• صفحه اصلی
  • بررسی عوامل موثر بر ایجاد اعتماد اولیه نسبت به اجرای اقدام‌های حفاظتی از منابع آب و خاک در بین شالی‌کاران (مطالعه موردی: بخش لشت نشاء، استان گیلان)

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JAE-2107-2257 (R1) بازدید : 105 صفحه: 16 - 1

10.30495/jae.2023.28436.2257

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

بررسی عوامل موثر بر ایجاد اعتماد اولیه نسبت به اجرای اقدام‌های حفاظتی از منابع آب و خاک در بین شالی‌کاران (مطالعه موردی: بخش لشت نشاء، استان گیلان)

محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

امیرعلی فریدی 1 , محمد کاوسی کلاشمی 2 , حمید ال بلالی 3

1 - گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، ایران
2 - استادیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان
3 - محقق ، مرکز بین المللی مطالعات کشاورزی پیشرفته مدیترانه ای باری (CIHEAM-Bari) ، والنزانو (باری) ، ایتالیا

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/04/22 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/03/01 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/02/01

کلید واژه: آب, خاک, اعتماد اولیه, انتظارات نسبت به تلاش, اقدام‌های حفاظتی,

چکیده مقاله :

مقدمه و هدف: آب و خاک دو منبع طبیعی ارزشمند هستند که بشر باید از آن­ها در برابر تخریب یا آلودگی محافظت کند. روش­ها و تکنیک­های گوناگونی وجود دارند که باعث کاهش روند تخریب و آلودگی آب و خاک می­شوند که به طور کلی، به اقدام‌های حفاظت از آب و خاک مرسوم­اند. در این مطالعه برای نخستین‌بار در ایران، عوامل موثر در شکل­گیری اعتماد اولیه بمنظور پذیرش اقدام‌های حفاظتی آب خاک، در بین شالی‌کارانی که در منطقه لشت نشاء، واقع در شمال ایران اشتغال دارند، مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.
مواد و روش­ها: از آنجا که وجود هر نوع رابطه بین دو شخص حقیقی یا حقوقی مستلزم وجود اعتماد است، از الگوی اعتماد اولیه  به عنوان یک الگوی مفهومی مستقل استفاده شد. متغیرهای مورد استفاده در این مطالعه عبارتند از: شهرت شرکت، میل به اعتماد، تضمین ساختاری درک شده، انتظار عملکرد، انظارات نسبت به تلاش، سن و اندازه مزرعه. بمنظور ارزیابی الگوی مفهومی (زیرا بخش اعظم این پژوهش از مولفه­های نگرشی تشکیل شده است) و متغیرهای ذکر شده، از مدلسازی معادلات ساختاری و نرم­افزار SMART-PLS3 استفاده شد.
یافته­ها: متغیر انتظارات نسبت به تلاش دارای بیش‌ترین تأثیر در میان متغیرهای موجود در الگوی مفهومی این مطالعه بود.
بحث و نتیجه­گیری: پیشنهاد این پژوهش این است که نهادهای مسئول در زمینه کشاورزی برای روشن‌شدن بیش‌تر کارایی و اثربخشی اقدام‌های حفاظتی آب وخاک، به برگزاری کنفرانس­ها و گردهمایی‌هایی را در مناطق روستایی با حضور کارشناسان آب و خاک و هم‌چنین، شالی‌کاران، مبادرت ورزند. 

چکیده انگلیسی:

