Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Theoretical model of the study adopted from POET model.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Geographical position of the research areas.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Results of ecological indicators including BC, EF, BC/EF and the ranks of studied villages in Fars province.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Total ecological deficit (BC-EF) of the villages.

Ecological deficit refers to the amount of EF that higher than BC of the region.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Results of BC/EF ratio index of cropland and grazing land of villages in Fars province.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 4.

Ecological deficit (BC-EF) of cropland category of the villages.

Ecological deficit refers to the amount of EF that higher than BC of the region.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Ecological deficit (BC-EF) of grazing land category of the villages.

Ecological deficit refers to the amount of EF that higher than BC of the region.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Total BC and EF of the service centers in Fars province.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

The BC/EF ratio index and ecological deficit of the service centers in Fars province.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

BC and EF of cropland of the service centers in Fars province.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

BC and EF of grazing land of the service centers in Fars province.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Total BC and EF of the counties in Fars province.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 4.

The BC/EF ratio index and ecological deficit of the counties in Fars province.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 10.

BC and EF of cropland of the counties in Fars province.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

BC and EF of grazing land of the counties in Fars province.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 5.

ANOVA results of comparison of triple villages groups regarding the variable research in theoretical model.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 12.

Casual model of factors influencing ecological index.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Table 6.

Path results, direct and indirect effects of variables on ecological index.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 13.

Priority of different environmental management paradigms for sustainable agriculture as perceived by AEOAJ.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Priority of different environmental management paradigms for sustainable agriculture as perceived by AOAJ.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Table 7.

Summary of results for AHP analysis about effects of environmental management models in two managerial groups.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Prioritizing and ranking of the criteria for sustainable agricultural development (AEOAJ).

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Prioritizing and ranking of the criteria for sustainable agricultural development (AOAJ).

More »

Table 9 Expand