Predicting Factors of Maize Growers’ Ecological Behavior in Shiraz County: Application of Comprehensive Action Determination Model

Document Type : مقاله کوتاه


1 MSc. Department of Agricultural Extension and Education Faculty of Agriculture, University of Shiraz

2 Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Shiraz


It passes more thantwodecadesthat sustainable developmentand consequently ecological and nature-phile development and also more attention to ecological behavior has been important for experts. The ecological behavior in farming means cultivate with suitable methods for soil, water and other resources conservation. The aim of this study was investigating the predicting factors of maize growers’ ecological behavior toward consumption of inputs (water, fertilizer, chemical pesticides and machinery), based on comprehensive action determination model. Survey method and questionnaire technique have been used. All maize growers who active in Shiraz County were the research statistical population. A total number of 220 maize growers were selected as sample group through stratified random sampling method. Findings revealed that the ecological behavior of maize growers were not in good condition. About 70 percent of them got grade less than average of the index which were used to measure their ecological behavior. Based on the ecological model of behavior that formed the theoretical framework of the study, four categories of variables (situational factors; and intentional, habitual, normative processes) used to predict the maze growers’ ecological behaviors. Findings revealed totally eight variables could predict 54 percent of maize growers’ ecological behavior changes. Results showed that the model capable to analyze and explain predicting factors of ecological behavior. According to results, some recommend-dations have presented at the end of article.


  1. to pridict ecological behavior and willingness to
  2. sacrifice. Joutnal of Environmental Psychology.
  3. ; 31, 257-265.
  4. Oerker, B., & Bogner, F. X.. Gender, age and
  5. subject matter: Impact on teacher’s ecological
  6. values. Environmentalist. 2010; 30, 117-122. [16]
  7. Klockner, C. A., & Matthies, E.. Structural
  8. modeling of car use on the way to the university
  9. in different settings: interplay of norms, habits,
  10. situational restraints, and perceived behavioral
  11. control. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
  12. ; 39, 8, 1807–1834.
  13. Yue, H., & Bao Jingling, Z. Q. Research on effect
  14. situtional factors to environment behavior of
  15. urban residens. Management and Service
  16. Science; 2009; 9, 1-3.
  17. Klockner, C. A., & Friedrichsmeier, T.. A multilevel
  18. approach to travel mode choice – How
  19. person characteristics and situation specific
  20. aspects determine car use in a student sample.
  21. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
  22. Psychology and Behaviour, 2011;14 (4), 261-277.
  23. Klockner, C. A., & Blobaum, A.. A
  24. comprehensive action determination model:
  25. Toward a broader understanding of ecological
  26. behaviour using the example of travel mode
  27. choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
  28. ; 30, 574-586.
  29. Kaiser, F. G., Doka, G., Hofstetter, P., & Ranney,
  30. M. A.. Ecological behavior and its environmental
  31. consequences: A life cycle assessment of a self –
  32. report measure. Journal of Environmental
  33. Psychology. 2003; 23, 11-20.
  34. Gonzalez Lopez, A., & Cuervo-Arango, M. A.
  35. Relationship among values, beliefs, norms and
  36. ecological behavior. Psicolhema; 2008; 20(4),
  37. -629.
  38. Yan, S., & Chun-You, W.. An empirical study on
  39. influencing factors of resident’s environmental
  40. behavior. Management Science and Engineering;
  41. ; 20197-2202.
  42. Stevenson, K. Ecological Identification: An
  43. Exploration into the Motivations of Ecological
  44. Behavior. Thesis of Master of Art, Canada,
  45. University of Manitoba. (2009).
  46. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Strumse, E..
  47. Psychological restoration in nature as a source of
  48. motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental
  49. Conservation. 2007; 34(4), 291-299.
  50. Rahimi, H.. The role of culture in development.
  51. Journal of economical politic, 2001; 167-168,Retrieved from: File/
  52. ShowFile.aspx (2010) [In Persian].
  53. Moeinaldini, J.. Application of regional
  54. development policies, Lessons from the
  55. experience of developed countries. Journal of
  56. Political Science, 2007; 7, 71- 96 [In Persian].
  57. Carson, R.. Silent spring. Translated by:
  58. Vahabzade, A., Kuchaki, A. & Alizade, A.
  59. Mashhad. Jihad publication institute(2002) [In
  60. Persian].
  61. Milfont, T.. The effects of social desirability on
  62. self-reported environmental attitudes and
  63. ecological behavior. Environmentalist. 2009; 24,
  64. -269.
  65. Schultz, P. W.. Environmental attitudes and
  66. behaviors across cultures. In: Lonner WJ, Dinnel
  67. DL, Hayes SA, Sattler DN (eds.). Online
  68. readings in psychology and culture (Unit 8,
  69. Chapter 4). Department of Psychology, Center
  70. for Cross- Cultural Research, Western
  71. Washington University, Bellingham. Retrieved
  72. from culture/
  73. Schultz.htm (2002).
  74. Bamberrg, S.. How does environmental concern
  75. influence specific environmentally related
  76. behaviours? A new answer to an old question. J
  77. Environ Psychol, 2003; 23: 21–32.
  78. Sachs, I.. The ecology and philosophy of
  79. development. Translated by seid Hamid Nohi.
  80. Tehran, Kian institute (1994) [In Persian].
  81. Wlodzimierz, Z. Philosophical and axilogical basis
  82. of ecodevelopment. Problemy ekorozwoju; 2007;
  83. , 1, 19-25.
  84. Krichmann, H.