Introduction: Water and soil are two valuable natural resources, which, need high attenstion respect to protect against destruction or pollution. Various methods and techniques reduce the process of degradation and pollution of water and soil, which are generally common in water and soil conservation measures (WSCM). In this study, for the first time in Iran, the factors influencing the formation of initial trust in order to adopt soil and water conservation measures among paddy farmers located in the Lasht-e-Nesha district, located in northern Iran, were investigated.
Materials and Methods: Since the existence of any kind of relationship between two individuals or legal entities requires the existence of trust, we used the Initial Trust Model (ITM) as an independent conceptual model. The variables used in this study are firm reputation, propensity to trust, perceived structural assurance, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and age and farm size. To evaluate the conceptual model (Because most of this research is composed of attitudinal components) and the mentioned variables, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) and SMART-PLS3 software.
Findings: The variable Effort expectancy (EE) was found to have the greatest impact among the variables included in the conceptual model of this study.
Conclusion:  The article suggests that responsible institutions in the field of agriculture hold conferences and gatherings in rural areas with the presence of soil and water experts and paddy farmers in order to further clarify the efficiency and effectiveness of WSCM.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. García-Ruiz JM, Beguería S, Nadal-Romero E, González-Hidalgo JC, Lana-Renault N, Sanjuán Y. A meta-analysis of soil erosion rates across the world. Geomorphology. 2015; 239: 160–173.
    2.
  2. Labrière N, Locatelli B, Laumonier Y, Freycon V, Bernoux M. Soil erosion in the humid tropics: A systematic quantitative review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 203: 127–139.
    3.
  3. Poesen J. Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: Research needs. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms. 2018; 43(1): 64–84.
    4.
  4. Montanarella L, Pennock DJ, McKenzie N, Badraoui M, Chude V, Baptista I, Mamo T, Yemefack M, Singh Aulak, M, Yagi K, Young Hong S, Vijarnsorn P, Zhang GL, Arrouays D, Black H, Krasilnikov P, Sobocká J, Alegre J, Henriquez C.R, de Lourdes Mendonça-Santos M, Taboada M, Espinosa-Victoria D, AlShankiti A, AlaviPanah SK, Elsheikh EAEM, Hempel J, Camps Arbestain M, Nachtergaele F, Vargas R. World's soils are under threat. SOIL Discussion. 2016; 2(1): 79–82.
    5.
  5. Lal R. Soil degradation by erosion, L. Degrad. Dev. 12(6): 519–539.
    6.
  6. García-Ruiz J. M, Beguería S, Lana-Renault N, Nadal-Romero E, Cerdà A. Ongoing and emerging questions in water erosion studies. L. Degrad. Dev. 2017; 28(1): 5–21.
    7.
  7. Moreno-de-las-Heras M, Lindenberger F, Latron J, Lana-Renault N, Llorens P, Arnáez J, Romero-Díaz A, Gallart F. Hydro-geomorphological consequences of the abandonment of agricultural terraces in the Mediterranean region: Key controlling factors and landscape stability patterns. Geomorphology. 2019; 333, 73–91.
    8.
  8. International Soil Reference and Information Centre. 2020. Available at: https://www.isric.org/.
    9.
  9. Pakrooh P, Hayati B, Pishbahar E, Nematian J, Brännlund ER. Focus on the provincial inequalities in energy consumption and CO2 emissions of Iran’s agriculture sector. Sci. Total Environ. 2020; 715: 137029.
    10.
  10. Abadi B, Yadollahi A, Bybordi A, Rahmati M. The discrimination of adopters and non-adopters of conservation agricultural initiatives in northwest Iran: Attitudinal, soil testing, and topographical modules. Land Use Policy. 2020; 95: 104634.
    11.
  11. Fallahzade J, Karimi A, Naderi M, Shirani H. Soil mechanical properties and wind erosion following conversion of desert to irrigated croplands in central Iran. Soil Tillage Res. 2020; 204: 104665.
    12.
  12. Faridi AA, Kavoosi-Kalashami M, El Bilali H. Attitude components affecting adoption of soil and water conservation measures by paddy farmers in Rasht County, Northern Iran. Land Use Policy. 2020; 99: 104885.
    13.
  13. Ashoori D, Bagheri A, Allahyari MS, Michailidis A. Understanding the attitudes and practices of paddy farmers for enhancing soil and water conservation in Northern Iran. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016; 4(4), 260–266.
    14.
  14. Asfaw D, Neka M. Factors affecting adoption of soil and water conservation practices: The case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017; 5(4): 273–279.
