education is a key factor in agricultural development, and training specialized and research-oriented human resources is the most important factor for advancing agriculture (Cantley, 2004). Therefore, successful greenhouse management requires access to educational and extension services (Behroozeh et al., 2022). Because the goal of agricultural extension is to improve agricultural operations by promoting knowledge about technologies, operations, and the technical management of modern farming practices to farmers (Fabusoro et al., 2008).
The findings from Table 3 reveal that the average cost per hectare for operating cucumber-growing greenhouses amounts to approximately $119,342.6. Additionally, the average income and profit per hectare are reported as $180,380.9 and $61,038.4, respectively. Notably, the profit-cost ratio stands at 0.55, indicating that the economic viability of the greenhouses is modest. A higher ratio suggests a more favorable economic justification for investing in and operating these greenhouses. Because there is a close relationship between agricultural activities and energy use, and the productivity and profitability of this sector depend on its energy use (Karimi et al., 2008). Therefore, efficient energy use contributes to increased production and productivity, and supports the profitability and sustainability of agriculture (Singh et al., 2004).
According to the mentioned topics and the energy equivalent of inputs and outputs of greenhouse production (Table 1), as well as the amount of energy use, the energy equivalent of inputs used to produce greenhouse cucumbers in the greenhouses of Kerman province, Iran, was calculated during one cultivation period. The results presented in Table 4, show that the total energy of inputs for cucumber production in one cultivation period and the total energy of the produced crop in one cultivation period are 667,442,186 and 23,780,391 MJ/ha, respectively. Analyzing the amount of inputs use per unit area show how much of each input per hectare is used for greenhouse cucumber production. According to the results of Table 4, the highest level of energy consumed in the studied greenhouses is related to the fuel at the rate of 819,739 MJ/ha, which is used to heat the greenhouse and as fuel for tools and machinery. Due to the nature of greenhouse operations and off-season crop cultivation, fuel inputs often account for the largest share of energy use. Other researchers (Zalaghi et al., 2021) have also found in their studies on energy in agricultural greenhouses that fuel inputs account for the highest proportion of energy use in greenhouse crops.
Table 4. The amount of energy consumed by each of the inputs.
As aforementioned, DEA method was used to calculate the energy efficiency of the studied units. According to the results of Table 5, the mean energy use efficiency is 0.72, indicating low energy efficiency in the studied greenhouses. Twenty-one greenhouses are in an efficient state and 335 greenhouses are in an ineffective state for energy use, which indicates the inefficient use of agricultural inputs in greenhouse production. In this regard, some researchers found the excessive use of agricultural inputs by farmers (Benli and Kodal, 2003; Nassiri and Singh, 2009; Ghorbani et al., 2020).
Table 5. Energy efficiency indicators in studied greenhouses.
According to the results in Table 6, showing the application level of different inputs in the minimum optimal use combination, by reaching the optimal level of use, an average of 492,730.3 MJ/ha is saved in energy use. This issue indicates that greenhouse growers of cucumbers are not effectively minimizing energy use for optimal use. Therefore, there is significant potential to enhance the efficiency of greenhouse operators, as optimizing input use can maximize their efficiency.
Table 6. The amount of different inputs in the minimum-optimal combination.
The student’s t-test was used to compare the mean energy use efficiency among cucumber greenhouses based on the components of energy use sustainability (Table 7). According to the Cohen’s scale [Cohen’s d (Cohen, 2013) is a standardized effect size for measuring the difference between two group means]. There is a significant difference between efficient and inefficient greenhouse owners in terms of environmental norms, environmental beliefs, environmental values, technical management, technical knowledge, education level, greenhouse’s work experience, cost-effectiveness, and the benefit of educational-extension services. As mentioned in Table 7, the components of energy use sustainability are significantly higher among the group of greenhouses with energy use efficiency. In this regard, several researchers found the importance of environmental norms (Miafodzyeva et al., 2010; Viscusi et al., 2011; Thanh et al., 2012), environmental beliefs (Sadeghi Shahedani and Khoshkhouy, 2015; Salehi et al., 2017), environmental values (Barber et al., 2009; Bondari et al., 2020), technical management (Nuthall, 2006; Mohtashami and Zandi Daregharibi, 2018), technical knowledge (Mohammad-Rezaei and Hayati, 2018; Huo et al., 2022), education level (Adesina, 1996; Ade Freeman and Omiti, 2003; Wang, 2010), greenhouse’s work experience (Ade Freeman and Omiti, 2003; Ganji et al., 2018), cost-effectiveness (Shahan et al., 2008; Taghinazhad and Ranjbar, 2019), and the benefit of educational-extension services (Keshavarz and Mousavi, 2018; Salehi et al., 2020) in their research on resource sustainability and environmental protection. In general, if cucumber greenhouse growers believe that excessive use of agricultural inputs can worsen environmental conditions in the region, and if they make efforts to preserve the environment and feel responsible in this regard; then management of individuals in agricultural greenhouses will not seek to harm the environment through the use and application of agricultural inputs. To the extent that individuals recognize their equality with other living beings in terms of using the environment, prioritize agriculture in a balanced way with respect to the environment, avoid exploiting the environment for increased production, and do not excessively use agricultural inputs to maximize profits, then energy use behavior in agricultural greenhouses will align with the efficient and effective use of energy resources (Mousavi-Avval et al., 2011; Zangeneh et al., 2010).
