Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Iran
2 M.Sc. in Agricultural Mechanization, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz.
Abstract
Greenhouse cultivation, with its advantages such as high resource efficiency, year‑round production, reduced dependence on climatic conditions, and significant water savings, plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable agriculture and creating economic value added. Despite these merits, the greenhouse sector in East Azerbaijan Province faces multiple structural and operational challenges. This study applied a descriptive–survey design using a validated and reliable questionnaire, alongside a hybrid analytical framework combining quantitative (SWOT and QSPM) and qualitative (field observation and expert interviews) methods. The integrated results revealed strong convergence between both approaches, classifying the challenges into seven key dimensions: economic, managerial, marketing and sales, structural, educational, seed and natural resources, and social issues. The SWOT analysis indicated that the mean scores of internal and external factors were 2.11 and 2.21, respectively, suggesting a relatively stable but weak system requiring reinforcement of supportive and managerial structures. Based on the QSPM outcomes, the most attractive development strategy was identified as “enhancing financial and technological infrastructure through public–private partnership (PPP)”, with a total attractiveness score of 6.42. The findings emphasize that overcoming current barriers requires implementing hands‑on training, targeted investment in infrastructure, promotion of advanced technologies, standardization of production and management systems, and provision of financial and credit support schemes. These strategic actions would improve the sustainability of greenhouse cultivation, enhance production quality and quantity, and strengthen the competitive position of the region’s agricultural economy.
Keywords
16-42.