بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر تصمیم کشاورزان در به‌کارگیری شیوه‌های حفاظت منابع آب‌وخاک در دشت جایدر (شهرستان پل‌دختر)

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار و عضو هیئت‌علمی جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان

2 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان

3 دانشجوی دکترای آب و هواشناسی شهری، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران

چکیده

آشنایی با تصمیم کشاورزان در به‌کارگیری شیوه‌های حفاظت از منابع آب‌وخاک امری ضروری در توسعة روستایی و ابزار، و سیاستی برای دستیابی به اهداف حفاظتی از این منابع است که درنهایت سبب حفاظت منابع آب‌وخاک، سیاست‌های زیست‌محیطی و دستیابی به کشاورزی پایدار می‌شود. این مطالعه با هدف بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر تصمیم کشاورزان درمورد استفاده از شیوه‌های حفاظت از منابع آب‌وخاک در مناطق دشتی انجام شده است. جامعة آماری شامل خانوارهای کشاورز دشت جایدر است (1031N=) که با استفاده از فرمول کوکران 120 خانوار به‌عنوان نمونه انتخاب شده است. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها پرسش‌نامه است و برای شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر تصمیم‌گیری کشاورزان از آزمون‌های t تک‌نمونه‌ای، کای‌دو و مدل لجستیک استفاده شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد بین متغیرهای مورد نظر با تصمیم کشاورزان در به‌کارگیری شیوه‌های حفاظت این منابع ارتباط معنا‌داری وجود دارد. متغیرهای نیروی کار خانواده، فاصلة محل سکونت تا مزرعه، اندازة مزرعه و شیب به‌طور چشمگیری بر تصمیم کشاورز در این زمینه تأثیرگذارتر بوده‌اند. به‌جز متغیر فاصله از مزرعه (اثر منفی و معنادار) اثر سایر متغیرها مثبت و تعیین‌کننده بوده است. همچنین نتایج نشان می‌دهد عوامل اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فیزیکی نقش بیشتری در تصمیم کشاورزان در اتخاذ شیوه‌های مناسب برای حفاظت از آب‌وخاک داشته‌اند؛ بنابراین، می‌توان گفت بهترین راه حفاظت از منابع، توجه به نیازهای زیست‌محیطی محلی و عوامل اجتماعی و اقتصادی کشاورزان است که در کاهش تخریب محیط‌زیست و افزایش تولید محصولات کشاورزی مؤثر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Factors Influencing Decisions of Farmers in Applying Soil and Water Resource Protection Methods in Jaidar Plain, Poldokhtar

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sirus Ghanbari 1
  • Javad Bazrafshan 1
  • Mehrshad Toulabinejad 2
  • Meysam Toulabinejad 3
1 Assistant professor of geography and rural planning, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran
2 PhD student in geography and rural planning, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran
3 PhD student in urban climatology, Khawrazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Reduction in natural resources is today one of the main threats for human life in many regions of the world. It is recently intensified as a result of population increase and changes in human activities. This has led to some restrictions in rural areas. As the rural life is mainly dependent upon the agricultural activities, conservation of the soil and water resources can help protect the rural economy. As the soil erosion is serious for the farmers and improvement of soil fertility is essential for their life, the farmers make actions to implement the soil and water conservation programs. Therefore, it is necessary for the farmers to understand the causes and effects of degradation of natural resources and their actions in that they are the primary stakeholders exploiting the resources. In this study, we have evaluated the factors affecting the decisions of the farmers about using the conservation plans in Jaidar Plain, Poldokhtar, Iran. This research attempts to examine the most important factors of the procedure. 
 
