کاربرد رهیافت سرمایه های جمعی در ارزیابی اثرات برنامه های FFS/IPM

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه کشاورزی اکولوژیک، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه زابل

3 پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

این تحقیق با هدف تحلیل اثرات برنامه ­های IPM/FFS بر دستاوردهای مختلف از نظردست ­اندرکاران مختلف شامل جوامع کشاورزان، افراد دولتی در سطح ملی و محلی و محققانی که از این برنامه­ های حمایت می­ کنند انجام شد. این تحقیق از نظر استفاده از دیدگاهی جامعه شناختی برای تبیین کارکرد تقویتی و تجمعی ارزیابی اثرات برنامه­ های IPM/FFS  منحصر بفرد است و در این رابطه از رهیافت­ های سرمایه ­های جمعی و مدیریت سازگاری بهره ­برده است. در این تحقیق جمعاً 86 نفر به عنوان برنمونه از دست اندرکاران برنامه های IPM/FFS انتخاب شدند. تحلیل به مولفه ­های اصلی برای تعیین عوامل اثر برنامه­ های IPM/FFS استفاده گردید و چند عامل شامل ارتقای رفاه اجتماعی، بهبود سلامت ایمنی مزرعه، توسعه مهارت­های اجتماعی (رهبری) و فنی، مدیریت ریسک و بازاریابی، بهبود کیفیت تولید و همچنین گسترش توانمندهای تجربی کشاورزان و استقرار مدیریت اکولوژیک سازگار تبیین شدند. بر اساس کارکرد تقویت کنندگی و تجمعی اثرات برنامه­های IPM/FFS این گونه نتیجه گیری شد که این برنامه­های با تشویق یادگیری اجتماعی از طریق توسعه مهارت­ های رهبری و اجتماعی و فنی سبب تقویت سرمایه انسانی و سیاسی شده­ اند، که این مهارت ­ها نیز به نوبه خود سبب ارتقای سرمایه های مالی و اجتماعی از طریق گسترش دامنه فعالیت های محلی، روابط و خط مشی های مرتبط با بهبود مدیریت اگرواکوسیستم شده­ اند (سرمایه طبیعی). سرانجام بر اساس کارکرد تجمعی و تقویتی اثرات برنامه­ های IPM/FFS به ویژه برای دستیابی به اهداف بلندمدت، رهیافت مدیریت سازگاری پیشنهاد گردید تا با استفاده از رهیافت ­های مشارکتی بر اثرات توسعه ای تاکید شود. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Application of the Community Capitals Approach in Assessing the Impacts of IPM/ FFS Programs

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hadi Veisi 1
  • Ali Alipour 2
  • Fatemeh Darijani 3
1 Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University
2 Zabol University.
3 Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, GC.
چکیده [English]

This study was conducted in order to analyze the impacts of IPM/ FFS programs on various outcomes by a broad range of stakeholders - including farming communities, local and national governments, and researchers - who are supporting such programs in Iran. This study is unique in that it uses an impact evaluation with a sociological perspective to explore the trigger and accumulation function of the effects of IPM/FFS programs in conformity with the community capital and adaptive management approaches. A total of 86 IPM/FFS stockholders were sampled. The principal component analysis was used to identify the impact factors of IPM/FFS programs and explore several factors, including the enhancement of social welfare, the improvement of farm health and safety, technical and social (leadership) skills development, risk management and marketing, improvement of production quality as well as expansion of farmers’ experiential abilities, and the establishment of adaptive ecological management. According to the trigger and accumulation function of the effects of IPM/FFS programs, it was concluded that the IPM/FFS stimulated social learning and that it strengthened human and political capital by developing technical, social and leadership skills, which apparently prompted social and financial capital through expanding the range of local activities, relationships and policies related to improved agro-ecosystem management (natural capital). Finally, based on the trigger and accumulation function of the effects of IPM/FFS programs, in particular for providing longterm effects, an adaptive management approach was recommended to emphasis on developmental impacts through a participatory approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • IPM/FFS
  • Impacts
  • Trigger and Accumulation Function
  • Community Capital
  • Agriculture
  • Participatory Approach