    15.
  15. Eanes FR, Singh AS, Bulla BR, Ranjan P, Fales M, Wickerham B, Doran PJ, Prokopy LS. Crop advisers as conservation intermediaries: Perceptions and policy implications for relying on nontraditional partners to increase US farmers’ adoption of soil and water conservation practices. Land Use Policy. 2019; 81: 360–370.
    16.
  16. Wolka K, Sterk G, Biazin B, Negash M. Benefits, limitations and sustainability of soil and water conservation structures in Omo-Gibe basin, Southwest Ethiopia. Land Use Policy. 2018; 73: 1–10.
    17.
  17. de Graaff J, Aklilu A, Ouessar M, Asins-Velis S, Kessler A. The development of soil and water conservation policies and practices in five selected countries from 1960 to 2010. Land Use Policy. 2013; 32: 165–174.
    18.
  18. Nigussie Z, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, Adgo E, Cochrane L, Floquet A, Abele S. Applying Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework to soil and water conservation activities in north-western Ethiopia. Land Use Policy. 2018; 71: 1–10.
    19.
  19. Mango N, Makate C, Tamene L, Mponela P, Ndengu G. Awareness and adoption of land, soil and water conservation practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2017; 5(2): 122–129.
    20.
  20. Sileshi M, Kadigi R, Mutabazi K, Sieber S. Determinants for adoption of physical soil and water conservation measures by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2019; 7(4): 354–361.
    21.
  21. Juraite K. Environmental Consciousness and Mass Communication: Construction of Public Opinion on the Environment in the Mass Media. PhD thesis. Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. 2002.
    22.
  22. Barr S. Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environ. Behav. 2007; 39(4): 435–473.
    23.
  23. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. The influence of attitudes on behavior. Handb. Attitudes.2005; 173(221),
    24.
  24. Todaro M. P. Economic development in the third world. 4th edition, Pearson Higher Education; 896 p. Boston, MA. 1985.
    25.
  25. Bradach J.L, Eccles R. Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1989; 15: 97–118.
    26.
  26. Bunduchi R. Business relationships in internet based electronic markets: the role of goodwill trust and transaction costs. Inf. Syst. J. 2005; 15: 321–341.
    27.
  27. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Shoorman FD. An integrative model of organization trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995; 20: 709–734.
    28.
  28. Whitener EM, Brodt SE, Korsgaard MA, Werner JM. Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998; 23: 513–530.
    29.
  29. Kim G, Shin B, Lee HG. Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf. Syst. J. 2009; 19(3): 283–311.
    30.
  30. McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev.1998; 23(3): 473–490.
    31.
  31. Coleman R. Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. 1990
    32.
  32. Siau K, Shen Z. Building customer trust in mobile commerce. Communications of the ACM. 2003; 46: 91–94.
    33.
  33. Jarvenpaa SL, Knoll K, Leidner DE. Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1998; 14(4), 29–64.
    34.
  34. Agricultural Organization of Lasht-e-Nesha district. Report on the performance of agricultural jahad of Lasht-e-Nasha in 2019. Available at: http://jahad-ln.blogfa.com (Accessed on 2019.12.01). 2020.
    35.
  35. Soper, DS. A-Priori Sample Size Calculator for Structural Equation Models (Version 4.0) [Computer Software]. Available from. https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/. 2019.
    36.
  36. Google Earth web site, https://earth.google.com/web/@33.21943479,56.59993006,2454.90348535a,3560730.51882684d,35y,0.092034h,15.40468307t,0r. 2021
    37.
  37. Kijsanayotin B, Pannarunothai S, Speedie SM. Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand’s community health centers: Applying the UTAUT model. nt. J. Med. Inform. 2009; 78(6): 404–416.
    38.
  38. Suki NM, Suki NM. Determining students’ behavioral intention to use animation and storytelling applying the UTAUT model: The moderating roles of gender and experience level. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2017; 15(3): 528–538.
    39.
  39. San Martín H, Herrero Á. Influence of the user’s psychological factors on the online purchase intention in rural tourism: Integrating innovativeness to the UTAUT framework. Tourism Management. 2012; 33(2): 341–350.
    40.
  40. Green JL, Camilli G, Elmore PB. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research. Routledge, New York, USA. 2012.
    41.