Table 7. Comparison between efficient and inefficient cucumber greenhouses based on the components of energy use sustainability.
4 Conclusion and implications
In this study, measuring and comparing the energy use efficiency in cucumber greenhouses was evaluated by focusing on the comparison of efficient and inefficient greenhouses based on the components of energy use sustainability (Figure 1) in the study area; and since the comparison of energy use efficiency is influenced by the components of energy use sustainability, the detailed identification of these components was first addressed based on the fundamental studies in this field. Accordingly, the distinguishing components of effective and ineffective greenhouses were compared and investigated in nine dimensions, e.g., “environmental norms,” “environmental beliefs,” “environmental values,” “technical management,” “technical knowledge,” “education level,” “greenhouse’s work experience,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “the benefited of educational-extension services.” The results showed the significance of all these nine components in comparing the energy use efficiency in the studied greenhouses. Because greenhouse owners with energy efficiency exhibited a high level of these components related to energy use. However, despite the lack of energy efficiency (Table 5) in cucumber production in most of the greenhouses studied, the high price of greenhouse cucumbers has made cultivating this crop economically viable. It is also worth noting that the reduction in energy efficiency in cucumber production is due to the low cost of energy inputs in the country and the abundant availability of these resources. In this regard, making the prices of inputs more realistic and ensuring farmers’ access to agricultural inputs according to their needs will play a significant role in rationalizing farmers’ behavior in the use of these inputs.
The results of energy use for cucumber production greenhouses during one-year cultivation period showed that the total energy input in cucumber production is 667,442,186 MJ/ha. The most energy use of inputs was related to fuel. This can be due to the high use of this input especially in the cold season to keep the greenhouses warm and the need of the cucumber crop for a relatively high temperature to grow. Accordingly, replacing the method that can reduce the amount of fuel use in the greenhouse, such as modern heating devices which provide the required heat for the greenhouses by using the hot water flow system, can reduce fuel use and consequently reducing the total energy of inputs used in the greenhouse.
The results indicated that a high percentage of the studied greenhouses did not have the required efficiency and the increase in the input use in the above units exceeded the increase in the production of these units and caused a decrease in energy efficiency, which resulted in irreparable damages to the environment due to improper use of resources. Therefore, it is suggested that by improving management operations in the optimal use of inputs such as fuel and fertilizers and the technical knowledge of greenhouse owners about the importance of energy use, and conducting production units in line with the rational and timely energy use and energy saving methods, they should take steps in the direction of reducing energy losses and increasing performance per surface unit. This is because the average score for the technical management of greenhouse operators (Table 3) is below the average level. This situation stems from a lack of sufficient information on greenhouse management and principles of optimal energy use. Furthermore, the average technical knowledge of greenhouse owners (Table 3) is also below the average level. This issue is due to their relatively low awareness about the use and application of various agricultural inputs throughout the growing period.
Considering that only a few greenhouse units have 100 percent efficiency, and there is a difference in energy use sustainability components between high-efficiency and low-efficiency production greenhouses. Therefore, policymakers aiming to improve energy efficiency should focus on strategies that enhance environmental values, beliefs, and norms, and institutionalize them among greenhouse owners. This is because, according to the research results, the average values, beliefs, and environmental norms of greenhouse operators (Table 3) are below the average level. For this purpose, field extension and agricultural education agents can be utilized. Considering that the average level of utilization of educational and extension services (Table 7) in the study area is below the average level. Agricultural managers should provide educational and extension services by expanding successful methods used in efficient units and enhancing management knowledge and experience among units. They should train other units on the optimal use of resources through exemplary units. In addition, the expansion of educational classes related to identifying the types of pests and diseases and timely diagnosis of these factors and how to use inputs such as chemicals and pesticides which are required for these situations can effectively affect the efficiency of these units. Hence, it is suggested that the decision-makers, stakeholders, and active policy-makers on greenhouse crops should consider all the components of energy use sustainability, so that the policies and plans developed can cover all dimensions and take into account different aspects. Consequently, the results of this study can apply as a reference for other similar areas.
