بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر مشارکت دامداران در حفاظت از محیط¬زیست
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی
محمد عرب
1
,
Yadollah Bostan
2
,
hamid amirnejad
3
*
1 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری
2 - Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Mazandaran, Iran
3 - Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University
کلید واژه: ترجیحات دامداران, روش پروبیت, دوگانه یک و نیم بعدی, پسماند دامی, بیوگاز,
چکیده مقاله :
مقدمه: توسعه صنعت پرورش دام در دشت ورامین به عنوان قطب دامپروری در استان تهران، باعث افزايش آلودگي و معضلات حاصل از پسماندهای دامی شده است، یکی از راههای کنترل آلودگی فضولات دام مشارکت مستقیم دامپرور میباشد. برای رسیدن به هدف مذکور، باید تشکیل بازار پسماندهای دامی در جهت کنترل آلودگی محیطزیست روستا و همچنین تولید انرژی مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. اما قبل از بررسی هزینهها و فایدههای تشکیل بازار در جهت مدیریت پسماند دامی و تولید بیوگاز از آن، ابتدا باید بخش عرضه و همچنین میزان مشارکت عرضهکنندگان تحت بررسی قرار گیرد.
مواد و روشها: در این مطالعه از روش ارزشگذاری مشروط با تکنیک دوگانه یک و نیمبعدی برای بررسی عوامل موثر بر مشارکت دامداران استفاده شد. تعداد 140 پرسشنامه بر اساس میانگین و واریانس جامعهي آماري به صورت نمونهگیری تصادفی ساده در بین دامداران شهرستان ورامین توزیع شد.
یافتهها: نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که 45/65 درصد از دامداران مصاحبه شده، تمایل به مشارکت در جهت بازیابی پسماندهای دام داشته و دامدار حاضر است 8/17 درصد بیشتر از قیمت کنونی هر تن کود دریافت کند تا در بازیافت فضولات دامی مشارکت کند. همچنین نتایج، اثر منفی فعالیت کشاورزی و اثر مثبت درک ارزش زیستمحیطی، اجتماعی و اقتصادی بازیافت برای مشارکت در بازیافت را نشان داد.
بحث و نتیجهگیری:پیشنهاد میگردد دولت با استفاده از آموزش و آگاه‌سازی از طریق مروجان کشاورزی، جلسات دهیاری و رسانه‌های دولتی، آگاهی دامداران را درباره مزایای بازیافت فضولات دام افزایش دهد تا تمایل آن‌ها به مشارکت در این فرایند تقویت شود. این مطالعه ابزارهای ارزشمندی را برای حمایت از تصمیم‌گیری برای دولت، سازمان‌های غیردولتی، انجمن‌ها و شرکت‌های علاقه‌مند به ترویج فناوری بیوگاز در کشورهای در حال توسعه ارائه میکند.
Introduction: The expansion of the livestock sector in the Varamin Plain, the livestock hub of Tehran Province, has created problems of pollution and livestock waste. One method of controlling livestock waste pollution is to directly involve livestock producers in the integration of livestock waste, the lack of storage in rural crossroads and energy production. the establishment of a livestock waste market should be explored to reduce pollution in the village environment and increase energy production. However, before assessing the costs and benefits of establishing a market for waste management and biogas production, it is necessary to examine the supply sector and the level of participation of suppliers.
Methods: To analyse the variables influencing the participation of livestock farmers, the study used the contingent valuation method, together with the OOHB technique. Using simple random sampling, 140 questionnaires were distributed to Varamin livestock farmers, based on the mean and variance determined by the statistical community.
Findings: The results showed that 65.45% of the farmers surveyed were willing to participate in livestock waste recycling and were willing to pay 17.8% more than the current price per tonne of fertiliser to participate in livestock waste recycling and energy conversion in biogas power plants. Other findings include the negative impact of agricultural activities and the positive impact of recognising the environmental, social and economic importance of recycling on participation in recycling.
Conclusion: It is recommended that the government, through education and awareness-raising by agricultural extension agents, village council meetings, and state media, enhance livestock farmers’ awareness of the benefits of livestock waste recycling to strengthen their willingness to participate in this processThe report provides useful decision-making tools for governments, non-governmental organisations, associations and companies interested in promoting biogas technology in developing countries.
1. Koul B, Yakoob M, Shah MP. Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ Res [Internet]. 2022 Apr;206:112285. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0013935121015863
2. Honcharuk I. Use of Wastes of the Livestock Industry as a Possibility for Increasing the Efficiency of AIC and Replenishing the Energy Balance. Visegr J Bioeconomy Sustain Dev [Internet]. 2020 May 1;9(1):9–14. Available from: https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.2478/vjbsd-2020-0002
3. Newton P, Blaustein-Rejto D. Social and Economic Opportunities and Challenges of Plant-Based and Cultured Meat for Rural Producers in the US. Front Sustain Food Syst [Internet]. 2021 Jan 28;5. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.624270/full
4. Qian Y, Song K, Hu T, Ying T. Environmental status of livestock and poultry sectors in China under current transformation stage. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 2018 May;622–623:702–9. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969717334654
5. Wu X, Nawaz S, Li Y, Zhang H. Environmental health hazards of untreated livestock wastewater: potential risks and future perspectives. Environ Sci Pollut Res [Internet]. 2024;31(17):24745–67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32853-6
6. Chowdhury T, Chowdhury H, Hossain N, Ahmed A, Hossen MS, Chowdhury P, et al. Latest advancements on livestock waste management and biogas production: Bangladesh’s perspective. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2020 Nov;272:122818. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652620328638
7. Safieddin Ardebili SM. Green electricity generation potential from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion of farm animal waste and agriculture residues in Iran. Renew Energy [Internet]. 2020 Jul;154:29–37. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960148120302974
8. No Title. Available from: https://tehran-agri.ir/
9. Kardavani, P. Amiri, E. (2012). An analysis of the effects of unsanitary disposal of garbage and animal waste in creating environmental pollution with GIS and SPSS, a case study: the villages of Bojnord city). Territory, 33 1-21. No Title.
