




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN 2375-1061 Vol. 7 (3), pp. 001-006, March, 2019. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s)                                           Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 

 

The partnership models of agricultural sustainable 
development based on Multiple Criteria Decision 

Making (MCDM) in Iran 

 
Alireza Poursaeed1*, Mehdi Mirdamadi1, Iraj Malekmohammadi2 and Jamal F. Hosseini1 

 
1
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, 

Tehran, Iran.  
2
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran. 

 
Accepted 18 January, 2019 

 
Sustainable development and the definition of indicators to assess progress towards sustainability have become a 
high priority in scientific research. The purpose of this study was two-fold: first, to determine agricultural 
sustainability criteria; second, to determine optimum partnership models for agricultural sustainability. This study 
was conducted in Ilam Province of Iran. The populations of the research were 30 farmers, who were interviewed to 
determine the sustainable agricultural development criteria. A discussion of the nine criteria was developed. 
Through an interview we were able to determine how they perceived the relative importance of these criteria. A 
questionnaire was developed based on analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Each question consisted of a pair-wise 
comparison of two criteria. Therefore, the nine criteria and four alternatives resulted in a total of 72 questions. First 
the respondents were asked to indicate the relative importance of the two criteria with respect to the overall goal. 
Finally, the farmers were asked to indicate the relative importance of the two alternatives (partnership models) with 
respect to each criterion. The results indicated that reducing farmers migration, sharing with agricultural engineer, 
land consolidation, increasing farmers awareness, crop rotation, using less amount of chemical fertilizer, using 
less amount of chemical pesticide, fertilizer recommendation and allocation efficiency are the most important 
criteria for sustainable agriculture in Iran. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the critical factors 
that affected the priority of alternatives. Also, results of application of AHP indicated that private and cooperative 
partnership models are the most useful partnership models in the agricultural sustainability. The results of this 
study demonstrated that the private partnership model for agricultural sustainability is imperative. 

 

Key words: AHP, partnership, Iran, sustainable agricultural development. 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

 
In recent years, sustainable development has become an 
important issue round globe (Tsai and Chou, 2009). 
Sustainable development and the definition of indicators 
to assess progress towards sustainability have become a 
high priority in scientific research and on policy agenda 
(Cauwenbegh et al., 2007).  

According to the Brundtland Committee‘s report ‗‗Our 
Common Future‖ sustainability is defined as the ability to 
‗‗meet the needs of the present without compromising the  
 
 
 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: a_poursaeed@yahoo.com. 

 
 
 
 

 
ability of future generations to meet their own needs‖ 
(Tsai and Chou, 2009).  

Humans are quick and careless in destroying and 
polluting water, soil, forests, jungles and other mani-
festations of nature. Environmental destruction may slow 
economic growth in addition to threatening the health and 
well-being of the local population (Denier and Takahashi, 
1999). Sustainability as a concept has emerged to 
address environmental challenges that are facing 
development planners (Rezaeimoghaddam and Karami, 
2008).  

Since the 1980s, new concepts and social demands 
have begun to emerge in relation to agricultural 

file:///C:\Users\user\Documents\REPUBLICATION\AGRICULTURAL%20SCIENCES\AppData\Local\Temp\www.internationalscholarsjournals.org


 
 
 

 

production. Sustainable agriculture, environmental friend-
ly agricultural practices and responsible management of 
natural resources are ideas that refer to ecological, 
technological and socioeconomic dimensions of the 
broader concept of sustainable development (Harwood, 
1990). These concepts point out the multifunctional 
nature of agriculture. This multifunctional role was not 
explicitly recognized by the European Union (EU) until in 
the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform, 
which was consolidated in the ―2000 Agenda‖ and the 
Mid-Term 2003 Reform. At this time, new functions were 
attributed to agriculture in addition to the traditional 
productive role. These new functions were related to the 
conservation of the environment, the creation of employ-
ment, and the preservation of rural life. This function is 
named sustainable agriculture that is desirable because it 
is supposed to better satisfy the social demand for 
multiple functions of agriculture. In the case of wheat 
production, lack of dependable studies is even more 
apparent. One of the agricultural sustainability is defined 
as successful management of the resources of agri-
culture to satisfy changing human needs, to conserve the 
environment, and increase biological resources 
(Chikwendu and Arokoyo, 1997). Agricultural sustaina-
bility simply means the ability of agriculture to sustain. 
Various terms have been attributed to sustainable 
agriculture, e.g., organic, regenerative, ecological, 
alternative, bio-dynamic, natural and low-input, con-
trasting high input, maximum-production, and intensive 
agriculture (Rahman et al., 1999). Agricultural 
sustainability is a philosophy based on human goals and 
an understanding of the long-term impact of our activities 
on the environment and on other species 
(Rezaeimoghaddam and Karami, 2008). The three main 
goals of agricultural sustainability are economic 
efficiency, environmental quality, and social responsibility 
(Fairweather and Campbell, 2003). The goal of sustaina-
bility is to sustain a desirable quality of life. To sustain the 
sacredness in farming, there must be harmony found 
economically, socially, and ecologically among the per-
sonal, interpersonal, and the spiritual. The current crisis 
in conventional, commercial agriculture arises from its 
lack of sustainability. Much of the research effort in 
(adoption of) sustainable agriculture has been 
fragmented, with little coordination and integration. Little 
substantive research has investigated the beliefs and 
motivations that drive farmers‘ decisions about adoption 
of sustainable agricultural practices (Karami and 
Mansoorabadi, 2008).  