5 Limitations and avenues for future research
Numerous notable constraints were encountered during the research process. Initially, it is important to highlight that the assessment of energy use sustainability in agricultural greenhouses focused specifically on cucumber cultivation. A sample group consisting of greenhouse cucumber growers was selected to facilitate the comparison and measurement of sustainability indicators. This approach aimed to offer fresh insights into sustainable energy use criteria, which could potentially be valuable for other greenhouse operators, including those cultivating tomatoes, eggplants, strawberries, and similar crops.
Moreover, spatial restrictions coupled with the limited accessibility to other greenhouse owners, exacerbated by the COVID-19 outbreak, were primary factors contributing to the unavailability of pioneering farmers engaged in diverse greenhouse crop cultivation. Consequently, future research endeavors are advised to explore sustainable energy use components among farmers cultivating crops such as eggplants, tomatoes, strawberries, and similar produce. This exploration could greatly contribute to recognizing disparities and thus facilitate more targeted agricultural policy formulation across different regions and a wider spectrum of greenhouse crop varieties. Secondly, the components utilized in this study have been derived from a literature review; endeavors have also been made in this study to utilize the most prevalent components; however, it should be noted that components for energy use sustainability, akin to the notions of stability and sustainability, are highly dynamic. Hence, future researchers may employ alternative components for energy use sustainability in agriculture depending on the scope of their investigations.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
SB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. EK: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. SN: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. KR-M: Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors hereby express their special gratitude to all experts and greenhouse owners who completed the study questionnaires with great patience as well as the surveyors and interviewers who did their best in the data collection process.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abtew, A., Niassy, S., Affognon, H., Subramanian, S., Kreiter, S., Garzia, G. T., et al. (2016). Farmers' knowledge and perception of grain legume pests and their management in the eastern province of Kenya. J. Crop Protect. 87, 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.04.024
Ade Freeman, H., and Omiti, J. M. (2003). Fertilizer use in semi-arid areas of Kenya: analysis of smallholder farmers' adoption behavior under liberalized markets. J. Nutrient Cycl. Agroecosyst. 66, 23–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1023355011400
Adesina, A. A. (1996). Factors affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in cote d'Ivoire. J. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosyst. 46, 29–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00210222
Agricultural Statistics (2015). Statistics and information Technology Office of the Ministry of Jihad agriculture. Crop Products 1:117.
Anderson, A. (2010). Combating climate change through quality education. Washington, DC: Brookings Global Economy and Development.
Anik, A. R., and Salam, M. A. (2017). Assessing and explaining vegetable growers’ efficiency in the south-eastern hilly districts of Bangladesh. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 22, 680–695. doi: 10.1080/13547860.2017.1345113
Asgharipour, M. R., Mondani, F., and Riahinia, S. (2012). Energy use efficiency and economic analysis of sugar beet production system in Iran: a case study in Khorasan Razavi province. J. Ener. 44, 1078–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.023
Ataei-Asad, M., and Movahedi, R. (2021). Association of knowledge, attitude and behavioral intention with the potato farmers' behavior toward using fertilizers in Hamadan. J. Agric. Educ. 12, 38–54. doi: 10.22092/jaear.2021.352989.1783
Athukorala, W. (2017). Identifying the role of agricultural extension services in improving technical efficiency in the paddy farming sector in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka J. Econ. Res 5, 63–78. doi: 10.4038/sljer.v5i1.58
Baeza, E. J., Stanghellini, C., and Castilla, N. (2013). Protected cultivation in Europe. J. Int. Symp. High Tunnel Horticultural Crop Product. 987, 11–27. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2013.987.1
Banaeian, N., Omid, M., and Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry production in Tehran province of Iran. J. Ener. Convers. Manag. 52, 1020–1025. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.08.030
Barber, N., Taylor, C., and Strick, S. (2009). Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: influence on willingness to purchase. Int. J. Wine Res. 1, 59–72. doi: 10.2147/IJWR.S4649
Barr, S., Ford, N. J., and Gilg, A. W. (2003). Attitudes towards recycling household waste in Exeter, Devon: quantitative and qualitative approaches. J. Local Environ. 8, 407–421. doi: 10.1080/13549830306667
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2022). Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 185:122077. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122077
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2023). Energy consumption behaviors in greenhouse production systems based on the value-belief-norm theory: the case of Kerman Province. Iran Agric. Extension Educ. J. 18, 163–180. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20081758.1401.18.2.10.5
