ارزیابی پایداری کشاورزی استان فارس با استفاده از رهیافت برنامه ریزی توافقی

فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

مقاله 1، دوره 4، شماره 13، فروردین و اردیبهشت 1391، صفحه 1-26   

نویسندگان

فرناز پورزند¹؛ محمد بخشوده^{* 2}

¹کارشناس ارشد اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه شیراز

²استاد اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه شیراز

تاریخ دریافت: 26 آذر 1394،  تاریخ پذیرش: 26 آذر 1394 

چکیده

در این مطالعه با استفاده از مدل پایداری کشاورزی و رهیافت برنامه ریزی توافقی، اقدام به ارزیابی پایداری کشاورزی شهرستان های منتخب استان فارس گردید. بدین منظور داده های مورد نیاز این مطالعه از منابع گوناگون از جمله سازمان جهاد کشاورزی و سازمان آب منطقه ای استان فارس در سال 1385 جمع آوری شده است. بر اساس نتایج حاصل از روش مذکور شهرستان های استان فارس به سه گروه پایدار(شهرستان های کازرون، لامرد، ممسنی و آباده)، نسبتاً پایدار(شهرستان های لار، اقلید، فیروزآباد، فسا، داراب و ارسنجان) و ناپایدار(شهرستان های مرودشت، استهبان، شیراز و جهرم) تقسیم گردیدند. با توجه به نتایج، گروه پایدار دارای ویژگی هایی از جمله پایین بودن بیلان آب زیرزمینی، تنوع بیشتر درگیاهان زراعی و نیز درصد کمتری از اراضی این شهرستان ها دارای ماده آلی کمتر از یک درصد می باشند. همچنین غلظت بالای نیترات در آب های زیرزمینی، منفی تر بودن بیلان آّب زیرزمینی، استفاده کمتر از سیستم های کارآمد آبیاری و مصرف بیش از حد سموم و کودهای شیمیایی بارزترین ویژگی های گروه ناپایدار هستند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

پایداری کشاورزی؛ شاخص های اقتصادی-اجتماعی؛ شاخص های زیست محیطی؛ روش برنامه ریزی توافقی؛ استان فارس

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating agricultural sustainability of Fars province with compromise programming approach

نویسندگان [English]

F. Pourzand¹؛ M. Bakhshoudeh²

چکیده [English]

In this study, agricultural sustainability of selected cities of Fars province evaluated with using the model of agricultural sustainability and compromise programming method. In this regard, data were collected from various sources such as Fars province organization of agricultural Jahad and Fars Regional Water Authority in 1385. As the results, cities of the province were classified into three groups, sustainable (including Kazerun, Lamerd, Mamasani and Abadeh cities), relatively sustainable group (including Lar, Eghlid, Firozabad, Fasa, Darab and Arsenjan cities) and unsustainable group (including Marvdasht, Estahban, Shiraz and Jahrom cities). These results indicate that sustainable group with features including groundwater balance, more diversity in crops and low percentage of lands of these cities has 1% organic matter. Furthermore, high nitrate concentration in groundwater, more negative balance of groundwater, less using of efficient irrigation systems, and over using of pesticides and chemical fertilizers are the remarkable features of unsustainable groups.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Agricultural sustainability, Socio-economical index, Environmental index, compromise programming and Fars province

مراجع

1. Abay, C., Miran, B. and Gunden, B. 2004. An analysis of input

use efficiency in tobacco production with respect to

sustainability: The case study of Turkey, Journal of Sustainable

Agriculture, 24: 123–143.

2. Bosetti, V., and Locatelli, G 2006. A data envelopment analysis

approach to the assessment of natural parks' economic efficiency

and sustainability. The case of Italian national parks, Sustainable

Development, 14:277–286.

3. Boyramnezhad, V .2006. Quantification of sustainability using

fractional programming in agricultural sector, Agricultural

Economic and Development, 54: 179-196.

4. Chang, N.B., Yeh, S.C. and. Wu, G.C. 1999. Stability of grey

compromise programming and its application to watershed landuse

planning. International Journal of Systems Science, 30(6):

571-589.

5. Cornelissen, A.M.G., Van Dd Berg, J., Koops, W.J. and Udo,

H.M.J. 2001. Assessment of the contribution of sustainability

indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using

fuzzy set theory, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 86(2):

173-185.

6. De Koeijer, T.J., Wossink, G.A.A., Struik, P.C. and Renkema,

L.A. 2002. Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of

efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers, Journal of

Environmental Management, 66:9-17.

7. Esmaeili, A.R. 2006. Environmental study and measurement of

residual nitrogen fertilizer on soil and water resources of Fars

province. Management and planning organization.

8. Farshad, A. and Zinck, J.A. 2001. Assessing agricultural

sustainability using the six pillar models: Iran as a case study.

Agroecosystem sustainability. S.R. Gliessman (Ed). CRC.

9. Hayati, D. 1995. Effective Social - economic structures and crop

production on technical knowledge of sustainable agriculture and

Wheat farmers sustainable farming systems in the Fars province.

Master of science Thesis in Shiraz University.

10. Heydari, F., Hasanshahi, H., Abdollahi, H. and Neyazi, J. 2008.

Soil, the forgotten alchemy. Mostafavi pab;ication.

11. Iravani, H. and Darban Astaneh, A.R. 2004. Measuring, analyzing

and explaining productivity of wheat production systems (case

study: Tehran Province). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science,

35(1): 39-52.

12. Koochaki, A., Hosseini, M. and khazaei, H. 1997. Sustainable

Agricultural systems. ACECR Mashhad Branch Publication

Center.

13. Korfmacher, K.S. 2000. Farmland preservation and sustainable

agriculture: Grassroots and policy connections, American Journal

of Alternative Agriculture, 15(1): 37-43.

14. Mahdavi Damghani, A., Koochaki, A. and Rezvani Moghadam,

P. 2004. Sustainability indices: tools for quanifying concepts of

ecological agriculture. Environmental Sciences, 4: 1-10.

15. Management and planning organization. 2000. Fars Statistical

Year Book.

16. Manoloadis, O.G. 2002. Development of Ecological indicators- a

methodological framework using compromise programming,

Ecological indicators, 2:169-176.

17. Manyong, M.N., Degand, J. 1997. Measurement of sustainability

of African smallholder farming systems: case study of a systems

approach, IITA Research, 14(15):1-6.

18. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture. 2005. Statistics of crop

production costs. Statistics and Information Technology Center.

19. Mitchell, G. 1996. Problems and fundamentals of sustainable

development indicators. Sustainable Development, 4: 1-11.

20. Nambiar, K.K.M., Gupta, A.P., Fu, Q. and Li, S. 2001.

Biophysical, chemical and socio-economic indicators for

assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal zone.

Agricultural Economics Environmental., 87: 209-214.

21. Pannell, D.J. and Schillizi, S. 1999. Sustainable agriculture: a

matter of ecology, equity, economic efficiency or expedience?

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 13: 57-66.

22. Rao, N.H., Rogers, P.P. 2006. Assessment of agricultural

sustainability. Current Science, 91(4): 439- 448

23. Rennings, K. and Wiggering, H. 1997. Steps towards indicators

of sustainable development: linking economic and ecological

concepts, Ecological Economics, 20: 25-36.

24. Perti, A.N. 2002. Recreating agriculture: policies and actions for

sustainability and self-sufficiency. Kashani, A.R. Journal of Rural

Development, 46.

25. Rafiei Dani, H. 2005. An investigation of the determinations of

adoption and development of sprinkler irrigation (case study:

Isfahan Province). Master of science Thesis in Shiraz University.

26. Romero, C., Rehman, T. and Domingo, J. 1988. Compromise–

risk programming for agricultural resource allocation problems,

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 39: 271-276.

27. Sabouhi, M. and Alvanchi, M. 2008. Application of multi

objective and compromise programming to farm lanning: a case

study of Mashhad plain. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and

Natural Resources, 15(4):1-14.

28. Sauer, J. and Abdallah, J. M. 2007. Forest diversity, tobacco

production and resource management in Tanzania. Forest Policy

and Economics, 9: 421–439.

29. Senanayake, R. 1991. Sustainable agriculture: definitions and

parameters for measurement, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture,

1(4): 7-28.

30. Seyedan, S.M. and Ghadmi Firouzabadi, A. 2006. Selection of the

best irrigation systems using compromise programming: a case

study of Hamedan province). Pajouhesh & sazandegi, 73: 177-

183.

31. Shannon, C.E. and Wiener, W. 1963. The mathematical theory of

communication. Univ. Illinois press. Urbana. 1-117.

32. Shiau, J. and Lee, H. 2005. Derivation of optimal hedging rules

for a water-supply reservoir through compromise programming,

Water Resources Management, 19(2):111-132.

33. Stokes, J.R. and Tozer, P.R. 2002. Sire selection with multiple

objective. Agricultural System, 73: 147-164.

34. Soltani, GH.R. 1997. Biological technology and sustainable

development of agriculture. Agricultural Economic and

Development, 40:215-238.

35. Sydorovych, O. and Wossimk, A. 2008. An application of

conjoint analysis in agricultural sustainability assessment. 12th

EAAE congress. Gent (Belgium). 

36. Tecle, A. and Yitayam, M. 1990. Preference ranking of

alternative irrigation technologies via a milti criterion decisionmaking

procedure, Transaction of ASAE, 33: 1509-1517.

37. Zebaei, M. and Bakhshoodeh, M. 2008. Ranking irrigation

technologies using a multicriterion decision-making processs: a

case study in Fars province. Journal of Economics and

Agriculture Development, 22(1):3-13.

38. Ziyaei, S. 2000. Economic evaluation of irrigation systems and

application of compromise programming to selecting the

appropriate method of irrigation. Master of science Thesis in

Shiraz University.