  41. Harrison DA, Mykytyn JRPP, Riemenschneider CK. Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Information systems research. 1997: 8(2): 171–195.
    42.
  42. Rogers, F. Diffusion of Innovations, New York/USA: NY. Free Press. University of Chicago Press. 1983
    43.
  43. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 1977.
    44.
  44. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991; 50(2), 179–211.
    45.
  45. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 319–340.
    46.
  46. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003; 425–478.
    47.
  47. Gefen D. E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega. 2000; 28(6): 725–737.
    48.
  48. McKnight DH, Chervany N. L. Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in Cyber-societies (pp. 27–54). Springer. 2001.
    49.
  49. Chen Y-H. H, Corkindale D. Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use online news services. Internet Research. 2008; 18: 286–312.
    50.
  50. Flavián C, Guinaliu M, Torres E. The influence of corporate image on consumer trust. Internet Research. 2005; 15: 447–470.
    51.
  51. Fisher J, Burstei, F, Lynch K, Lazarenko K. “Usability + usefulness = trust”: an exploratory study of Australian health web sites, Internet Research. 2008; 18: 477–498.
    52.
  52. McKnight D.H, Choudhury V, Kacmar C. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002; 13: 334–359.
    53.
  53. McKnight DH, Kacmar CJ, Choudhury V. Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. E-Service. 2004; 3: 35–58.
    54.
  54. Gu JC, Lee SC, Suh YH. Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009; 36: 11605–11616.
    55.
  55. Zucker L. G. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Res. Organ. Behav. 1986; 8, 53–111.
    56.
  56. Pavlou PA, Gefen D. Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004; 15(1), 37–59.
    57.
  57. Afshan S, Sharif A. Acceptance of mobile banking framework in Pakistan. Telemat. Informatics. 2016; 33(2), 370–387.
    58.
  58. Oliveira T, Faria M, Thomas MA, Popovič A. Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2014; 34(5), 689–703.
    59.
  59. Chin WW. Partial Least Squares for Researchers: An Overview and Presentation of Recent Advances Using the PLS Approach, ICIS. 2002; pp. 741–742.
    60.
  60. Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011; 19(2), 139–152.
    61.
  61. Sarstedt M. A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares path modelling. Journal of modelling in Management. 2008; 3: 140–161.
    62.
  62. Vinzi VE, Trinchera L, Amato S. PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W. Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 2010; pp. 47–82.
    63.
  63. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991; 421–458.
    64.
  64. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988; 16(1), 74–94.
    65.
  65. Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau M-C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000; 4(1), 7.
    66.
  66. Nunnally J.C. Psychometric theory: second edition. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1979; 3 (2), 279–280.
    67.
  67. Boudreau M-C, Gefen D, Straub DW. Validation in information systems research: A state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quarterly. 2001; 1–16.
    68.
  68. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981; 18(1), 39–50.
    69.
  69. Chin WW. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS quarterly. 1998; 22 (1): 7–16. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/249674.
    70.
  70. Zhou T. Understanding mobile internet continuance usage from the perspectives of UTAUT and flow. Inf. Dev. 2011; 27: 207–218.
    71.
  71. Afshan S, Sharif A, Waseem N, Frooghi R. Internet banking in Pakistan: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2018; 27(3), 383–410.
    72.
  72. Chu S, Lu Y. Trust transference in mobile banking: an investigation of the initial trust. Proceedings – 2009 IITA International Conference on Services Science, Management and Engineering (SSME 2009). 2009; pp. 204–208.
    73.
  73. Zhou T. An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking. Internet Research. 2011; 21: 527–540.
    74.
  74. Ofori KS, Boakye KG, Addae JA, Ampong GOA, Adu ASY. An Empirical Study on the Adoption of Consumer-to-Consumer E-commerce: Integrating the UTAUT Model and the Initial Trust Model. International Conference on E-Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries. 2017; 281–292.
    75.
  75. Zhou T. Understanding users’ initial trust in mobile banking: an elaboration likelihood perspective. Comput. Human Behav. 2012; 28: 1518–1525.
    76.
_||_

مقالات مرتبط

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]