Behroozeh, S., Hayati, D., and Karami, E. (2024). Factors influencing energy consumption efficiency in greenhouse cropping systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–36. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04851-8
Benli, B., and Kodal, S. (2003). A non-linear model for farm optimization with adequate and limited water supplies: application to the south-east Anatolian project (GAP) region. J. Agric. Water Manag. 62, 187–203. doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00095-7
Biswas, B., Mallick, B., Roy, A., and Sultana, Z. (2021). Impact of agriculture extension services on technical efficiency of rural paddy farmers in Southwest Bangladesh. Environ. Chall. 5:100261. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100261
Bojaca, C. R., and Schrevens, E. (2010). Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture and its uncertainty: case study for Bogota, Colombia. J. Ener. 35, 2109–2118. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.01.029
Bondari, A., Bagheri, A., and Sookhtanlo, M. (2020). Investigating the environmental behavior of farmers on the use of agricultural pesticides in Moghan plain. J. Human Environ. 18, 67–84. Available at: https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/847736
Bot, G. P. (2001). Developments in indoor sustainable plant production with emphasis on energy saving. J. Comput. Electron. Agric. 30, 151–165. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1699(00)00162-9
Bourdeau, P. (2004). The man nature relationship and environmental ethics. J. Environ. Radioact. 72, 9–15. doi: 10.1016/S0265-931X(03)00180-2
Brownea, N. A., Eckarda, R. J., Behrendt, R., and Kingwell, R. S. (2011). A comparative analysis of on-farm greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural enterprises in south eastern Australia. J. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166-167, 641–652. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.045
Canakci, M., and Akinci, I. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. J. Ener. 31, 1243–1256. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2005.05.021
Cantley, M. (2004). How should public policy respond to the challenges of modern biotechnology? Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 15, 258–263. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2004.04.007
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., and Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). “Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance” in The hand-book of social psychology. eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, vol. 2. 4th ed (New York: McGraw-Hill), 151–192.
Cooper, J. M., Butler, G., and Leifert, C. (2011). Life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional food production systems, with and without bio-energy options. J. Life Sci. 58, 185–192.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R. B., and Fraijo-Singc, B. (2003). Environmental beliefs and water conservation: an empirical study. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00086-5
Corral-Verdugo, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., and Sinha, J. B. (2008). Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation: toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ. Behav. 40, 703–725. doi: 10.1177/0013916507308786
Croppenstedt, A. (2005). Measuring technical efficiency of wheat farmers in Egypt. ESA Working Paper, PP. 05–06, 2005.
Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H. M., Akbolat, D., and Ekinci, C. (2006). Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparta province. Ener. Convers. Manag. 47, 1761–1769. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2005.10.003
Dinar, A., Karagiannis, G., and Tzouvelekas, V. (2007). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farms performancein Crete: a nonneutral stochastic frontier approach. Agric. Econ. 36, 133–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00193.x
El-Helepi, M. M. (1997). Energy and economic analysis of pepper production under plasticulture and conventional systems. Master Science Thesis. Montreal, QC: McGill University, 143.
Emmanuel, D., Owusu-Sekyere, E., Owusu, V., and Jordaan, H. (2016). Impact of agricultural extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: implications for rice productivity and development in Ghana. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci. 79, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2016.10.002
Erdal, G., Esengün, K., Erdal, H., and Gündüz, O. (2007). Energy use and economic analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. J. Ener. 32, 35–41. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.007
Esfanjari Kenari, R., Shaabanzadeh, M., Jansooz, P., and Omidi, A. (2015). Analysis energy consumption in greenhouse cucumber production (a case study in Tehran province). Iranian J. Biosyst. Eng. 46, 125–134. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20084803.1394.46.2.5.1
Fabusoro, E., Awotunde, J. A., Sodiya, C. I., and Alarima, C. I. (2008). Status of job motivation and job performance of field level extension agents in Ogun state: implications for agricultural development. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 14, 139–152. doi: 10.1080/13892240802019113
Fartout Enayat, F., Mousavinik, S. M., and Asgharipour, M. R. (2017). Evaluation of energy use efficiency, green house gases emission and economic analysis of Sorghum production in Sistan. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Product. 27, 33–43.