Methodology
This is an applied research by a descriptive-analytical method. The data have been gathered by two methods of survey and library. The statistical population is including rural families in the Jaidar Plain. Using Cochran formula and systematic sampling, we have selected 120 family heads as the samples. Referring to the samples in the villages, questionnaires have been distributed among the sample respondents. In this study, two kinds of questionnaires, structured and non-structured, have been employed for data collection. After the data have been gathered, SPSS application has been used for descriptive and inferential analyses. To analyze the influences of private, social, economic, psychologic and physical factors on the decisions of the farmers in applying the conservation methods, the statistical tests of T test, Chi-square, and logit model have been employed.
Results and discussion
From all the respondents, about 58% of them are applying the soil and water conservation methods and about 42 % do not use the methods. Analyses of the influences of personal and social factors on the decisions of the farmers in using the conservation methods have indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between personal factors and the decisions of the farmers. The variables including age, gender, education level, training and technical knowledge of the farmers are effective on their decisions about using the conservation plans. The analyses of the effects of the social factors on the decisions of the respondents have revealed that almost all the social factors are effective on the decision makings of the farmers. In this case, the social participation has the highest influence on the decision makings. In other words, the higher the participation level is, the more the workforces of mutual participation are intended to apply the conservation plans to protect natural soil and water resources.  The results of economic factors have also demonstrated that the numbers of workforce in a family have higher influence on the decision makings of the farmers. In other words, the higher the number of the workforces is in a family, the more workforces there would be for conservation of the soil and water resources in that family. The results of chi-square test on the psychological factors have also indicated that the psychological factors in all aspects are relatively effective on the decision making.  It can be said that there is a significant positive relationship between the psychological factors and the agricultural decisions. The chi-square test results have also documented that there are significant positive relationships between the factors of land slope, farm area, and distance to the farm and variable of the decisions of the farmers about which conservation methods to use. Therefore, it can be stated that the physical factors play effective role in the decisions of the farmers in using different conservation methods.
 
Conclusion
The results of the research have demonstrated that among the twenty variables examined in this research, 13 variables have direct influence on the decisions of the farmers in using soil and water conservation ways. According to the results, the variables of number of workforce in the family, farm size, family size, land ownership, and slope have the highest influence on the way the farmers make decisions and that the variable of age, gender, education, ranch ownership, social relations, and understanding of the conservation method have the lowest effect on the decisions. Therefore, it can be said that social, economic, and physical factors play a major role in decisions of the farmers to use which of the conservation methods. Therefore, it is necessary for the government and NGOs to consider the variety of conservation methods in implementation of the programs. The best way to conserve the soil and water resources is to pay especial attention to local environmental requirements and social and economic conditions of the farmers to reduce land degradation and increase productivity of the agricultural activities. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Rural Development
  • agriculture development
  • Soil erosion
  • Logit Model
  • Jaidar Plain
  1. پایدار، ابوذر، 1392، ارائة الگوی سیاست مطلوب بهره‌برداری از منابع آب زیرزمینی برای فعالیت‌های کشاورزی در نواحی روستایی (حوزة جغرافیایی- فرهنگی هلیل‌رود- دشت جیرفت)، پایان‌نامة دورة دکتری رشتة جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، تهران، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
  2. حبیبی، کیومرث، رحیمی کاکه‌جوب و محمدحامد عبدی، 1391، ارزیابی جاپای بوم‌شناختی وسایل حمل‌ونقل شهری؛ رویکردی نوین به‌منظور برنامه‌ریزی حمل‌ونقل پایدار، نمونة موردی: شهر ارومیه، مجلة آمایش جغرافیایی فضا، بررسی گلستان، سال دوم، شمارة 5، صص 99- 116.
  3. حیدری‌نژاد، نسیم، 1388، بررسی ساخت شهری اصفهان در دورة صفویه از دیدگاه مکتب آرمان‌گرایی اکولوژیک، مجلة سپهر، دورة 21، شمارة 84، صص 17-21.
  4. خانیکی، هادی، 1381، تحولات نوین اجتماعی و سیاست‌گذاری فرهنگی در دانشگاه: سیاست‌ها و راهبردهای علم، فناّوری و فرهنگ، جلد اول، انتشارات قصیده‌سرا.
  5. رضوانی، محمدرضا و دیگران، 1389، جاپای بوم‌شناختی؛ رویکردی نو برای سنجش اثرات زیست‌محیطی (مفهوم، کاربرد و سنجش آن)، جغرافیا و توسعه، دورة 8، شمارة پیاپی 20، صص 145- 166.
  6. شکوئی، حسین، 1387، فلسفه‌های محیطی و مکتب‌های جغرافیایی، انتشارات گیتاشناسی.
  7. صبوری، محمدصادق و علی نوری امام‌زاده، 1394، بررسی عوامل ترویجی مؤثر بر پذیرش فناوری‌های حفاظت آب در استان سمنان، فصلنامة تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعة کشاورزی ایران، دورة 46، شمارة 3، صص 633- 644.
  8. کرانی، زهرا، شیری، نعمت‌اله و لاله صالحی، 1393، نگرش کشاورزان استان کرمانشاه به عملیات حفاظت خاک، تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعة کشاورزی ایران، دورة 45، شمارة 1، صص 143- 154.
  9. مولایی، مرتضی، شرزه‌ای، غلامعلی و سعید یزدانی، 1389، تأثیر روشهای استخراج اطلاعات از پرسشنامه بر مقدار تمایل به پرداخت در ارزش‌گذاری مشروط (مطالعة موردی: اکوسیستم جنگلی ارسباران)، مجلة تحقیقات اقتصادی، دورة 45، شمارة 90، صص 159-181.
  10. نوراله‌نوری‌وند، آزاده و دیگران، 1390، بررسی مقایسة الگوهای پذیرش فناوری‌های حفاظت خاک در استان خوزستان، فصلنامة علوم ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، سال هفتم، شمارة 2 (پیاپی 14)، صص 21- 33.
  11. نوری، هدایت‌اله و دیگران، 1393، بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر پذیرش اقدامات حفاظتی خاک، گامی در جهت توسعة پایدار کشاورزی (مطالعة موردی: شهرستانشیروانوچرداول)، فصلنامة تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعة کشاورزی ایران، دورة 45، شمارة 1، صص 195- 205.
 