At the Rio Summit in 1992, the United Nations further 
expanded the above definition and adopted a set of 
principles to guide future sustainable development. The 
Declaration on Environment and Development defines 
the rights of people toward development, and their 
responsibilities to safeguard the common environment 
(Quaddus and Siddique, 2001). From then on, 

 
 
 
 

 

environmental and sustainable development issues have 
been pushed to a higher priority on social agenda. In 
taking a note from the ‗‗3 Ps‖ of Marketing, sustainable 
development can be said to have its own version of the 
‗‗3Ps‖, that is People, Planet, and Profit. All three aspects 
have to be satisfied before an entrepreneurial activity is 
labeled as sustainable (Crals and Vereeck, 2005).  

Agricultural development has been based on moderni-
zation theory in the late decades especially in third world. 
The beginning of modernization of Iranian agriculture was 
most marked by the land reform of 1962. The land reform 
was perceived as prerequisite to any effort to modernize 
the traditional, prominently rural society of Iran. However, 
analysis of development policies shows that this theory 
has produced negative impacts such as uneven 
development, poverty and environmental degradation 
(Malakouti, 2000). The concern for environmental pro-
blem was the major contributing factor to loss of faith in 
this path to development. The conventional development 
strategies are fundamentally limited in their ability to 
promote sustainable agricultural development of Iran 
(Rezaeimoghaddam and Karami, 2008).  

For agriculture to be considered sustainable, certain 
economic, env ironmental and social criteria need to be 
met. Moreover, a sound decision making tool is essential 
if we are to decide on the most appropriate partnership 
models in order to reach agricultural sustainability. 
 

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a multi criteria 
decision making model(MCDM) and use analytic 
hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting the most 
appropriate partnership models (including private, rental, 
sharing and cooperative) from a number of alternatives 
for an individual farmer. The objectives of the study are 

 

1) Determination of agricultural sustainability criteria.  
2) Determination of optimum partnership models for 
agriculture. 
 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
This study was conducted in Ilam Province of Iran. The populations of 

the research were 30 farmers interviewed to determine the sustainable 

agricultural development criteria. A discussion of the nine criteria 

developed in this stage is presented in the next section. A questionnaire 

was developed based on the AHP. Each question consisted of a pair-

wise comparison of two criteria. Therefore, the nine criteria and four 

alternatives result in a total of 72 questions. First, the respondents were 

asked to indicate the relative impor-tance of the two criteria with respect 

to the overall goal. Finally, the farmers were asked to indicate the 

relative importance of the two alternatives (partnership models) with 

respect to each criterion.  
All criteria and alternatives were qualitative measures in this study. 

The scale used for comparison of two qualitative measures was a 

bipolar scale (Table 1). There were two types of Pair-wise comparisons; 

first, a comparison of criteria with respect to goal; and second, some 

pair-wise comparisons of alternatives with respect to criterion. These 

comparisons were shown in matrix structure named 



 
 
 

 
Table 1. Measurement scale of AHP.  

 
Intensity of relative importance definition   
1 = Equal importance  
3 = Moderate importance  
5 = Strong importance  
7 = Very strong importance  
9 = Absolute importance  
2, 4, 6 and 8 = Intermediate values between 

Two adjacent judgments   
Source: Satty (1997). 

 
 

 
decision matrix. Therefore, the result decision matrixes included a 
decision matrix for criteria comparisons and some decisions 
matrices for alternatives comparisons.  