Ganji, N., Yazdani, S., and Saleh, I. (2018). Identifying factor affecting efficiency of water use in wheat production, Alborz province (data envelopment analysis approach). Iranian J. Agricult. Econ. Dev. Res. 49, 13–22. doi: 10.22059/ijaedr.2018.66029
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., and Li, H. (2017). Application of the extended theory of planned behavior to understand individual’s energy saving behavior in workplaces. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030
Ghochebeyg, F., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H., and Delshad, D.. (2010). Evaluation and improvement of energy consumption for cucumber production using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Technique in Tehran, 6th National Congress of agricultural machinery engineering and mechanization, Tehran, Iran.
Ghorbani, M., Mahmoudi, A., Shookat Fadaei, M., and Khaledi, M. (2020). Optimal economic model of cultivation to reduce the impacts of environmental pollution in Mazandaran Province. J. Econ. Model. 13, 69–98. Available at: https://sid.ir/paper/389998/en
Ghorbani, R., Mondani, F., Amirmoradi, S., Feizi, H., Khorramdel, S., Teimouri, M., et al. (2011). A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems. J. Appl. Ener. 88, 283–288. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
Giampietro, M., Cerretelli, G., and Pimentel, D. (1992). Energy analysis of agricultural ecosystem management: human return and sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 38, 219–244. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(92)90146-3
Gün, S., and Kan, M. (2009). Pesticide use in Turkish greenhouses: health and environmental consciousness. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 18.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. Q., and Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 32, 40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002
Haider, M. Z., Ahmed, M. S., and Mallick, A. (2011). Technical efficiency of agricultural farms in Khulna, Bangladesh: stochastic frontier approach. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 3, 248–256. doi: 10.5539/ijef.v3n3p248
Hall, C. H. (2003). Issues affecting profitability of the nursery and greenhouse industry. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 88–97.
Hall, T. J., Dennis, J. H., Lopez, R. G., and Marshall, M. I. (2009). Factors affecting growers' willingness to adopt sustainable floriculture practices. HortScience 44, 1346–1351. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.44.5.1346
Hanan, J. J., Holley, W. D., and Goldsberry, K. L. (2012). Greenhouse management, vol. 5. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Haq, A. Z. M. (2015). Farmers ‘education and farmers ‘wealth in Bangladesh. Turkish J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 3, 204–206. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v3i4.204-206.247
Hedlund, T. (2011). The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tour. Hosp. Res. 11, 278–288. doi: 10.1177/1467358411423330
Heidari, M. D., and Omid, M. (2011). Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable production in Iran. J. Ener. 36, 220–225. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.048
Howley, P., Buckley, C., Donoghue, C. O., and Ryan, M. (2015). Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’of farmers' land use behaviour: the role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits. Ecol. Econ. 109, 186–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.015
Huo, W., Chen, D., Tian, S., Li, J., Zhao, T., and Liu, B. (2022). Lifespan-consciousness and minimum-consumption coupled energy management strategy for fuel cell hybrid vehicles via deep reinforcement learning. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 47, 24026–24041. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.05.194
Iqbal, N., and Kim, D. H. (2022). Iot task management mechanism based on predictive optimization for efficient energy consumption in smart residential buildings. J. Ener. Build. 257:111762. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111762
Karimi, K., Beheshti Tabar, I., and Khubbakht, G. M. (2008). Energy production in Iran’s agronomy. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci 4, 172–177.
Keshavarz, S., and Mousavi, M. (2018). Study of the problems and factors affecting the development of organic farming case study: kitchen garden city Marvdasht. J. Agric. Econ. Res. 10, 151–172. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20086407.1397.10.39.7.1
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., and Mousazadeh, H. (2013). Reduction of CO2 emission by improving energy use efficiency of greenhouse cucumber production using DEA approach. J. Ener. 55, 676–682. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.021
Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Mousazadeh, H., and Clark, S. (2014). Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle assessment and adaptive neurofuzzy inference system. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 183–192. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.057
Kitani, O., Jungbluth, T., Peart, R. M., and Ramdani, A. (1999). CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering. J. Energy Biomass Eng. 5:330.