10. Zareei S. Project scheduling for constructing biogas plant using critical path method. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [Internet]. 2018;81:756–9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117311693
11. Khalili Ardali Z, Amirnejad H, Mohammadi Limaei S, Salehi S. Assessment of Recreational Value in a Protected Forest Area Considering the New Environmental Paradigm (Case Study: Helen Forest, Southwestern Iran). Sustainability [Internet]. 2024 Mar 27;16(7):2771. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2771
12. Bostan Y, Fatahi Ardakani A, Fehresti Sani M, Sadeghinia M. A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: the case of contingent valuation and choice experiment. Int J Environ Sci Technol [Internet]. 2020 Sep 19;17(9):4031–46. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13762-020-02714-z
13. Choi EC, Lee JS, Chang JI. Willingness to pay for the prevention of beach erosion in Korea: The case of Haeundae beach. Mar Policy [Internet]. 2021 Oct;132:104667. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0308597X21002785
14. Zhang L, Ren J, Bai W. A Review of Poultry Waste-to-Wealth: Technological Progress, Modeling and Simulation Studies, and Economic- Environmental and Social Sustainability. Sustainability [Internet]. 2023 Mar 23;15(7):5620. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5620
15. Khanna M. Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality. Agric Econ [Internet]. 2002 Aug;27(2):157–74. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1016/S0169-5150(02)00034-8
16. Mueller W. The effectiveness of recycling policy options: Waste diversion or just diversions? Waste Manag [Internet]. 2013 Mar;33(3):508–18. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0956053X12005521
17. Rocha-Meneses L, Risco MAL del, Bergamo TF. Farmers’ preferences and willingness to adopt anaerobic digestion technologies: a case study in rural areas in Colombia. Biofuels [Internet]. 2023 Nov 26;14(10):999–1008. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2023.2201729
18. Schröer D, Latacz-Lohmann U. Farmers’ willingness to engage in a deposit-refund system for animal manure in biogas production: A discrete choice experiment in Germany. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2023 Jan;384:135574. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652622051484
19. Shimahata A, Farghali M, Fujii M. Factors Influencing the Willingness of Dairy Farmers to Adopt Biogas Plants: A Case Study in Hokkaido, Japan. Sustainability [Internet]. 2020 Sep 22;12(18):7809. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7809
20. Tao J, Wang J. Farmers’ willingness to accept compensation for livestock and poultry waste resource utilization and its determinants. Chinese J Popul Resour Environ [Internet]. 2020 Jun;18(2):144–54. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S232542622100022X
21. Burg V, Troitzsch KG, Akyol D, Baier U, Hellweg S, Thees O. Farmer’s willingness to adopt private and collective biogas facilities: An agent-based modeling approach. Resour Conserv Recycl [Internet]. 2021 Apr;167:105400. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921344921000070
22. Izadi N, Saadi H, Hayati D. Factors Affecting the Intention of Using Biogas in Rural Areas: Evidences of Iranian Traditional Ranchers. Iran Agric Ext Educ J [Internet]. 2019;14(2):219–34. Available from: http://www.iaeej.ir/article_84992.html
23. No Title. Available from: https://irandataportal.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/Iran_Census_2016_Selected_Results.pdf
24. Amirnejad H, Ataie Solout K. Economic valuation of use values of environmental services in lar national park in Iran. J Agric Sci Technol. 2021;23(2):237–52.
25. Arab M, Fattahi A, Fehresti M, Neshat A. Estimating the value of sufficient water supply to the Varamin Plain using the contingent valuation method: A case study of the Mamloo and Latyan dams. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 2018; 49(4): 621–634. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20084838.1397.49.4.5.1
26. Amiri N, Emadian SF, Fallah A, Adeli K, Amirnejad H. Estimation of conservation value of myrtle (Myrtus communis) using a contingent valuation method: a case study in a Dooreh forest area, Lorestan Province, Iran. For Ecosyst [Internet]. 2015 Dec 3;2(1):30. Available from: http://www.forestecosyst.com/content/2/1/30
27. Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ [Internet]. 2006 Jul;58(4):665–75. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092180090500371X
28. Fattahi Ardakani A, Alavi C, Arab M. The comparison of discrete payment vehicle methods (dichotomous choice) in improving the quality of the environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol [Internet]. 2017 Jul 1;14(7):1409–18. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13762-017-1246-x
29. Park SY, Park C, Seo J, Shin J. Public willingness to pay for chemical regulation in South Korea: the case of restriction on arsenic use. Environ Dev Sustain [Internet]. 2024 Jan 8; Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-04367-7
30. Cooper JC, Hanemann M, Signorello G. One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Rev Econ Stat [Internet]. 2002 Nov 1;84(4):742–50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556549
31. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Dupont DP, Georgiou S. Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method. Rev Econ Stat [Internet]. 2009 Nov 1;91(4):806–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.4.806