The Consistency Ratio (CR) is measured for each decision 
matrix. CR shows the precision of judgments in comparing criteria 
and alternatives. In other words, the Inconsistency Ratio (IR) shows 
the possible error (s) in judgments. Inconsistency ratio for each 
matrix should be less than 0.1, otherwise the decision maker(s) 
should re-evaluate the judgments for the related matrix until the 
ratio is finally less than 0.1.  

The analytic hierarchy was programmed in Expert Choice. We 
first calculated the geometric means of the marked responses in 
each question from each of the participants. Then, the comparison 
matrix was inputted into Expert Choice to produce local weights at 
each level of the hierarchy. These were then combined using an 
additive value model to produce a set of global weight or priorities 
for the alternatives. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to 
determine the critical evaluation criteria that affect the selection 
strategy. 

 

DISCUSSION 
 
Belton and Stewart (2002) define multi criteria decision analysis 
(MCDA) as, ‗‗an umbrella term to describe a collection of formal 
approaches which seek to take explicit account of multiple criteria in 
helping individuals or group explore decisions that matter‖. MCDA 
approaches have been classified in a number of ways. One of the 
first categorizations makes a distinction between multi-objective 
decision making (MODM) and multi- attribute decision making 
(MADM). The main distinction between the two groups of methods 
is based on the number of alternatives under evaluation. MADM 
methods are designed for selecting discrete alternatives while 
MODM is more adequate to deal with multi-objective planning 
problems, when a theoretically infinite number of continuous 
alternatives are defined by a set of constraints on a vector of 
decision variables (Belton and Stewart, 2002).  

The AHP, developed by Saaty (1977), is a decision making 
method for prioritizing alternatives when multiple criteria must be 
considered. This approach allows the decision maker to structure 
problems in the form of a hierarchy or a set of integrated levels, 
such as, the goal, the criteria, and the alternatives. The primary 
advantage of the AHP is its use of pair-wise comparisons to obtain 
a ratio scale of measurement. Ratio scales are a natural means of 
comparison among alternatives and enable the measurement of 
both tangible and intangible factors. An AHP analysis uses pair 
wise comparisons to measure the impact of items on one level of 
the hierarchy on the next higher level. For example, the criteria are 
pair wise compared in terms of their ability to achieve the goal, and 

 
 
 
 

 
the alternatives are pair-wise compared in terms of their ability to 
achieve each of the criteria. At each level, the pair-wise compa-
risons are organized into a matrix and the weights of the items 
being compared are determined by computing the maximum weight 
value of the matrix.  

A weighted averaging approach is used to combine the results 
across levels of the hierarchy to compute a final weight for each 
alternative. In cases where many alternatives need to be evaluated, 
the AHP ratings approach is often used. This approach requires 
that a series of ratings or intensities be developed for each criterion 
(Table 1). These intensities must be pair-wise compared to each 
criterion, and then alternatives are evaluated by selecting the 
appropriate intensity for each criterion. Another important 
advantage of the AHP is that it allows for inconsistency in 
judgment. However, the AHP also measures the degree to which 
the judgments are inconsistent and establishes an acceptable 
tolerance level for the degree of inconsistency. Other advantages 
and disadvantages of the AHP have been extensively described 
and debated elsewhere (Harker and Vargas, 1990; Saaty, 1990).  

The AHP process was developed to solve a specific class of 
problem that involves the prioritization of potential alternative 
solutions. The AHP is based on three major components (Karami, 
2006). 

 

Stage one: Selection of criteria 
 
At this stage of building, the model faced the crucial question of 
who should determine the criteria of agricultural sustainability. 
Sustainable criteria were determined from literature review and 
library research.  

In all, 30 farmers were interviewed. Furthermore, existing litera-
ture was considered an important source for mining the criteria of 
sustainable agriculture. End results of this stage were selection of 
nine criteria for agricultural sustainability development. 

 

Stage two: Pair wise comparison of criteria 
 
At this stage the participants were involved in pair-wise comparison 
of the nine criteria. Many methods can be used to accommodate 
the views and judgments of participants in the priority setting 
process. In a common objective context where all participants 
share the same objectives, there are four ways to set the priorities: 
consensus, vote or compromise, geometric mean of the individuals‘ 
judgments, and separate models or players (Lai et al., 2002). 
Consensus refers to the achievement of a consensus of group 
participants in constructing a hierarchy and making judgments. If a 
consensus cannot be reached, the group may then choose to vote 
or compromise on a judgment. If a consensus cannot be achieved 
and the group is unwilling to vote or to compromise, then a geome-
tric mean (average) of the individuals‘ judgments can be calculated. 
The geometric mean is an appropriate rule for combining individual 
judgments to obtain the group judgment for each pair-wise 
comparison. In this study we first calculated the geometric means 
of the marked responses in each question from each of the 
respondents. Then, the comparison matrix was inputted into Expert 
Choice to produce local weights at each level of the hierarchy. 
 
