Iranian Agricultural Economics Society (IAES)

Assessing the Eco-efficiency of Food Waste Recycling in Iran: A Dynamic Data Envelopment Analysis Approach with Undesirable Outputs

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran

Abstract
Introduction
Global population growth and shrinking natural resources have intensified pressure on agricultural systems, positioning sustainable waste management as a national priority, particularly in arid and semi-arid countries like Iran. Agricultural activities generate substantial biomass residues, yet inefficient handling (e.g., open burning, uncontrolled dumping) contributes significantly to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (CO₂, CH₄), energy overuse, and economic losses. Globally, one-third of food production is lost or wasted (FAO, 2011, 2013), with profound environmental and food security implications. In this context, the Circular Waste-Based Bioeconomy (CWBE) framework offers a strategic pathway: integrating circular economy principles into agricultural systems to transform waste into compost, biogas, animal feed, and bio-based materials—thereby enhancing resource efficiency and reducing environmental footprints. However, existing efficiency assessments in agricultural waste management in Iran predominantly ignore undesirable outputs, yielding an incomplete picture of sustainability. This study addresses that gap by evaluating the Eco-efficiency of agricultural waste recycling across Iran’s 31 provinces over 2014–2019 (1393–1398), using a Dynamic Network Data Envelopment Analysis (DN-DEA) model that jointly accounts for desirable and undesirable outputs.

Materials and Methods
We construct a dynamic network model inspired by Lu et al. (2022), conceptualizing waste recycling as a two‑stage system: (1) waste collection and preprocessing, and (2) valorization and environmental mitigation. The DN‑DEA model allows efficiency scores to reflect carry‑over effects—such as investment in fixed assets—across time periods, making it suitable for assessing policy persistence and technological lock‑in.
Inputs include: (i) monetary cost of managing agricultural waste (IRR, adjusted for inflation), and (ii) energy consumption (GJ) in collection, transport, and processing. Desirable output is the quantity of recycled biomass (tonnes), while undesirable outputs encompass: (a) CO₂ emissions (tonnes), (b) CH₄ emissions (tonnes), (c) total energy consumption (as above, dual‑counted to penalize inefficiency), and (d) waste management cost (as a proxy for incomplete valorization). Data were compiled from the Statistical Center of Iran, Agricultural Jihad provincial reports, and the Central Bank’s economic databases. All monetary values were deflated using the consumer price index (base = 1390), and emission factors were standardized using IPCC Tier 1 guidelines adapted to Iran’s agronomic conditions. The model was solved using GAMS 36.2.0 (with CONOPT solver), and statistical validation—including Pearson correlation matrices and significance tests—was performed in SPSS 28.
Results and Discussion
Results reveal striking regional heterogeneity. Five provinces—Tehran, Bushehr, Ilam, Khuzestan, and South Khorasan—consistently achieved full efficiency (score = 1.00) across all six years, functioning as benchmarks. In contrast, Golestan (avg. θ = 0.34), Kurdistan (0.35), Sistan & Baluchestan (0.36), East Azerbaijan (0.41), and Kermanshah (0.41) exhibited chronic underperformance. Nationally, average efficiency declined from 0.72 in 2014 to 0.61 in 2019, signaling systemic deterioration—potentially linked to subsidy distortions, energy price volatility, or drought-induced feedstock scarcity.
Crucially, Pearson correlation analysis confirmed strong, positive, and statistically significant (p < 0.01) relationships between recycling efficiency and the management of undesirable outputs. This implies eco-efficiency synergy: provinces excelling in one dimension (e.g., lowering disposal costs) tend to outperform across all environmental and economic metrics. Moreover, undesirable outputs are highly inter correlated (e.g., energy–CO₂: r = 1.000; CO₂–CH₄: r = 0.999), suggesting that interventions targeting energy efficiency will likely reduce multiple emissions simultaneously. Spatial mapping (Figure 2) further confirms a pronounced east–west efficiency gradient, with high-efficiency clusters in central/southern/eastern provinces and low-efficiency zones concentrated in the northwest and southwest—mirroring disparities in infrastructure, technology access, and institutional capacity.

