• صفحه اصلی
  • ارزیابی و مقایسه سطح پایداری گندم دیم و آبی در استان گلستان

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-1809-4430 (R3) بازدید : 96 صفحه: 139 - 149

10.22034/jest.2020.39040.4430

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

ارزیابی و مقایسه سطح پایداری گندم دیم و آبی در استان گلستان

محورهای موضوعی : اقتصاد محیط زیست

فرزانه بهادران 1 (دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان.)
اعظم رضایی 2 (استادیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان. * (مسوول مکاتبات))
فرشید اشراقی 3 (استادیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان.)
علی کرامت زاده 4 (استادیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1397/06/24 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/11/03 تاریخ انتشار : 1399/07/01

کلید واژه: گندم آبی و دیم, پایداری, تحلیل سلسله مراتبی, گلستان,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: پایداری کشاورزی به‌عنوان پیش نیاز اصلی برای سودآوری بلندمدت بخش کشاورزی تلقی می‌شود. ارزیابی پایداری کشاورزی نقش مهمی در دستیابی به توسعه پایدار دارد. تحقیق حاضر با هدف ارزیابی و مقایسه پایداری گندم دیم و آبی در استان گلستان انجام یافته است. روش بررسی: داده های مورد نیاز با مراجعه به سازمان جهادکشاورزی استان گلستان، استفاده از سیستم هزینه تولید جهاد کشاورزی و همچنین تکمیل پرسشنامه، استخراج و جمع آوری گردید. برای وزن دهی معیارهای تعیین‌کننده پایداری ازنظرات متخصصان اقتصاد کشاورزی، ترویج کشاورزی، محیط‌زیست، زراعت و گیاه پزشکی استفاده شد. در نهایت، با استفاده از تجمیع شاخص‌های اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست محیطی به ارزیابی و مقایسه پایداری محصولات گندم آبی و دیم در استان گلستان طی سال زراعی‌ 95-1394 پرداخته شد. برای تحقق اهداف تحقیق از روش تحلیل سلسله مراتبی استفاده شد. یافته ها: نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که در شاخص‌های زیست محیطی (مصرف کود، آفت کش‌ها، مصرف آب آبیاری ، ورود ماشین آلات به مزرعه و کشاورزی تلفیقی) گندم دیم سازگاری بیشتری با محیط‌زیست دارد و با نمره 679/0 پایدارتر از گندم آبی با نمره 321/0 است. همچنین، در شاخص‌های اقتصادی (حاشیه ناخالص کشاورزی، ارزش ناخالص محصول، عملکرد تولیدات زراعی و بیمه) گندم آبی با نمره 538/0 پایدارتر از گندم دیم با نمره پایداری 462/0 می باشد. در شاخص‌های اجتماعی نیز (تحصیلات، سن، شغل جانبی نیروی کار و تعداد افراد تحت تکفل) گندم دیم با نمره 56/0 پایدارتر از گندم آبی با نمره 44/0 می باشد. به علاوه، میزان شاخص پایداری کل نشان می دهد که گندم دیم از گندم آبی پایدارتر است. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به نتایج، پیشنهاد می شود کشت محصول گندم با گونه های مقاوم به کم آبی ترویج گردد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: The present study was conducted to evaluate and compare the sustainability of rain fed and irrigated wheat products in Golestan province. Method: The required data were collected from Golestan Agricultural Jihad Organization, Agricultural Jihad Agricultural Production Cost System and also by completing the questionnaires. Also, to weighing criteria and sub-criteria that determines the sustainability, some expert’s opinions in agricultural economics, agricultural extension and education, environment, agronomy and plant protection were used. Finally, using aggregation of economic, social and environmental indicators, the sustainability of the irrigated and rain fed wheat in Golestan province during 2015-2016 was evaluated and compared. Hierarchical analysis method was used for achieving the research purpose. Findings: The results of this study showed that rain fed wheat in the environmental indices (fertilizer use, pesticides use, irrigation water, farm machinery and combined agriculture) with the score of 0.679is more compatible with the environment than irrigated wheat with a score of 0.331. Also, in economic indices (gross margin of agriculture, product gross margin, crop yield and insurance yield), irrigated wheat with the score of 0.538 was more sustainable than rain fed wheat, with a sustainability score of 0.462. Finally, in social indicators (level of education, age of farmers, labor sub jobs and family size), rainfed wheat with a score of 0.56 is more sustainable than irrigated wheat with a score of 0.44. In addition, the overall sustainability index indicates that rainfed wheat is more sustainable than irrigated wheat. Discussion and Conclusion: According to the results, it is recommended that wheat cultivation should be promoted with dehydration-resistant species.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Ommani AR, Chizari M, Salmanzadeh C and Farj Allah Hosseini J, 2009. Predicting adoption behavior of farmers regarding on-farm sustainable water resources management (SWRM): Comparison of models. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33:595-616.