 
Stage three: Pair-wise comparison of alternatives with regard 
to criteria 
 
At this stage, pair-wise comparisons on the alternative partnership 
models with respect to the nine criteria were performed. Consensus 
method was used to set the priorities at this stage of the research. 



     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Crop  

rotation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Co-operative 
 
 

Figure 1. Hierarchical model for selection of agricultural sustainability. 
 

 
Table 2. The priority of partnership models.  

 
Criteria priority of partnership models 1 2 3 4 

IR Reducing farmers migration P C S R /09 

Sharing with agricultural engineer C P R S /07 

Land consolidation C P R S /06  
Increasing farmers awareness C P R S /07 

Crop rotation P C S R /07  
Using less amount of chemical fertilizer P C S R /05  
Using less amount of chemical pesticide P C S R /02  
Fertilizer recommendation P C S R /07  
Allocation efficiency R S C P /06   

P: Private, R: rental; S: sharing; C: cooperative and IR: 
inconsistency. 

 

 
Figure 1 shows the relation between ultimate goal, criteria and 
alternatives in a hierarchy framework.  

The AHP can be used by a team to enhance the quality of group 
decisions by bringing structure to the decision making process and 
by synthesizing different points of view (Lai et al., 2002). The 
application of the AHP to support group decisions has proven to be 
contributive in several research studies (Byun, 2001; Chen and 
Huang, 2004; Solnes, 2003). Lai et al. (2002) report the results of a 
case study where the AHP was employed to support the selection 
of MAS in a group decision environment. Byun (2001) has applied 
the AHP for deciding on car purchase between 13 managers as a 
group of decision makers. The AHP has been used between seven 
experts to evaluate the risks and benefits associated with three 
alternative mission architecture scenarios for the human exploration 
of Mars (Tavana, 2004). Their findings have validated the AHP as 
an effective and flexible tool for group decision making because it 
can form a systematic framework for conducting structured group 
sessions. 

 
 

 

showed nine criteria including: 
 

a) Reducing farmers migration 
b) Sharing with agricultural engineer 
c) Land consolidation 
d) Increasing farmers awareness 
e) Crop rotation 
f) Using less amount of chemical fertilizer 
g) Using less amount of chemical pesticide 
h) Fertilizer recommendation and 
i) Allocation efficiency 
 

are very important, although most studies view the 
context of sustainability in terms of "socio-cultural", 
"economic-technical" and "environmental" aspects.  

The results of partnership models prioritizations are 
presented considering the criteria. Table2 shows these 
results.  

Figure 2 shows the results of sensitivity analysis for 
partnership models. Sensitivity analysis allows us to 
verify the results of the decision. A sensitivity analysis 
was formed to see how sensitive the alternatives are to 
change with the importance of the criteria. The Expert 
Choice implementation of AHP provides four graphical 
sensitivity analysis modes: dynamic, gradient, 
performance and two- dimensional analysis (Expert 
Choice, 2000). Here performance sensitivity analysis is 
employed. It depicts how well each alternative (Private, 
rental, sharing and cooperative models) performs on 
each criterion by increasing or decreasing the importance 
of the criteria. 

 

 Conclusion 
 

RESULTS 
Agriculture is unique and most essential activity in every 

 

 
 

Determination of sustainable criteria  by literature review society. Beyond its  primary  role of  producing food and 
 



  
 
 
 
 
 

 

0.90 

 

0.80 

 

0.70 

 

0.60 

 

0.50 

 

0.40 

 

0.30 

 

0.20 

 

0.10 

 

0.00 
 

 
Figure 2. Results of sensitivity analysis for partnership models. 

 

 

fiber agriculture, it also contributes to the viability of rural 
areas, food security, the cultural heritage and environ-
mental benefits such as agricultural landscape, agro-
biological diversity, land conservation and high standards 
of plant, animal and public health.  

Agricultural development in Iran has been based on 
modernization theory in the late decades. The 
consequences of implementation of modernization based 
agricultural development policies, particularly with regard 
to environmental impact, have been negative. Iran‘s 
agriculture is facing serious environmental pollution and 
degradation problems (Rezaei-Moghaddam and Karami, 
2008). Agricultural development decision-making is 
becoming more pluralistic. There is a felt need for alter-
native partnership models. Four competing partnership 
models have been developed based on general tenets of 
private, rental, sharing and cooperative.  