Conclusion
This study advances the literature by: (i) applying DN-DEA to Iranian agricultural waste for the first time; (ii) integrating four undesirable outputs simultaneously; and (iii) linking efficiency diagnostics to concrete, region-specific policy levers. Findings underscore that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate: instead, precision sustainability governance, where efficiency metrics inform spatially differentiated interventions, is essential. We recommend:
Region-targeted interventions for low-performing provinces (e.g., Golestan, Kurdistan, Sistan & Baluchestan).
Knowledge diffusion mechanisms, such as peer-learning networks, to transfer best practices from benchmark provinces
Efficiency-based budgeting, where provincial subsidies or green credit access are tied to annual DN-DEA scores.
Ultimately, improving eco-efficiency in agricultural waste recycling is not merely a technical challenge but a governance imperative, one that can simultaneously bolster rural livelihoods, enhance resource security, and advance Iran’s commitment to low-carbon development.

Keywords

Subjects

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

 

1.           Al Mamun, A., Hayat, N., Malarvizhi, C.A.N., & Zainol, N.R.B. (2020). Economic and environmental sustainability through green composting: A study among low-income households. Sustainability, 12(16), 6488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166488
2.           Almaraz, M., Bai, E., Wang, C., Trousdell, J., Conley, S., Faloona, I., & Houlton, B.Z. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of NO x pollution in California. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao3477. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2561
3.           Badeenezhad, A., Darabi, K., Torkashvand, J., Khosravani, F., & Moein, H. (2024). Economic and waste flow analysis of available scenarios to improve food waste management in Tehran. Results in Engineering, 24, 102852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102852
4.           Baráth, L., Bakucs, Z., Benedek, Z., Fertő, I., Nagy, Z., Vígh, E., Debrenti, E., & Fogarasi, J. (2024). Does participation in agri-environmental schemes increase eco-efficiency? Science of the Total Environment, 906, 167518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167518
5.           Chen, C.-M., & Wang, H. (2024). Comparing eco-efficiency with productive efficiency: Addressing the dimensionality issue. European Journal of Operational Research, 313(3), 1170-1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.09.001
6.           De Corato, U., Viola, E., Keswani, C., & Minkina, T. (2024). Impact of the sustainable agricultural practices for governing soil health from the perspective of a rising agri-based circular bioeconomy. Applied Soil Ecology, 194, 105199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.105199
7.           Dey, S., Reang, N., Das, P., & Deb, M. (2021). A comprehensive study on prospects of economy, environment, and efficiency of palm oil biodiesel as a renewable fuel. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124981
8.           FAO. (2011). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. https://doi.org/10.19103/as.2019.0053.01
9.           FAO. (2013). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources. .
10.        Fytili, D., & Zabaniotou, A. (2022). Organizational, societal, knowledge and skills capacity for a low carbon energy transition in a Circular Waste Bioeconomy (CWBE): Observational evidence of the Thessaly region in Greece. Science of the Total Environment, 813, 151870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151870
11.        Heidenreich, A., Grovermann, C., Kadzere, I., Egyir, I.S., Muriuki, A., Bandanaa, J., Clottey, J., Ndungu, J., Blockeel, J., & Muller, A. (2022). Sustainable intensification pathways in Sub-Saharan Africa: Assessing eco-efficiency of smallholder perennial cash crop production. Agricultural Systems, 195, 103304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103304
12.        Hsu, E. (2021). Cost-benefit analysis for recycling of agricultural wastes in Taiwan. Waste Management, 120, 424-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.051
13.        Khosravani, F., Pezeshki Rad, G.R., & Farhadian, H. (2016). Analyze of component consumer behavior toward food waste in Tehran. Journal of Food Science and Technology (Iran), 13(53), 173-183.
14.        Klitkou, A., Fevolden, A.M., & Capasso, M. (2019). From waste to value: Valorisation pathways for organic waste streams in circular bioeconomies. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429460289
15.        Koli, A., Pattanshetti, A., Mane-Gavade, S., Dhabbe, R., Kamble, R., Garadkar, K., & Sabale, S. (2024). Agro-waste management through sustainable production of activated carbon for CO2 capture, dye and heavy metal ion remediation. Waste Management Bulletin, 2(1), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2023.12.010