 

12. Abaidoo. S, 1997, Human-Nature Interaction and the Modern Agricultural Regime: Agricultural Practices and Environmental Ethics. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, pp. 305.

13. Ahmed. A, 2013, Rural Marketing Strategies for Selling Products and Services: Issues and Challenges, Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research, Vol. 1, No.4, pp. 55- 60.

14. Atela J., et al. , 2016, A comparative performance of indigenous chicken in Baringo and Kisumu Counties of Kenya for sustainable agriculture, International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 97-104

15. Batjes. N. H, 2014, Projected Changes in Soil Organic Carbon Stocks Upon Adoption of Recommended Soil and Water Conservation Practices in The Upper Tana River Catchment, Kenya, Land Degradation and Development, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 278–287.

16. Bayramin, I.O., Baskan, D. and Parlak, M, 2003, Soilerosion assessment with CONA model: casestudy Beypazri area, Turk Journal of Agriculture, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 105-116.

17. Dallmeyer D. G, 2006, incorporating environmental ethics into ecosystem-based management. Presented in: 6th Marine Law Symposium, Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, Rhode Island; 20 October.

18. Dunlap, R. E. and Jones, R. E, 2002, Environmental Concern: Conceptual Measurement Issues. (eds.) Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 525.

19. Erkossa. T, and Ayele. G, 2003, Indigenous Knowledge and Practices for Soil and Water Management in East Wollega, Ethiopia, Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Deutscher Tropentag 2003 Gottingen, October 8-10, 2003, pp. 1- 15.

20. Francesconia. W, et al., 2016, Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: A systematic review, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 535, No. 2, pp 625–636.

21. Gentle. P, and Maraseni. T. N, 2012, Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: adaptation practices by rural mountain communities in Nepal, Environmental Science and Policy21, Vol.15, No, pp. 24– 34.

22. Gottlieb, D., et al., 2012, Analyzing the Ecological Footprint at the Institutional Scale – The Case of an Israeli high- school, journal of Ecological Indicators, Vol. 18, No. 21, pp 91–97.

23. Habibi. K, Rahimi. K and Mohamad Hamed Abdi, 2012, Evaluation of urban transport ecological fVoot print a novel approach to sustainable transport planning, Case Study: Orumiyeh, geographical space planning Golestan Journal, Volume 2, Issue 5, pp. 99- 116.(In Persian).

24. Heydari nejad. N, 2009, Check the urban structure of Isfahan in Safavid era of utopianism ecological perspective, Sepehr Journal, Vol. 21, No. 84, pp. 17-21. (In Persian)

25. Hurni. H., 2016, Focus Issue: Modernization and Sustainable Development in Mountains, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 129- 139.

26. Jose Marques. M, et al., 2016, Multifaceted Impacts of Sustainable Land Management in Drylands: A Review, journal sustainability, Vol. 8, N.??? , pp. 1- 34.

27. Karani. Z, Shiri. N. and Salehi L., 2014, attitude soil conservation practices of farmers, Kermanshah, Iran Thqyqlat Agricultural Economics and Development, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp 143- 154. (In Persian)

28. Katungi. E, et al, 2012, Relative importance of common bean attributes and variety demand in the drought areas of Kenya, Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 411-422.

29. Khaniaki. H, 2002, New developments in social and cultural policy at the University: Policies and Strategies for Science, Technology and Culture, Vol. I, published Ghaside sara. (In Persian)

30. Khatria. N,  and Tyagi. S, 2015, Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas, Journal of Frontiers in Life Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23- 39.

31. Kifle. S, Teferi. B, Kebedom, A and Abiyot Legesse, 2016, Factors Influencing Farmers Decision on the Use of Introduced Soil and Water Conservation Practices in the Lowland’s of Wenago Woreda, Gedeo Zone, Ethiopia, American Journal of Rural, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 24-30.