This paper argues that AHP is a useful tool to reach a 
decision regarding commitment to a theoretical base for 
agricultural sustainable development among stakeholders 
of agriculture. 30 farmers are the stakeholders of Ilam 
Province agriculture and they were involved in AHP deci-
sion process. The stakeholder‘s identified nine criteria for 
agricultural sustainability including: reducing farmers 
migration, sharing with agricultural engineer, land consoli-
dation, increasing farmers awareness, crop rotation, 
using less amount of chemical fertilizer, using less 
amount of chemical pesticide, fertilizer recommendation 
and allocation efficiency. Although there were differences 

 
 

 

between stakeholder regarding the magnitude of priority 
of private over another partnership models, all partici-
pants and the aggregate analysis of decisions confirmed 
the priority of private partnership model for Ilam Province, 
Iran. 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Belton S, Stwart TS (2002). Multiple criteria Decision analysis. An 

integrated approach. Kluwer academic publishrs, Massachuesetts.  
Byun DH (2001). The AHP approach for selecting an automobile 

purchase model. J. Inform. Manage., 38: 289–297.  
Cauwenbegh et al., (2007). SAFE—A hierarchical framework for 

assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, 
Ecosyst. Environ., 120(2007) 229–242.  

Chen CJ, Huang CC, (2004). A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech 
industries for the science-based industrial park in Taiwan. J. Inform. 
Manage., 41(7): 839–851.  

Chikwendu DO, Arokoyo JO (1997). Women and sustainable 
agricultural development in Nigeria. J. Sustainable Agric., 11(1): 53– 
69. 

Crals E, Vereeck L (2005). The affordability of sustainable 

entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 
Ecol., 12(2): 173–184.  

Daniere AG, Takahashi LM (1999). Environmental behavior in Bangkok, 
Thailand: A port rate of attitudes, values and behavior. Econ. Dev. 
Cult Change, 47(3): 525–557.  

Expert Choice (2000). Expert Choice Tutorials. Pittsburgh: Expert 
Choice, Inc.  

Fairweather JR, Campbell HR (2003). Environmental beliefs and farm 
practices of New Zealand farmers: Contrasting pathways to 
sustainability. Agric. Human Values, 20: 287–300. Gottlieb, R. S. 
(Ed.).  

Harker PT, Vargas  LG  (1990).  Reply  to ‗Remarks  on  the  analytic 



 
 
 

 
hierarchy process‘ by J.S. Dyer. J. Manage. Sci., 36(3): 269–273.  
Harwood RR (1990). A histo ry of sustainable agriculture. In: Edwards, 

C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G. (Eds).  
Karami E (2006). Appropriateness of farmer adoption of irrigation 

method: the application of the AHP model. J. Agric. Syst., 87: 101-
119. 

Karami E, manosoorabadi A (2008). Sustainable agricultural attitudes 
and behaviors: a gender analysis of Iranian farmers. J. Environ. Dev. 
Sustain., (2008) 10: 883–898.  

Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung W (2002). Group decision making in a 
multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software 
selection. Euro. J. Oper. Res., 137: 134–144.  

Malakouti MJ (2000). Sustainable agriculture and yield increase through 
balanced fertilization. Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Education Press (in Farsi).  

Quaddus MA, Siddique MAB (2001). Modeling sustainable development 
planning: A multi criteria decision conferencing approach. J. Environ. 
Int., 27(1): 89–95.  

Rahman MZ, Mikuni H, Rahman MM (1999). Towards sustainable 
farming development: The attitude of farmers in a selected area of 
Shimane Prefecture, Japan. J. Sustain. Agric., 14(4): 19–33. 

 
 
 
 

 
Rezaeimoghaddam k, Karami E (2008). A multiple criteria evaluation of 

sustainable agricultural development models using AHP. Environ. 
Dev. Sustain., 10: 407-426.  

Saaty TL (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical 
structures. J. Mathe. Psychol., 15: 234–281.  

Saaty TL (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper 
‗Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process‘. J. Manage. Sci., 36(3): 
259–268.  

Solnes J (2003). Environmental quality indexing of large industrial 
development alternatives using AHP. J. Environ. Impact Ass. Rev., 
23(3): 283–303.  

Tavana M (2004). A subjective assessment of alternative mission 
architectures for the human exploration of Mars at NASA using 
multicriteria decision making. J. Comput. Oper. Res., 31: 1147–1164.  

Tsai WH, Chou WC (2009). Selecting management systems for 
sustainable developmen t in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on 
DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. J. Expert Syst. Appl., 36: 1444–1458. 