Kizilaslan, H. (2009). Inputeoutput energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat province of Turkey. J. Appl. Ener. 86, 1354–1358. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.07.009
Koohkan, S. (2017). Integrated evaluation of emergy, energy and economy for three cropping systems in Sistan. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the philosophy degree (PHD) in agronomy. Zabol: University of Zabol.
Kozai, T., Kubota, C., and Kitaya, Y. (1997). Greenhouse technology for saving the earth in the 21th century. J. Plant Product. Closed Ecosyst., 139–152. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8889-8_9
Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. J. Educ. Psychol. Measure. 30, 607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308
Liu, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, T., and Wang, L. (2020). Revisiting China’s provincial energy efficiency and its influencing factors. J. Ener. 208:118361. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.118361
Marr, C. W. (1995). Commercial greenhouse production series (greenhouse cucumbers). Available at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/hort2/mf2075.pdf
Masson-Delmotte, V. P., Zhai, P., Pirani, S. L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., et al. (2021). Ipcc, 2021: summary for policymakers. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Mehrabi Basharabadi, M. (2008). Economic analysis of production of greenhouse products in Kerman Province. J. Water Soil Sci. 12, 373–384. Available at: http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22518517.1387.12.44.29.9
Meyer, N. I. (2010). New systems thinking and policy means for sustainable energy development. Paths Sustain. Ener.
Miafodzyeva, S., Brandt, N., and Olsson, M. (2010). Motivation recycling: pre-recycling case study in Minsk, Belarus. J. Waste Manag. Res. 28, 340–346. doi: 10.1177/0734242X09351331
Mirzabaev, A., Olsson, L., Kerr, R. B., Pradhan, P., Ferre, M. G. R., and Lotze-Campen, H. (2023). Climate change and food systems. Science and innovations for food systems transformation. Berlin: Springer International Publishing AG, 511–529.
Mohammad-Rezaei, M., and Hayati, D. (2018). Factors affecting integrated Pest management (IPM) knowledge of pistachio growers in Kerman Province. Iran. Agric. Extension Educ. J. 14, 199–214.
Mohtashami, T., and Zandi Daregharibi, B. (2018). Factors Affecting Excessive Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in Saffron Cultivation: case study of torbat heydarieh area. J. Saffron Res. 6, 127–140. doi: 10.22077/jsr.2018.921.1040
Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., and Mohammadi, A. (2011). Energy flow modeling and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1464–1470. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.013
Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R., Rafiee, S., and Mobtaker, H. G. (2014). Optimization of energy required and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for orange producers using data envelopment analysis approach. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 311–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.019
Nabizadeh, S., Mahboobi, M., and Abdollah-Zadeh, G. (2018). Analyzing factors affecting unsustainably of agricultural lands in East Azerbaijan Province (case of Malekan County). Iranian J. Agric. Econ. Dev. Res. 48, 611–619. doi: 10.22059/ijaedr.2018.65236
Nasirian, N., Almasi, M., Minaee, S., and Bakhoda, H. (2006). “Study of energy flow in sugarcane production in an agro-industry unit in south of Ahwaz” in In proceedings of 4th National Congress of agricultural machinery engineering and mechanization, 28–29 Aug (Tabriz: Tabriz University).
