Introduction
Agricultural systems in arid and semi-arid regions face mounting pressures from climate change, water scarcity, and declining natural resources, necessitating innovative production strategies to ensure food security and rural livelihood sustainability. In Iran, greenhouse cultivation has emerged as a pivotal adaptation strategy. Over the past two decades, Iran has witnessed a thirty-fold expansion in greenhouse area, rising from 588 hectares in 1996 to over 18,000 hectares in 2021. Beyza County in Fars Province exemplifies this rapid transition, with substantial growth in greenhouse units driven by governmental development programs and market demand for off-season produce. However, this expansion has occurred largely without comprehensive assessment of its multi-dimensional consequences. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the economic, social, environmental, and infrastructural impacts of greenhouse development in Beyza County through the perspectives of primary stakeholders (greenhouse operators) to inform evidence-based policy formulation for sustainable rural development.

Materials and Methods
This research employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design with a descriptive-analytical approach. The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 18 key stakeholders (including active greenhouse operators, village administrators (Dehyars), Islamic Council members, and agricultural extension experts) selected through purposive and snowball sampling until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis to identify core impact dimensions, which informed the development of a researcher-constructed questionnaire. The quantitative phase surveyed 100 active greenhouse operators (from a population of 127) using simple random sampling. The instrument comprised 93 items across four dimensions measured on a symmetric five-point Likert scale (−2 = severe decrease to +2 = severe increase): economic (23 items), social (28 items), environmental (27 items), and infrastructural (15 items). Content and face validity were confirmed by agricultural development experts, while reliability was established via Cronbach's alpha (economic: 0.84; social: 0.74; environmental: 0.79; infrastructural: 0.73). Data analysis utilized descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis and Varimax rotation (KMO > 0.60 for all dimensions; Bartlett's test p = 0.001), and one-sample t-tests with a hypothetical mean of zero to determine the direction and significance of impacts.

Results and Discussion
EFA extracted six economic components explaining 71.29% of total variance, eight social components (66.09%), six environmental components (64.17%), and four infrastructural components (60.69%). One-sample t-tests revealed a dualistic impact profile characterized by simultaneous positive and negative consequences. Economically, greenhouse development significantly enhanced production resilience and profitability (mean = 1.07, t = 12.44, p < 0.001), household economic security (0.90, t = 9.29), and regional employment/entrepreneurship (0.79, t = 8.33). However, these benefits were counterbalanced by substantial production costs and financial risks (−0.48, t = −7.33), primarily driven by dependency on imported inputs, energy expenses (electricity, gas, heating), and volatile input prices. Socially, the intervention fostered individual empowerment and occupational identity transformation (0.82, t = 7.65), strengthened women's economic participation (0.55, t = 5.98), attracted youth to rural areas (0.23, t = 4.00), and enhanced social capital (0.31, t = 3.38). Nevertheless, trust in supportive institutions and novel agricultural knowledge remained statistically non-significant (p = 0.20), signaling institutional disconnect. Environmentally, greenhouse cultivation improved water resource management (0.60, t = 7.98) through reduced evapotranspiration and precise irrigation systems. Conversely, it generated significant negative impacts including soil degradation and reduced long-term soil sustainability (−0.43, t = −5.51), chemical pollution and non-degradable waste accumulation (−0.20, t = −2.61), and elevated energy consumption with localized climatic effects (−0.28, t = −2.80). Infrastructurally, basic services (water, electricity, gas, roads) improved (0.36, t = 3.65), yet infrastructure capacity to respond to rapid expansion remained non-significant (p = 0.19), indicating emerging strain on service networks.

Conclusions
Greenhouse development in Beyza County represents a conditional success: it has demonstrably strengthened economic resilience, water-use efficiency, and certain social dimensions of rural livelihoods, yet simultaneously intensified environmental pressures, financial vulnerabilities, and infrastructural constraints. This duality underscores that technological adoption alone cannot guarantee sustainable development; rather, long-term viability requires integrated policy frameworks that simultaneously address economic risk mitigation (e.g., preferential energy tariffs, low-interest financing), environmental stewardship (e.g., comprehensive waste management, soil conservation protocols, integrated pest management), infrastructural foresight (e.g., capacity-based licensing, cluster development planning), and participatory governance (e.g., transparent policy communication, cooperative strengthening). Without such holistic interventions, greenhouse agriculture risks evolving from a sustainable solution into a high-risk, environmentally taxing production model. This study contributes a multi-dimensional evidence base for policymakers seeking to transform greenhouse development from a production-centric approach toward an integrated model of sustainable rural development applicable across Iran's arid and semi-arid regions.