16.        Kumar, R.S., Sasikumar, R., & Dhilipkumar, T. (2024). Exploiting agro-waste for cleaner production: A review focusing on biofuel generation, bio-composite production, and environmental considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 435, 140536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140536
17.        Lu, L.C., Chiu, S.-Y., Chiu, Y.-h., & Chang, T.-H. (2022). Three-stage circular efficiency evaluation of agricultural food production, food consumption, and food waste recycling in EU countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 343, 130870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130870
18.        Mardani Najafabadi, M., Karimi, K., & Mirzaei, A. (2025). Managing the use of production inputs to improve the efficiency of agricultural production in Iran: Application of dynamic network data envelopment analysis. Agricultural Economics, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.22034/iaes.2025.2043911.2089
19.        Mardani Najafabadi, M., Kazmi, H., Shirzadi Laskookalayeh, S., & Abdeshahi, A. (2023). Investigating the ability of fuzzy and robust DEA models to apply uncertainty conditions: an application for date palm producers. OPSEARCH, 60(2), 776-801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-023-00631-6
20.        Mirzaei, A., Naserin, A., & Najafabadi, M.M. (2024). Optimizing water-energy-food nexus index, CO2 emissions, and chemical pollutants under irrigation water salinity scenarios. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 23, 100461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100461
21.        Muizniecea, I., Dace, E., & Blumberga, D. (2015). Dynamic modeling of the environmental and economic aspects of bio-resources from agricultural and forestry wastes. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, 15, 806-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.08.129
22.        Munir, S., Zia Ul Haq, M., Shafiq, S., Azeem, A., & Ali, I. (2025). From waste to value: traditional to innovative approaches for agricultural and food waste valorization. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-025-02251-2
23.        Ong, P.J., Leow, Y., Soo, X.Y.D., Chua, M.H., Ni, X., Suwardi, A., Tan, C.K.I., Zheng, R., Wei, F., & Xu, J. (2023). Valorization of Spent coffee Grounds: A sustainable resource for Bio-based phase change materials for thermal energy storage. Waste Management, 157, 339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.12.039
24.        Osei-Owusu, A.K., Read, Q.D., & Thomsen, M. (2023). Potential energy and environmental footprint savings from reducing food loss and waste in Europe: a scenario-based multiregional input–output analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(43), 16296-16308. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c00158
25.        Rastegaripour, F., Najafabadi, M.M., Ohadi, N., Tavassoli, A., & Caballero-Calvo, A. (2025). Enhancing agricultural eco-efficiency amid data uncertainty: Saffron farming insights from a semi-arid region. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 30(5), 1089-1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-025-10043-z
26.        Ren, C., Liu, S., Van Grinsven, H., Reis, S., Jin, S., Liu, H., & Gu, B. (2019). The impact of farm size on agricultural sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.151
27.        Sharma, R. (2024). Agro-industrial waste to energy-Sustainable management. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 41, e01117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2024.e01117
28.        Singh, R., Paritosh, K., Pareek, N., & Vivekanand, V. (2022). Integrated system of anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis for valorization of agricultural and food waste towards circular bioeconomy. Bioresource Technology, 360, 127596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127596
29.        Tone, K. (2002). A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(1), 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00324-1
30.        United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2022). World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results (UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/NO. 3). United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789211065138
31.        Ye, Z., Guo, X., Cheng, L., Cheng, S., Chen, D., Wang, W., & Liu, B. (2019). Reducing PM2. 5 and secondary inorganic aerosols by agricultural ammonia emission mitigation within the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, China. Atmospheric Environment, 219, 116989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116989
32.        Zhang, X.-h. (2019). Farm size and fertilizer sustainable use: An empirical study in Jiangsu, China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 18(12), 2898-2909. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62732-2
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.

  • Receive Date 16 December 2025
  • Revise Date 19 February 2026
  • Accept Date 04 April 2026
  • First Publish Date 04 April 2026