| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,168 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,197 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 50,932,200 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,937,599 |
بررسی تأثیر انسجام اجتماعی بر میزان مشارکت بهرهبرداران در فعالیتهای احیایی و اصلاحی مراتع قشلاقی استان گلستان | ||
| تحقیقات مرتع و بیابان ایران | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 26، شماره 1، خرداد 1398، صفحه 73-88 اصل مقاله (315.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/ijrdr.2019.119328 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سیده خدیجه مهدوی* 1؛ فرامرز غفوری2؛ احمد عابدی سروستانی3؛ محمدرضا شهرکی4 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد نور، مازندران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشآموخته کارشناسی ارشد، مرتعداری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد نور، مازندران، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار، گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، ایران | ||
| 4کارشناس ارشد اداره کل منابع طبیعی و آبخیزداری استان گلستان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| نظر به اهمیت و نقش اساسی مشارکت و انسجام اجتماعی بهرهبرداران در موفقیت فعالیتهای احیایی و اصلاحی، هدف این تحقیق، بررسی تأثیر انسجام اجتماعی بهرهبرداران مرتعی در میزان مشارکت آنها در اجرای فعالیتهای احیایی و اصلاحی در مراتع شمالشرق استان گلستان در شهرستان گنبدکاووس میباشد. این تحقیق از نوع توصیفی-پیمایشی با روش نمونهگیری تصادفی طبقهبندی شده انجام شد. برای جمعآوری دادهها از پرسشنامه استفاده شد. روایی ابزار تحقیق با استفاده از دیدگاه کارشناسان منابعطبیعی و علوم اجتماعی و پایایی آن بر اساس نتایج ضریب آلفای کرونباخ برای متغیرهای اصلی تحقیق بررسی شد. جامعه آماری تحقیق را 461 بهرهبردار در دو نظام بهرهبرداری عشایری و روستایی (461=N) تشکیل دادهاند که 210 نفر از آنها با استفاده از جدول مورگان، بهعنوان نمونه مورد مصاحبه قرار گرفتند. طبق نتایج بهدست آمده از تحقیق بهترتیب بُعد تعامل با میانگین 75/3، بیشترین تأثیر و بُعد نزاع با میانگین 37/3 کمترین میزان تأثیر را در انسجام اجتماعی بهرهبرداران داشته است. یافتهها حکایت از آن دارد که بهرهبرداران در فعالیتهای احیایی نسبت به عملیات اصلاحی در طرحهای مرتعداری بیشتر مشارکت داشتهاند. همچنین بین انسجام اجتماعی و میزان مشارکت بهرهبرداران در فعالیتهای احیایی و اصلاحی طرحهای مرتعداری، با ضریب همبستگی 744/0 در سطح اطمینان 99 درصد اطمینان رابطه مثبت قوی و معنیداری وجود داشت. همچنین بهرهبرداران عشایری انسجام بیشتری نسبت به بهرهبرداران روستایی داشتهاند. ضمن اینکه میزان مشارکت در دو نظام بهرهبرداری عشایری و روستایی تفاوت معنیداری نداشتند. بنابراین میتوان از توانمندی جوامع محلی در مناطقی که تعامل و انسجام بالا باشد، در اجرای فعالیتهای احیایی و اصلاحی، ایجاد زمینههای شغلی به صورت فصلی و پاره وقت در اجرای طرحهای مرتعداری و برگزاری دورههای مختلف آموزشی ترویجی با توجه به اولویتهای بهرهبرداران، استفاده کرد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| مرتع؛ بهرهبردار؛ طرح مرتعداری؛ مشارکت؛ انسجام | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Effects of social cohesion on the participation rate of beneficiaries in reclamation and improvement practices of Golestan winter rangelands | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Seyedeh Khadijeh Mahdavi1؛ Faramarz Ghafouri2؛ Ahmad Abedi Sarvestani3؛ Mohamadreza Shahraki4 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resources, Islamic Azad University, Nour Branch, Mazandarzn, Iran | ||
| 2M.Sc. in Range management, Islamic Azad University, Nour Branch, Mazandarzn, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran | ||
| 4Senior Expert, Department of Natural Resources and Watershed Management, Natural Resources Administration, Golestan Province, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Considering the importance and basic role of participation and social cohesion of beneficiaries in the success of reclamation and improvement projects, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rangeland beneficiaries' social cohesion on their participation in reclamation and improvement activities in northeastern rangelands of Golestan province. This research was descriptive-survey, conducted with stratified random sampling. Questionnaires were used for data collection. The validity of research was examined by using the views