Effect of social characteristics of beneficiaries on their participation in watershed cooperatives (Case study: cooperative of Saghezchi-Chaei watershed of Ardabil province)
Subject Areas : forestardavan ghorbani 1 , amirhosein kavianpoor 2 , roohollah dabiri 3
1 - دانشیار گروه مرتع و آبخیزداری، دانشکده فناوری کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم مرتع، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، گرگان، ایران
3 - - دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد آبخیزداری، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران
Keywords: participation, Social and economic issues of watershed, watershed cooperatives, social characteristics,
Abstract :
For gaining the participation of living people in a watershed for cooperation of them in the watershed plans, the effective factors should be considered. In this study individuality- professionally and educational-extensional characteristics of the rural people which were the member of watershed cooperative of Saghezchi-Chaei watershed (Ardabil province), and the effect of these factors on the participation of those on the watershed cooperatives were investigated. This research was conducted based on descriptive survey design and questionnaire. The statistical population of the study was the member of the watershed cooperatives rural areas including, Saghezchi, Soha, Hour, Tafieh and Raz totally 115 beneficiaries, which were inhabitant on the Saghezchi-Chaei watershed. For data analysis SPSS software were used. Obtained results from the description of individuality- professionally of beneficiaries which were the members of watershed cooperative of Saghezchi-Chaei watershed including: age, main profession, amount of education, type of profession in village, amount of skill and etc show that; firstly the only old beneficiaries with low education, and farmer and animal keeper with moderate skills have interested to participate in the watershed cooperative. Young educated people have no considerable believes to the success of watershed cooperative and they prefer more to emigrate and less interested to stay in rural area, and do different activities in the form of cooperatives. Beneficiaries view in regards to the educational programs participation for the increase of participation was considerable and they asking for this program. Moreover, according to the significance of Mann-Whithney comparison coefficient (α=0.01), familiar members with the concept of exclusure and rural cooperative crops, have the highest participation in the watershed cooperatives.
References
1-Arayesh B. & J. Hosseini, 2010. Regression analysis of effective factor on people participation in protecting and using natural resources in Ilam province. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 5(2): 228-234.
2-Azizi Khalkhili, T. 2007. Impacting structures on rural participation in watering management; the case of Dorudzan Dam watering network, M.Sc. Thesis of Agriculture, Shiraz University.
3-Bakhshi, J., S.R. Masihi, & H.R. Katanforoosh, 2009. The impact of socioeconomic factors on range improvement. Forest and Rangeland Journal 84:45-49.
4-Coelho, V.S. & A. Favareto, 2008. Questioning the relationship between participation and development. World Development 36(12): 214-223.
5-Hedjazi, Y. & E. Abbasi, 2007. An investigation of the factors affecting participation executives in the plan of balancing livestock with grazing capacity. Journal of the Iranian Natural Resources 60 (2): 683-692.
6-Heydarpour, Z., H. Shabanali Fami, A. Asadi, & I. Malekmohammadi, 2008. A study on the role of membership in forestry ay cooperatives in the development of forestry resources in the western part of Mazandaran province. Journal of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources 15(1):1-9.
7-Hossein Pour, A. 1993. Analysis of participation necessity and identification of educational needs of forest dwellers for soil conservation and watershed management in Haraz Basin Amol Country Mazandaran province. M.Sc. Thesis of Tarbiat Modarres University. 107p.
8-Jalali, M. & E. Karami, 2006. Determinants of ranger’s participation in rangeland cooperatives in Kurdistan province. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 70: 35-45.
9-Khalighi, N., B. Chakoshy, & M. Kia, 2006. A Study of the Role of Population, Indigenous Technology and Ownership in People's Participation in Rangelands Proper Exploitation (Chahkand Watershed, Birjand). Journal of the Iranian Natural Research 59(3): 741-757.
10-Makhdoom, M. 2006. Fundamental of Land use planning, Tehran University Press. Seventh Edition. 289p.
11-Mohammadi GH. 2000. Factors influencing villagers' participation in watershed management plans. Jihad Magazine 261:59-64.
12-Najafinejad, A. 1997. Watershed management field manual, watershed survey and planning, FAO Conservation Guide. Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan. Press, 260p.
13-Nasrollahi, A., N. Ansari, & H. Mirdavoodi, 2004. Technical and social-economic factors affecting on degradation of Markazi province rangelands. 3rd National Conference of Rangeland and Range Management, 875-891 pp., Karaj, Iran.
14-Rouhi, F., H. Amirnejad, GH. Heydari, & J. Ghorbani, 2010. The role of social factors on rancher's participation in range management plans (Case study: Rangeland of Ghaemshahr). Journal of Rangeland 4(3): 474-483.
15-Salehi, L. 2007. The study of effective factors on people participation in watershed projects, Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Engineering Sciences and Watershed Management of Iran, 1-7 pp., Karaj, Iran.
16-Samari, D., & S. Davari, 2010. Rural cooperatives and new agricultural cooperatives. Rural Development Institute (RDI) Publications, 103 p.
17-Sarmad Z, A. Bazargan, & A. Hejazi, 2007. Research methods in behavioral science. Tehran: Agah Publication.
18-Wang, X. 2001. Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management 61(1): 25-36.
19-Zamani, GH.H. & B. Abadi, 2009. Effective social factors on farmer’s participation in establishment of watershed management cooperatives of Fars province. Co-operation and Agriculture 210-211: 117-134.