    2.
  2. Sharghi T, Sedighi H and RoknoddinEftekhari A, 2010. Effective factors in achieving sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 5: 235-341.
    3.
  3. Rezaei, A., Mortazavi, S., Pikani, G., Khalilian, P. (2014). Evaluation and comparison of the stability of agricultural crops in the east of Zayandeh Rood basin under drought conditions using multi-criteria decision technique. Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 40, Issue 2, 529-540.(in persian)
    4.
  4. Manafi Malaayosfi, M., Vitali, B., Prerezar, A., Nematian, J. (2017). Evaluation of agricultural and natural resources sustainability in the cities of East Azarbaijan province: application of the combined index approach. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, Volume 27, Number 3: 187-199. (in persian)
    5.
  5. Mohammadi, Y., Iravani, H., Kalantari, Kh. (2014). Evaluation of the Sustainability of Rice Production in Iran Using the Combined Index (Applied Methodology), Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, Volume 45, number 1:79-90.(in persian)
    6.
  6. Bryam-Nezhad, V, Sadr al-Sharifi, S.M. (2005). Sustainability Modeling in Water Resources Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques. Journal of Agricultural Science, Year 11, No. 4: 23-15. (in Persian)
    7.
  7. Shahnoshi, N. (2011), Drought risk management for sustainable use of agricultural resources in Golestan province. Conference on the quantitative and qualitative sustainability of water resources of the country. (in Persian)
    8.
  8. DadashishSaray, M., Dashti, A., Hayati, B., Ghehremanzadeh, M. (2015). Hierarchical Analytical Combination Application and Topsis Technique in Determining the Weighting of Criteria and Assessing Agricultural Sustainability (Case Study: Selected Cities of East Azarbaijan Province). Journal of Agricultural Knowledge and Sustainable Production. Vol. 25, No. 1: 157-147. (in Persian)
    9.
  9. Mohammadzadeh, H, (2017). Provide a framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural schemes for the payment of facilities. Master's thesis. Agricultural Management Group. Islamic Azad University, Maku Branch. (in Persian)
    10.
  10. Tiwari, D. N., R. Loof, et al. (1999). "Environmental–economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques." Agricultural Systems60(2): 99-112.
    11.
  11. Van Cauwenbergh, N.,K. Biala, et al. (2007). "SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment120(2–4): 229-242.
    12.
  12. Mancini, F., A. J. Termorshuizen, et al. (2008). "Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India." Agricultural Systems96(1): 16-25.
    13.
  13. Dantsis, T., C. Douma, et al. (2010). "A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainabilitylevel of agricultural plant production systems." Ecological Indicators10(2): 256-263.
    14.
  14. Liu, F. and H. Zhang (2013). "Novel methods to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability of main agricultural regions in China." Agronomy for Sustainable Development: 1-13.Mancini, F., A. J. 
    15.
  15. Widayati, Tri; Waridin; Yusuf, Edy.(2017). Strategies for Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability of Potato Agriculture in Dieng plateau Central Java IndonesiaJournal of Environmental Management & Tourism; Craiova. Vol. 8, Iss. 1(17) : 259-269.
    16.
  16. Belton, V. and T. J. Stewart (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach, Springer.Dantsis, T., C. Douma, et al. (2010). "A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems." Ecological Indicators10(2): 256-263.
    17.
  17. Mendoza, G. and H. Martins (2006). "Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms." Forest ecology and management230(1): 1-22.
    18.
  18. Mouron, P., B. Heijne, et al. (2012). "Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards." Agricultural Systems113(0): 1-15.
    19.
  19. Saaty, T. L. (2008). "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process." International Journal of Services Sciences1(1): 83-98.
    20.
  20. Van Passel, S., F. Nevens, et al. (2007). "Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency." Ecological Economics62(1): 149-161.
    21.
  21. Raiffa, H. and R. Keeney (1976). "Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs." Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
    22.