Nassiri, S. M., and Singh, S. (2009). Studyon energy use efficiency for paddy crop using data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. J. Appl. Ener. 86, 1320–1325. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.10.007
Nguyen, T., and Cheng, E. (1997). Productivity baines from farmer education in Chaina. Australian J. Agric. Resour. 41, 471–497. doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.t01-1-00025
Nuthall, P. L. (2006). Determining the important management skill competencies: the case of family farm business in New Zealand. J. Agric. Syst. 88, 429–450. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.022
Omotoso, A. B., and Omotayo, A. O. (2024). The interplay between agriculture, greenhouse gases, and climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Reg. Environ. Change 24:1. doi: 10.1007/s10113-023-02159-3
Outhwaite, C. L., McCann, P., and Newbold, T. (2022). Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. J. Nature 605, 97–102. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x
Ozkan, B., Fert, C., and Karadeniz, C. F. (2007). Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. J. Energy 32, 1500–1504. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2006.09.010
Pishgar Komleh, S., Keyhani, A., Rafiee, S., and Sefeedpary, P. (2011). Energy use and economic analysis of corn silage production under three cultivated area levels in Tehran province of Iran. J. Ener. 36, 3335–3341. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.029
Pishgar-Komleh, S. H., Ghahderijani, M., and Sefeedpari, P. (2012). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 33, 183–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.008
Polat, F. (2015). Organic farming education in Azerbaijan, present and future. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 197, 2407–2410. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.302
Rahman, K. M. M., Mia, M. I. A., and Bhuiyan, M. K. J. (2012). A stochastic frontier approach to model technical efficiency of rice farmers in Bangladesh: an empirical analysis. The Agriculturists 10, 9–19. doi: 10.3329/agric.v10i2.13132
Rathke, G.-W., and Diepenbrock, W. (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur. J. Agron. 24, 35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.003
Sadeghi Shahedani, M., and Khoshkhouy, M. (2015). Analysis of resources and social institutions affecting on improving the urban household consuming behavior (the case of energy consuming behavior). J. Urban Econ. Manag. 3, 29–43. Available at: http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.23452870.1393.3.9.3.5
Saei, M. (2019). Examining barriers and problems of greenhouse vegetables production in the south of Kerman province. J. Veg. Sci. 3, 67–81. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26764814.1398.3.1.6.2
Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., Alcalde-Heras, H., and Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2024). Technical knowledge acquisition modes and environmental sustainability in Spanish organic farms. J. Rural. Stud. 109:103338. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103338
Salehi, M., Abbasi, E., Bijani, M., and Shahpasand, M. R. (2020). The impact of agricultural extension site approach on optimizing agricultural input consumption and increasing the yield of dominant products in Hamedan Province, Iran. J. Agric. Educ. Adm. Res. 12, 53–76. doi: 10.22092/jaear.2021.342572.1716
Salehi, S., Chizari, M., Sadighi, H., and Bijani, M. (2017). The effect of environmental beliefs on farmers' sustainable behavior toward using groundwater resources in Fars Province. Iran. Agric. Extension Educ. J. 13, 175–193. Available at: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20081758.1396.13.1.12.0
Salehi, S., Chizari, M., Sadighi, H., and Bijani, M. (2018). Assessment of agricultural groundwater users in Iran: a cultural environmental bias. Hydrogeol. J. 26, 285–295. doi: 10.1007/s10040-017-1634-9
Schultz, P. W., and Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 29, 540–558. doi: 10.1177/0022022198294003
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). “Normative influences on altruism” in Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 10 (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 221–279.
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., Rushton, B., and Gössling, S. (2023). A review of the IPCC sixth assessment and implications for tourism development and sectoral climate action. J. Sustain. Tour., 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2023.2195597
Shahan, S., Jafari, A., Mobli, H., Rafiee, S., and Karimi, M. (2008). Energy use and economical analysis of wheat production in Iran: a case study from Ardabil province. J. Agric. Technol. 4, 77–88.
Shahpasand, M. (2016). Analyzing the role of individual and cognitive factors on the level of fertilizer consumption, among farmers in the city of Bajestan. Iranian J. Agric. Econ. Dev. Res. 46-2, 749–763.
Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A 42, 1273–1285. doi: 10.1068/a42282
Shove, E., and Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory Cult Soc. 31, 41–58. doi: 10.1177/0263276414536746
Singh, K. M., and Meena, M. S. (2019). Efforts of government on reforming agricultural extension in Bihar: the ATMA approach. MPRA Paper No. 104306, posted 03 December 2020. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/104306/
Singh, G., Singh, S., and Singh, J. (2004). Optimization of energy inputs for wheat crop in Punjab. J. Energy Convers. Manag. 45, 453–465. doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(03)00155-9
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Werff, E., and Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environ. Behav. 46, 163–192. doi: 10.1177/0013916512454730
Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Des Ios Rios, I., et al. (2018). Local and farmers' knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 59, 232–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020
Taghinazhad, J., and Ranjbar, F. (2019). Economic assessment of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from wheat production in Ardabil Provience. J. Environ. Sci. 17, 137–150. doi: 10.29252/envs.17.3.137
Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., and Mahmoudi, A. (2012a). Prediction of output energy for wheat production using artificial neural networks in Esfahan province of Iran. J. Agric. Technol. 8, 1229–1242.
Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., and Mahmoudi, A. (2012b). Application of parametric and nonparametric method to analyzing of energy consumption for cucumber production in Iran. J. Modern Appl. Sci. 6, 75–87. doi: 10.5539/mas.v6n1p75
Taki, M., Mahmoudi, A., Ghasemi-mobtaker, H., and Rahbari, H. (2012c). Energy consumption and modeling of output energy with multilayer feed-forward neural network for corn silage in Iran. J. Agric. Eng. Int. 14, 93–101.