of natural resources and social sciences experts and its reliability was assessed according to the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the main variables. The statistical population of the study consisted of 461 exploiters in two nomadic and rural exploitation systems (N = 461), among which 210 beneficiaries were interviewed using Morgan table. According to the results, the interaction section with an average of 3.75 and the conflict section with an average of 3.73 had the most and least impact on the social cohesion of the beneficiaries, respectively. The findings indicate that the beneficiaries have more contributed to reclamation practices as compared with rangeland improvement projects.Also, there was a positive and significant correlation between the social cohesion and the participation rate of beneficiaries in reclamation and improvement plans with a correlation coefficient of 0.474 at a confidence level of 99%. Nomadic beneficiaries had more social cohesion than rural beneficiaries. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the participation rate in both nomadic and rural exploitation systems.Thus, the potential of local communities could be used in conducting range improvement and reclamation practices in areas where interaction and social cohesion are high. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Rangeland, beneficiaries, range management plan, participation, cohesion | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
- Acket, S., Borsenberger, M., Dickes, P. and Sarracino, F., 2011. Measuring and validating social cohesion: a bottum-up approach, fonds national de la recherche, CEPS/Instead Working Paper,8:1-31. - Ahmadi,F., Heydari, Q. and Shafiee, F., 2018. Social and economic factors affecting the willingness of ranchers to participate in rangelands rehabilitation and restoration projects (Case study: Dehgolan Rangelands). Iranian Journal of researches of Rangelands and Desert, 25(1):102-115. - Akhtar-Mohagheghi, M., 2004. Social capital. Tehran press. 123p. - Arnold, J. S. and Maria, F. G., 2007. Building social capital through participatory research: an analysis of collaboration on tohono o'odham tribal rangelands in Arizona. Journal of Society and Natural Resources, 20:481-495. - Azkia, M. and Ghaffari, G. H. R., 2001. The relationship between social cohesion and social participation organized in rural villagers areas Khashan Township. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 9(36): 175-205. - Bagdi, G., 2005. People participation in soil and water conservation through watershed approach, Indian International Book Distributing (IBDs). 311p. - Christoforou, A., 2005. On the determinants of social capital in Greece compared to countries of the European Union, FEEM working paper, No. 68.05, Fondazione enrico Mattei, Milano. - Chuang, Y. C., Chuang, K. Y. and Yang, T. H., 2013. Social cohesion matters in health, International Journal for Equity in Health, 87:1-12: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/12/1/87 - Coburn, D., 2000. Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism, Journal of Social Science and Medicine, 51: 135-146. - Cradock, A. L., Kawachi, L., Colditz, G. A., Gortmaker, S. L. and Buka, S. L., 2009. Neighborhood social cohesion and youth participation in physical activity in Chicago. Journal of Social Science and Medicine, 68(3):427–435. - Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. and Brown, C., 2009. The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 19(5):289–300. - Esman, M. and Uphoff, N., 1984. Local organization intermediaries in rural development, London: Cornell University Press. - Farahmand, M., Saidimadani, S. M. and Sahandikhalifehkandi, M., 2005. Comparative study of social cohesion between ethnic Azeris and Kurds, Case study: Sanandaj and Tabriz Township. Journal of Social problem Iran, 6(1): 95-122. Golshiri-Esfahani, Z., Khademi, H., Sedighi, R. and Tazeh, M., 2009. The impact of social cohesion on the participation of villagers. Case study: Gandoman of Broujen Township. Journal of Rural and Development, 12(1): 147-167. - Hematzadeh, Y. and Khalighi, N.A., 2006. Factors affecting on non-participation of stakeholders in rangeland and watershed management projects. Case study: stakeholders Chichak basin in Golestan province. Journal of Agriculture Science and Natural Resource, 13(4): 88-100. - Jalali, M. and Karami, E. A., 2006. Determination Factors of affecting on participation of pastoralists in range management cooperatives Kurdestan province. Journal of Pajouhesh and Sazandegi, 70: 35-45. - Jumbe, C. B. L. and Angelsen, A., 2007. Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Journal of Ecological Economics, 62:661-672. - Khourshidi, M. and Ansari, N., 2003. Knowledge of nomads and villagers about the destruction of natural resources and its factors in the rural district of Bazyaft Chaharmahal Bakhtiari province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research,10:95-109. - Lashgarara, F., Davarpanah, M. R. and Javadi, S. A., 2015. Identify factors of effective on lack of participation of pastoralists in range management plans. Urmia Township. Journal of Watershed Management and Rangeland, 68 (1): 35-46. - Letki, N., 2008. Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighborhoods. Journal of Political Studies, 56(1):99-26. - Lubell, M. N., Cutts, B. B., Roche, L. M., Hamilton, M., Derner, J. D., Kachergis, E. and Tate, K. W., 2013. Conservation program participation and adaptive rangeland decision-making. Journal of Rangeland Ecology and Management, 66(6):609-620. - Moayeri, M. H., Abedi-Sarvestani, A., Shahraki, M. R. and Kooseh-Gharavi, Y. M., 2015. Analysis of relationship between participation and forest rural development (case study: forestry cooperatives in Golestan province), Iranian Journal of Forest, 7(2):137-150. - Narayan, D. and Pritchet, L., 1999. Cents and sociability: household income and social capital in rural Tanzania. Journal of Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4): 871-897. - Navabakhsh, M., Nazari, J. and Idri, N. A., 2009. Explain of sociological factors affecting on social cohesion among villagers. Cae study: Ilam province. Journal of Social Science, 3(7): 1-20. - Ng’ An, G.’ A. S. K., Bulte, E. H., Giller, K. E., Ndiwa, N. N., Kifugo, S. C., McIntire, J. M., Herrero, M. and Rufino, M. C., 2016. Livestock wealth and social capital as insurance against climate risk: A case study of Samburu County in Kenya, Journal of Agricultural Systems, 146:44-54. - Niazi, M., 2011. Explain the relationship between education and social cohesion and national citizens. Journal of Nation Studies, 12(4): 31-50. - Papzan, A. H. and Afsharzadeh, N., 2010. Native mechanisms in range management of Kalhor tribe's nomads. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 17 (3): 476-488. - Prayitno, G., Matsushima, K., Jeong, H. and Kobayashi, K., 2014. Social capital and migration in rural area development, Journal of Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20:543-552. - Rajulton, F., Ravanera, Z. R. and Beaujot, R., 2007. Measuring social cohesion: an experiment using the Canadian national survey of giving, volunteering, and participating. Journal of Social Indicators and Research, 80: 461-492. - Schmeets, H. and Te-Riele, S., 2010. A decline of social cohesion in the Netherlands? Participation and trust, 1997-2010. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Cohesion and Development Paris, 20 January 2010, 1-20. - Shabanalifami, H., Alibeygi, A. H. and Sharifzadeh, A. GH., 2004. Approaches and techniques of participation in agriculture promoting and rural development. Institute of Rural Development Press. 458p. - Shariati, M. R., Ziadbakhsh, S. and Varamini, N., 2005. Factors affecting on participation forest dwellers rural in the protection of forests in the North and West of the country. Journal of Forest and Rangeland, 67: 23-29. - Varmazyari, H. and Houseyni, S. M., 2009. Examination of participation nomadism Dimoushk area in rural development plans. Journal of Geography and Environmental Planning, 20(35): 101-118. - Zanella, M. A., Schleyer, C. and Speelman, S., 2014. Why do farmers join payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Journal of Ecological Economics, 105:166–176. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 705 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 450 |
||