 

 

_||_

  1. Ommani AR, Chizari M, Salmanzadeh C and Farj Allah Hosseini J, 2009. Predicting adoption behavior of farmers regarding on-farm sustainable water resources management (SWRM): Comparison of models. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33:595-616.
    2.
  2. Sharghi T, Sedighi H and RoknoddinEftekhari A, 2010. Effective factors in achieving sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 5: 235-341.
    3.
  3. Rezaei, A., Mortazavi, S., Pikani, G., Khalilian, P. (2014). Evaluation and comparison of the stability of agricultural crops in the east of Zayandeh Rood basin under drought conditions using multi-criteria decision technique. Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume 40, Issue 2, 529-540.(in persian)
    4.
  4. Manafi Malaayosfi, M., Vitali, B., Prerezar, A., Nematian, J. (2017). Evaluation of agricultural and natural resources sustainability in the cities of East Azarbaijan province: application of the combined index approach. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, Volume 27, Number 3: 187-199. (in persian)
    5.
  5. Mohammadi, Y., Iravani, H., Kalantari, Kh. (2014). Evaluation of the Sustainability of Rice Production in Iran Using the Combined Index (Applied Methodology), Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, Volume 45, number 1:79-90.(in persian)
    6.
  6. Bryam-Nezhad, V, Sadr al-Sharifi, S.M. (2005). Sustainability Modeling in Water Resources Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques. Journal of Agricultural Science, Year 11, No. 4: 23-15. (in Persian)
    7.
  7. Shahnoshi, N. (2011), Drought risk management for sustainable use of agricultural resources in Golestan province. Conference on the quantitative and qualitative sustainability of water resources of the country. (in Persian)
    8.
  8. DadashishSaray, M., Dashti, A., Hayati, B., Ghehremanzadeh, M. (2015). Hierarchical Analytical Combination Application and Topsis Technique in Determining the Weighting of Criteria and Assessing Agricultural Sustainability (Case Study: Selected Cities of East Azarbaijan Province). Journal of Agricultural Knowledge and Sustainable Production. Vol. 25, No. 1: 157-147. (in Persian)
    9.
  9. Mohammadzadeh, H, (2017). Provide a framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural schemes for the payment of facilities. Master's thesis. Agricultural Management Group. Islamic Azad University, Maku Branch. (in Persian)
    10.
  10. Tiwari, D. N., R. Loof, et al. (1999). "Environmental–economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques." Agricultural Systems60(2): 99-112.
    11.
  11. Van Cauwenbergh, N.,K. Biala, et al. (2007). "SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment120(2–4): 229-242.
    12.
  12. Mancini, F., A. J. Termorshuizen, et al. (2008). "Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India." Agricultural Systems96(1): 16-25.
    13.
  13. Dantsis, T., C. Douma, et al. (2010). "A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainabilitylevel of agricultural plant production systems." Ecological Indicators10(2): 256-263.
    14.
  14. Liu, F. and H. Zhang (2013). "Novel methods to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability of main agricultural regions in China." Agronomy for Sustainable Development: 1-13.Mancini, F., A. J. 
    15.
  15. Widayati, Tri; Waridin; Yusuf, Edy.(2017). Strategies for Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability of Potato Agriculture in Dieng plateau Central Java IndonesiaJournal of Environmental Management & Tourism; Craiova. Vol. 8, Iss. 1(17) : 259-269.
    16.
  16. Belton, V. and T. J. Stewart (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach, Springer.Dantsis, T., C. Douma, et al. (2010). "A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems." Ecological Indicators10(2): 256-263.
    17.
  17. Mendoza, G. and H. Martins (2006). "Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms." Forest ecology and management230(1): 1-22.
    18.
  18. Mouron, P., B. Heijne, et al. (2012). "Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards." Agricultural Systems113(0): 1-15.
    19.
  19. Saaty, T. L. (2008). "Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process." International Journal of Services Sciences1(1): 83-98.
    20.
  20. Van Passel, S., F. Nevens, et al. (2007). "Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency." Ecological Economics62(1): 149-161.
    21.
  21. Raiffa, H. and R. Keeney (1976). "Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs." Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
    22.

 

 

سکوی نشر دانش

سند یا سکوی نشر دانش ،سامانه ای جهت مدیریت حوزه علمی و پژوهشی نشریات دانشگاه آزاد می باشد

پیوندهای سایت

مراکز مرتبط

پشتیبانی

صفحات رسمی

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]