مراجع

  1. David S, Asamoah C. The Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Human and Social Capital: A Case Study from Ghana,The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension; 2011; 17(3), 239-252.
  2. Mancini F, Jiggins J. “Appraisal of methods to evaluate farmer field schools”. Development in Practice; 2008; Volume 18, Numbers 4–5.
  3. Settle W, Soumare´ M, Sarr M, Garba MH, Poisot A-S. Reducing pesticide risks to farming communities: cotton farmer field schools in Mali. Phil. Trans. R. Soc; 2014; B 369: 20120277.
  4. Van den Berg H. IPM Farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluations, Wageningen University, Report prepared for the FAO Global IPM Facility; 2004. Rome.
  5. Ali-mirzaei E., Movahed Mohammadi H., Tahmasbi M. An Investigation of the Effect of Farmer Field School Project on Increasing Date Growers' Information Regarding Integrated Pest Management (IPM); 2011; 41-2(4): 491-499
  6. van Duuren B. Report of consultancy on the assessment of the impact of the IPM program at the field level. Integratedpest management farmer training project Cambodia; 2003. Royal Government of Denmark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida and Royal Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, National IPM Program DAALI, Phnom Penh.
  7. Praneetvatakul, Waibel H. “Impact Assessment of Farmer Field School using A Multi Period Panel Data Model” working paper. Submitted for presentation at the International Agriculture and Economics Conference in Brisbane; 2006. pp.1-14.
  8. Khan M A., Ahmad I. Impact of FFS-based IPM Knowledge and Practices on Rural Poverty Reduction: Evidence from Pakistan In: The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia. Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series Special Issue No. 9, July 2005, Development and Agricultural Economics, School of Economics and Management, University of Hannover, Germany (eds. Peter A. C. Ooi, Suwanna Praneetvatakul, Hermann Waibel, and Gerd Walter-Echols); 2005. Pp. 110-123.
  9. Pontius J, Dilts R., Bartlett A. (Eds.). Ten years of IPM training in Asia—from farmer field school to community IPM. Bangkok: FAO, 2002.
  10. Sones K R., Duveskog D, Minjauw B. (Eds.). Farmer field schools: the Kenyan experience. Nairobi; 2003. FAO/KARI/ILRI.
  11. LEISA Magazine. 'Learning with Farmer Field Schools', LEISA Magazine, 2003; special issue, vol 9, no 1.
  12. Veisi H. Exploring the Determinants of Adoption Behaviour of Clean Technologies in Agriculture (Case of Integrated Pest Management). Asian Journal of Technology Innovation; 2012; 20 (1): 67-82.
  13. Hossein zad J., Shorafa S., Dashti Gh. Economic Analysis of Environemental Benefits of Integrated Pest Management (Case Study, Khuzestan Province Farms); 2010; 41-41(3): 267-274.
  14. Osko, T., Chizari M., Rasoli, S.F. Assessing the Effect of Farmers Knowledge and Attitude Regarding Farmer Field School (FFS) on Biological Control against Rice Stem Borer in Mazandaran Province; 2008; 1-2(38): 109-119.
  15. Lashkar Ara, F. Hossini M. Role of FFS approaches and FFI in diffusion of innovations in developing of sustaianb;e agriculture, Journal of village and development; 2004; 3(31). 105-136.
  16. Rustam R. Effect of integrated pest management farmer field school (IPMFFS) on farmers’ knowledge, farmers groups’ ability, process of adoption and diffusion of IPM in Jember district. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development; 2010; 2(2) pp. 029-035.http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0277.
  17. Sustainet E A. Technical Manual for farmers and Field Extension Service Providers: Farmer Field School Approach. Sustainable Agriculture Information Initiative, Nairobi; 2010. 20 p.
  18. Jepson PC, Guzy M, Blaustein K, Sow M, Sarr M, Mineau P, Kegley S. Measuring pesticide ecological and health risks in West African agriculture to establish an enabling environment for sustainable intensification. Phil. Trans. R. Soc; 2014; B 369, 20130491. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0491).
  19. Kabir M H, Rainis R. Adoption and intensity of integrated pest management (IPM) vegetable farming in Bangladesh: an approach to sustainable agricultural development. Environment, Development and Sustainability; 2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10668-014-9613-y, 1-17.
  20. Hoffmann I, Blum L, Kern L, Mewes E, Oelmann H. Achieving Food Security in a Post Conflict Context, Recommendations for a Farmer Field School Approach in the Greenbelt of South Sudan. Berlin 2012.
  21. Veisi H, Rezaei E, Khoshbakht K, Kambuozia J, Liaghati H. An assessment of the impact of watershed programmes on agricultural sustainability in Hamedan province, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability; 2015; DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2014.995916
  22. Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning, Journal of Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management; 2009; 90, 1692–1702.
فصلنامه علوم محیطی
دوره 13، شماره 4
دی 1394
صفحه 113-124

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار