ارزیابی اثرات ویژگی‌های اقتصادی- اجتماعی و روان‌شناختی بر پذیرش رفتارهای سازگاری با کم‌آبی

فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

دوره 13، شماره 3، آبان 1400، صفحه 1-17   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jae.2021.4533

نویسندگان

مسعود یزدان پناه¹؛ عباس میرزایی^{* 2}؛ طاهره زبیدی³؛ آمنه سواری ممبینی⁴؛ سیده کبری همایون⁴

¹دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان

²استادیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده مهندسی زراعی و عمران روستایی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران.

³دانشجوی دکتری ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، گروه ترویج کشاورزی، ارتباطات و توسعه روستایی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران.

⁴دانشجوی دکتری گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت: 18 بهمن 1398،  تاریخ بازنگری: 03 اردیبهشت 1399،  تاریخ پذیرش: 06 اسفند 1399 

چکیده

    درک نقش عوامل گوناگون تأثیرگذار بر سازگاری کشاورزان با کم‌آبی برای اطمینان از توسعه اقدام‌های سیاسی مناسب و طراحی پروژه­های موفق در زمینه مدیریت منابع آب ضروری است. این پژوهش با هدف بررسی نقش عوامل مؤثر بر رفتارهای سازگاری کشاورزان در ابعاد سرمایه اجتماعی، اقتصادی و روان‌شناختی انجام شد. نمونه مورد مطالعه شامل کشاورزان شهرستان دشتستان بودند که با استفاده از جدول نمونه­گیری کرجسی تعداد 330 نفر از طریق روش نمونه­گیری تصادفی انتخاب شده­اند. رفتارهای سازگاری با کم آبی عبارتند از: روش­های تعمیر کانال­ها، خرید آب اضافی، کشت گونه­های زودبازده، استفاده از آب­های نامتعارف و تنوع شغلی. نتایج نشان دادند که عوامل تحصیلات، فاصله زمین تا مرکز خدمات کشاورزی، تعداد محصولات، خودکارآمدی، ریسک­پذیری و پیوند از عوامل مؤثر بر تنوع شغلی و درآمدی به عنوان رفتار سازگاری با کم‌آبی می­باشند. هم‌چنین، وضعیت تأهل، تحصیلات، عضویت در تعاونی، تمایل به حفاظت از آب، درک خطر اجتماعی، خودکارآمدی، ریسک‌پذیری، نگرش زیست‌محیطی، تعاملات اجتماعی و پیوند اثر معنی­داری بر رفتار سازگاری خرید آب اضافی دارد. از طرف دیگر، متغیرهای وضعیت تأهل، ریسک زیست‌محیطی، برجستگی خطر، مسئولیت­پذیری، اعتماد کاری و پیوند بر تعمیر کانال­های آب و متغیرهای تعداد محصولات، تمایل به حفاظت از آب، ریسک‌پذیری، اعتماد کاری و تعاملات اجتماعی بر استفاده از منابع آب نامتعارف دارای اثر معنی­داری است. در پایان، متغیرهای سن، عضویت در تعاونی، تمایل به /حفظ آب، درک ریسک محیطی، درک ریسک اقتصادی، درک ریسک زیست­محیطی، خودکارآمدی، برجستگی خطر، انجمن غیر رسمی، اعتماد کاری و اعتمادی نهادی بر انتخاب رفتار سازگاری کشت گونه زودبازده مؤثر می­باشند. از این رو نمی­توان برای ترویج و گسترش تمام روش­های سازگاری نسخه یکسانی را در نظر گرفت.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

رفتار سازگاری کشاورزان؛ کم‌آبی؛ سرمایه اجتماعی؛ ویژگی‌های روان‌شناختی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the effects of individual-economic, social capital and psychological characteristics on adopting adaptation behaviors to water scarcity

نویسندگان [English]

Masoud Yazdanpanah¹؛ Abbas Mirzaei²؛ Tahereh Zobeydi³؛ Ameneh Savari Mombeyni⁴؛ Seyedeh Kobra Homayon⁴

¹Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan

²Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture Engineering and Rural Development, Agricultural sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran.

³Zanjan university

⁴Agricultural sciences and natural resources university of Khuzestan

چکیده [English]

The results of binary logistic regression showed that the factors of education, distance to the center of agricultural services, number of products, self-efficacy, risk-taking and Family social capital were factors affecting job and income diversification. Also, marital status, education, membership in a cooperative, the intention to water conservation, social risk perception, self-efficacy, risk-taking, environmental attitudes, Community engagement, and the Family linkage have been affected on extra water purchase. marital status, environmental risk perception, risk salient, responsibility, work trust, and the family linkage were factors affecting water channels repair and variables of the number of products, intention to water conservation, risk-taking, trust, and Community Engagement have been affected on the use of unconventional water resources are abnormal. age, cooperative membership, intention to water conservation, environmental risk perception, economic risk perception, environmental risk perception, self-efficacy, risk salient, informal association (with friends and family), work trust and institutional trust have been effective on the cultivation of early-stage crops.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Farmers' adaptation behavior, Water scarcity, social capital, psychological characteristics

مراجع

1. Abrahamse W, Steg L, Gifford R, Vlek C. Factors's influencing car use for commuting and the intention to reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality. Trans. research part F: traffic psychol. and behave. 2009; 12 (4): 317-324.
2. Adger W N, Huq S, Brown K, Conway D, Hulme M. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Prog. Develop. Stud. 2003; 3 (3): 179-195,‏
3. Alam K. Farmers’ adaptation to water scarcity in drought-prone environments: A case study of Rajshahi District Bangladesh. Agricul. Wat. Manage. 2015; 148: 196-206,
4. Alexander P M, Holmner M, Lotriet H H, Matthee M C, Pieterse H V, Naidoo S, Twinomurinz H, Jordaan D. Factors affecting career choice: Comparison between students from computer and other disciplines. J. Scien. Educ. Tech. 2010; 20 (3): 300-315.
5. Arbuckle Jr J G, Morton L W, Hobbs J. Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: The roles of trust in sources of climate information climate change beliefs and perceived risk. Envir. Behave. 2015; 47 (2): 205-234.
6. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J. Climate change powerlessness and the commons dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders’ preparedness to act. Glob.Environ. Chang. 2011; 21 (2): 752-760,
7. Barnes-Mauthe M, Oleson K L, Brander L M, Zafindrasilivonona B, Oliver T A, Van Beukering P. Social capital as an ecosystem service: Evidence from a locally managed marine area. Ecosys. Serv. 2015; 16: 283-293.
8. Below T B, Mutabazi K D, Kirschke D, Franke C, Sieber S, Siebert R, Tscherning K. Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables?. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012; 22 (1): 223-235.‏
9. Bijani M, Hayati D. Farmers’ Perceptions toward Agricultural Water Conflict: The Case of Doroodzan Dam Irrigation Network Iran. J. Agricul. Sci. Tech. 2015; 17 (3): 561-575.
10. Bolino M C, Turnley W H, Bloodgood J M. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2002; 27 (4): 505-522.
11. Bradshaw B, Dolan H, Smit B. Farm-level adaptation to climatic variability and change: crop diversification in the Canadian prairies. Climat. Chang. 2004; 67 (1): 119-141.
12. Bryant C R, Smit B, Brklacich M, Johnston T R, Smithers J, Chiotti Q, Singh B. Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. In Societal adaptation to climate variability and change Springer Dordrecht. 2000; 181-201.
13. Bryan E, Deressa T T, Gbetibouo G A, Ringler C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ. Sci. 2009; 12 (4): 413-426.
14. Cavallo E, Ferrari E, Bollani L, Coccia M. Strategic management implications for the adoption of technological innovations in agricultural tractor: the role of scale factors and environmental attitude. Tech. Analy. Manage. 2014; 26 (7): 765-779.‏
15. Cascante D, Harper A, Sticks G. International amenity migration: Examining environmental behaviors and influences of amenity migrants and local residents in a rural community. J. Rural Stud. 2015; 38: 1-11.
16. Chen H, Wang J, Huang J. Policy support social capital and farmers’ adaptation to drought in China. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014; 24: 193-202.
17. Chen M F. Extending the protection motivation theory model to predict public safe food choice behavioural intentions in Taiwan. Food Cont. 2016; 68: 145-152.‏
18. Coleman J S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Americ. J. Socio. 1988; 94: 95-120.
19. Cooke R, French D P. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psych. Health. 2008; 23(7): 745-765.
20. Deressa T T, Hassan R M, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009; 19 (2): 248-255.
21. Deressa T T, Hassan R M, Ringler C. Perception of and adaptation to climate change by farmers in the Nile basin of Ethiopia. The J. Agricul. Sci. 2011; 149 (1): 23-31.
22. Field J. Social capital and lifelong learning. Policy Press, 2005.
23. Forward S E. The intention to commit driving violations–A qualitative study. Trans. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2006; 9 (6): 412-426.
24. Gebrehiwot T, Van der Veen A. Farm level adaptation to climate change: the case of farmer’s in the Ethiopian Highlands. Environ. Manage. 2013; 52 (1): 29-44.
25. Giddens A. The consequences of modernity. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
26. Grothmann T, Patt A. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005; 15 (3): 199-213.
27. Harland P, Staats H, Wilke H A. Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic. Appl. Soci. Psycho. 2007; 29 (4): 323-334.
28. Hines J M, Hungerford H R, Tomera A N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The J. Environ. Educ. 1987; 18 (2): 1-8.
29. Hung Lee T, Hauh Jan F, Yang Ch. Conceptualizing and measuring environmentally responsible behaviors from the perspective of community-based tourists. J. Tour. Manage. 2013; 36: 454-468.
30. Jin M. Does promote pro-environmental behaviors? Implications for collaborative social capital governance. Inter. J. Pub. Admin. 2013; 36: 397-407.
31. Karpudewan M, Roth W M, Abdullah M N S B. Enhancing primary school students' knowledge about global warming and environmental attitude using climate change activities. Intern. J. Sci. Educ. 2015; 37 (1): 31-54.‏
32. Kelley A E, Schochet T, Landry C F. Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: introduction to part I. Annal. New York Academy. Sci. 2004; 1021 (1): 27-32.‏
33. Keraita B P, Drachsel R, Seidu P, Amerasinghe C O, Olufunka F, Konradsen F. Harnessing Farmers knowledge and perceptions for health- risk reduction in waste water- irrigated agriculture, IWMI/IDRC Ottawa Canada. 2010; 337-354.
34. Keshavarz A, Ashrafi S, Hydari N, Pouran M, Farzaneh E. Water allocation and pricing in agriculture of Iran, In Water conservation reuse and recycling: proceeding of an Iranian American workshop The National Academies Press: Washington DC, (2005 March), (pp, 153-172).‏
35. Kusakari Y, Asubonteng K O, Jasaw G S, Dayour F, Dzivenu T, Lolig V, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G. Farmer-perceived effects of climate change on livelihoods in Wa West District Upper West region of Ghana. J. Disas. Res. 2014; 9 (4): 516-528.
36. Leiserowitz A A. Global warming in the American mind: the roles of affect imagery and worldviews in risk perception policy preferences and behavior (Doctoral Dissertation University of Oregon). 2003.
37. Lent R W. Toward a Unifying Theoretical and Practical Perspective on Well-Being and Psychosocial Adjustment. J. Couns. Psychol. 2004; 51 (4): 482.
38. Martin W E, Martin I M, Kent B. The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: the case of wildfire in high risk communities. J. Environ. Manage.2009; 91 (2): 489-498.‏
39. Mertz O, Mbow C, Reenberg A, Diouf A. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies in rural Sahel. Environ. Manage. 2009; 43 (5): 804-816.‏
40. Miller E, Buys L. The impact of social capital on residential water-affecting behaviors in a drought-prone Australian community. Soci. Natu. Res. 2008; 21 (3): 244-257.
41. Nápoles-Rivera F, Serna-González M, El-Halwagi M M, Ponce-Ortega J M. Sustainable water management for macroscopic systems. J. Clean. Produc. 2013; 47: 102-117.
42. Nchise A. An Empirical Analysis of the Theory of Planned Behavior. E J. eDemoc. Open Govern. 2012; 4 (2).
43. Nummela O, Sulander T, Rahkonen O, Karisto A, Uutela A. Social participation trust and self-rated health: A study among ageing people in urban semi-urban and rural settings. J. Health Place. 2008; 14: 243-253.
44. Osborne E W, Dyer J E. Attitudes of Illinois agriscience students and their parents toward agriculture and agricultural education programs. J. Agricul. Educ. 2000; 41 (3): 50-59.
45. Pretty J, Ward H. Social capital and the environment. World develop. 2001; 29 (2): 209-227.
46. Rai D P, Singh K. Awareness Attitude and Training needs of farmers about recommended practices in watershed development programme. Ind. Res. J. Exten. Educ. 2016; 8 (3): 89-91.
47. Rohrmann B. Risk perception risk attitude risk communication risk management: A conceptual appraisal, In Conferencia presentada en la Sociedad Internacional de Gerenciamiento de Emergencias, 2008.
48. Rose C B, Manktelow K, Booth C A, Proverbs D G. Psychological factors affecting flood coping strategies. WIT Trans. State-of-the-art. Sci. Engin. 2011; 52.
49. Russell S, Fielding K. Water demand management research: A psychological perspective. J. Water Resour. Res. 2010; 46 (5): 1-12.
50. Salehi S, Emamgholi L. The effect of social capital on environmental behavior (Case Study: province of Kurdistan). Iran. J. Soci. 2012; 13 (4): 90-115.
51. Shortal S. Are rural development programs socially inclusive? Social inclusion civic engagement participation and social capital: Exploring the differences. J. Rural Stud. 2008; 24: 450-457.
52. Smucker T A, Wisner B. Changing household responses to drought in Tharaka Kenya: vulnerability persistence and challenge. Disasters. 2008; 32 (2): 190-215.‏
53. Surjono P, Sutikno F. Gender Equality and Social Capital as Rural Development Indicators in Indonesia (Case: Malang Regency Indonesia). J. Procedia – Soci. Behav. Sci. 2015; 211: 370-374.
54. Sztompka P. Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
55. Tucker C M, Eakin H, Castellanos E J. Perceptions of risk and adaptation: Coffee producers market shocks and extreme weather in Central America and Mexico. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010; 20 (1): 23-32.‏
56. Ung M, Luginaah I, Chuenpagdee R, Campbell G. Perceived self-efficacy and adaptation to climate change in coastal Cambodia. Climat. 2016; 4 (1): 1.‏
57. Van den Bos R, Den Heijer E, Vlaar S, Houx B. Psychology of Decision Making in Education Behavior and High Risk Situations, 2007.

 

58. Veenstra G. Explicating social capital: Trust and participation in the civil space, Canad. J. Socio. 2002; 27 (4): 547-574.
59. Wang X. Modeling entrance into STEM fields of study among students beginning at community colleges and four-year institutions. Res. High. Educ. 2013; 54 (6): 664-692.
60. Wauters E, Bielders C, Poesen J, Govers G, Mathijs E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behavior in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Pol. 2010; 27 (1): 86-94.
61. Woodhouse A. Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: A case study. J. rural stud. 2006; 22 (1): 83-94.
62. Williams L, O'Connor R C, Grubb N R, O'Carroll R E. Type D
    personality and illness perceptions in myocardial infarction patients. J. Psychos. Res. 2010; 70 (2): 141-144.‏
63. Yazdanpanah M, Forouzani M, Zobeidi T. Factors’ influencing farmer’s willingness to mitigate greenhouse gases in Bavi Township. Iran. J. Haz. Sci. 2016; 2 (4): 411-422.
64. Zhang B, Fu Z, Wang J, Zhang L. Farmers’ adoption of water-saving irrigation technology alleviates water scarcity in metropolis suburbs: A case study of Beijing China. Agricul. Wat. Manage. 2019; 212: 349-357.