32. Kissinger, M, and Gottlieb, D, 2010, Place oriented ecological Footprint Analysis: the case of Israel’s grain supply, Journals Ecological Economics, Vol. 69, No. 8. pp. 1639–1645.

33. Kwadwo A.O, Samson. and J, 2012, Increasing Agricultural Productivity and Enhancing Food Security in Africa New Challenges and Opportunities, International Food Policy Research Institute Washington.

34. Laurent M. A , Bernard A. E and  Indrajeet Chaubey, 2012, Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research, Journal Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,, Vol. 223, No. 7, pp. 4253- 4273.

35. Loh, J. (Ed) 2002, Living Planet Report (2002).World-Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), Gland, Switzerland.

36. Molaee. M, Shrzhay. G.A and Yazdan S, 2010, extracting information from a questionnaire on the impact of the contingent valuation willingness to pay (case study: forest ecosystems Arasbaran), Economic Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 90, pp. 181-159. (In Persian)

37. Namara, R, et al., 2007, Innovative land and water management approaches in Asia: productivity impacts, adoption prospects and poverty outreach, Irrigation and Drainage, Vol. 56, No. 2-3, pp. 335- 348.

38. Nouri. H. , et al. , 2014, to investigate the factors affecting the adoption of soil conservation measures, a step towards sustainable agricultural development (Case Stadi: Shirvan city and County), Journal Iran Agricultural economics and development, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 195- 205. (In Persian)

39. Nourollah Nouri Vand. A, Ajili. Ch, and Bejani. M, 2011, a comparative study on the admission patterns of soil conservation technologies in Khuzestan province, Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education,                 Vol.,2, No. 14, pp. 21- 33. (In Persian)

40. Novara. A, et al., 2016, Understanding the role of soil erosion on co2-c loss using 13c isotopic signatures in abandoned Mediterranean agricultural land, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 550, No. 13, pp 330–336.

41. Nyanga. A, Kessler, and Albino Tenge, 2016, Key socio-economic factors influencing sustainable land managementinvestments in the West Usambara Highlands, Tanzania, Land Use Policy, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp 260- 266.

42. Okoba. B.O, and Sterk. G, 2010, Catchment-level evaluation of farmers’ estimates of soil erosion and crop yield in the Central Highlands of Kenya, Journal Land Degradation and Development, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 388–400.

43. Payedar. A, 2013, Operation of the groundwater model for the optimal policy for agricultural activities in rural areas (geo-cultural area of Jiroft plain Halil Rod), finishing a PhD in geography and rural planning, Tehran, Tarbiat Modarres University .(In Persian)

44. Ponisio L. C, and Kremen. C, 2016, System-level approach needed to evaluate the transition to more sustainable agriculture, Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 1-4

45. Raquela. S., et al., 2007, Application of game theory for a groundwater conflict in Mexico, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 560–571.

46. Rezvani, M., et al., 2010, ecological foot print; a new approach to environmental impact assessment (concept, function and its measurement), Geography and Development, Vol. 8, No. 20 in a row, pp. 145-166. (In Persian)

47. Saboori.M.S, and Nouri Imam Zadeh. A, 2015, to investigate the factors influencing the adoption of technologies that promote water conservation in Semnan province, Iran Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp 633- 644. (In Persian)

48. Sebgaze. G, 2008, Determinants of Adoption and Intensity of Use of Improved Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Sodo District, Gurage Zone, Southern Part of Ethiopia. Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

49. Shakuie. H 1999, environmental philosophies and schools of geography, Ghitashenasi publications. (In Persian)

50. Shisany. S, and Mafongoy. P, 2016, Adaptation to climate change and the impacts on household food security among rural farmers in uMzinyathi District of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa, Food Security, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1- 12.

51. Sietz. D, Van Dijk. H, 2015, Land-based adaptation to global change: What drives soil and water conservation in western Africa? Journal Global Environmental Change, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.131–141.

52. Vadivelu, A, and Kiran, B.R, 2013, Problems and Prospects of Agricultural Marketing in India: an Overview, International Journal of Agricultural and Food Science, Vol. 3, No 3, pp. 108-118.

53. Wackernagel, M., et al., 1999, National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept, Ecological Economics 29.

54. Wagayehu B and Lars D, 2003, Soil and Water Conservation Decision of Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto.

55. Wezel. A, et al., 2016, Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation, Agrroecolyand Sustanablee Food Systems, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 132- 144.

56. Zhou, SH, et al., 2008, Affecting Chinese Farmers’ Decisions to Adopt a Water-Saving Technology, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 51-61.