Thanh, N. P., Matsui, Y., and Fujiwara, T. (2012). An assessment on household attitudes and behavior towards household solid waste discard and recycling in the Mekong Delta region-southern Vietnam. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 11, 1445–1454. doi: 10.30638/eemj.2012.180
Tione, S. E., Nampanzira, D., Nalule, G., Kashongwe, O., and Katengeza, S. P. (2022). Anthropogenic land use change and adoption of climate smart agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa [article]. J. Sustain. 14:14729. doi: 10.3390/su142214729
Uematsu, H., and Mishra, A. K. (2010). Net effect of education on technology adoption by US farmers, 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56450, Southern Agricultural Economics Association. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.56450
Vesely, S., and Klöckner, C. A. (2018). Global social norms and environmental behavior. J. Environ. Behav. 50, 247–272. doi: 10.1177/0013916517702190
Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., and Bell, J. (2011). Promoting recycling: private values, social norms, and economic incentives. J. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 65–70. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.3.65
Waithaka, M. M., Thornton, P. K., Shepherd, K. D., and Ndiwa, N. N. (2007). Factors affecting the use of fertilizers and manure by smallholders: the case of Vihiga, western Kenya. J. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 78, 211–224. doi: 10.1007/s10705-006-9087-x
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., and Choi, S. (2017). Experiential and instrumental attitudes: interaction effect of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. J. Environ. Psychol. 50, 69–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.006
Wang, X. Y. (2010). Irrigation water use efficiency of farmers and its determinants: evidence from a survey in northwestern China. J. Agric. Sci. China 9, 1326–1337. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60223-6
Wang, J., Li, Y., Wu, J., Gu, J., and Xu, S. (2020). Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: a moderated mediation analysis. Energy Policy 137:111141. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111141
Wang, Y., Li, K., Zeng, X., Gao, B., and Hong, J. (2022). Energy consumption characteristics-based driving conditions construction and prediction for hybrid electric buses energy management. J. Ener. 245:123189. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123189
Wanigasundera, W. A. D. P., and Atapattu, N. (2019). “Extension reforms in Sri Lanka: lessons and policy options” in Agricultural extension reforms in South Asia (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 79–98.
Wensing, J., Carraresi, L., and Bröring, S. (2019). Do pro-environmental values, beliefs and norms drive farmers' interest in novel practices fostering the bioeconomy? J. Environ. Manag. 232, 858–867. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.114
Xia, D., Li, Y., He, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., and Gu, J. (2019). Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 132, 208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.014
Yazdani, S., Ramezani, M., Ghasemi, A., and Ghaem-Maghami, S. (2019). Analysis of factors affecting the reduction in fertilizer use to achieve sustainable saffron production (case study: Gonabad County). Iranian J. Agric. Econ. Dev. Res. 50, 421–435. doi: 10.22059/ijaedr.2019.266784.668662
Zabeltitz, C. V. (1990). “Advanced greenhouse technologies for industrial crop production in closed systems” in Proceedings of artificial climate conference (Moscow: UNIDO), 91–123.
Zalaghi, A. H., Lotfalian Dehkordi, A., Abedi, A., and Taki, M. (2021). Applying data envelopment analysis (DEA) to improve energy efficiency of apple fruit, focusing on cumulative energy demand. Ener. Equipment Syst. 9, 37–52. doi: 10.22059/ees.2021.243258
Zangeneh, M., Omid, M., and Akram, A. (2010). A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35, 2927–2933. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.024
Keywords: energy efficiency, greenhouse cucumbers, technical management, technical knowledge, cost-effectiveness, educational- extension service
Citation: Behroozeh S, Hayati D, Karami E, Nassiri SM and Rezaei-Moghaddam K (2024) Evaluation and comparison of energy use efficiency among cucumber greenhouses. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1427530. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1427530
Edited by:
Poonam Rani, Teagasc Food Research Centre, IrelandReviewed by:
Pushpendra Singh, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, IndiaAdnan Rasheed, University of Alberta, Canada
Osman Özbek, Selçuk University, Türkiye
Copyright © 2024 Behroozeh, Hayati, Karami, Nassiri and Rezaei-Moghaddam. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Dariush Hayati, aGF5YXRpQHNoaXJhenUuYWMuaXI=; ZGFyaXVzaC5oYXlhdGlzaGlyYXp1bml2ZXJzaXR5QGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==