Analysis of the relationship between different levels of trust with the participation of rangeland beneficiaries in rangeland improvement and reclamation  (Case study: Choghakadoo, Kermanshah Province)

Ahmadi, Ronak; Heydari, Qodratollah; Khoshfar, Gholamreza

doi:10.22092/ijrdr.2018.116846

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ nadaramFormer M.Sc. Student in Rangeland Management, Department of Range and Watershed Management, University of Natural Resources and Agriculture of Sari, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Range and Watershed Management, University of Natural Resources and Agriculture of Sari, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities, University of Golestan, Gorgan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22092/ijrdr.2018.116846

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between different levels of trust including basic trust, interpersonal trust, institutional trust, and generalized trust with the participation of rangeland beneficiaries in rangeland rehabilitation and reclamation projects was investigated. The survey instrument was a questionnaire. The statistical population included all rangeland beneficiaries (78 people) in Choghakadoo, Sarpolzohab. The sample size was determined to be 67 people using Cochran's formula. Stratified random sampling was used to select the samples and SPSS20 software was used to analyze the data. The results of this study showed that there was a positive and significant correlation between different levels of trust with the participation rate of rangeland beneficiaries in rangeland improvement and reclamation and the correlation between the generalized trust and the participation of rangeland beneficiaries was stronger. Furthermore, in this study, 34 indices of different levels of trust were reduced to 12 factors by the factor analysis method, totally explaining 36/71% of variation in dependent variable (participation in rangeland improvement and reclamation. Generalized trust could be named as the first and most influential factor in this method. Therefore, considering the effect of different levels of trust in the participation of rangeland beneficiaries, it can be stated that the increased generalized trust, which is one of the dimensions of outgroup social capital, will result in increased efficiency of the participation of rangeland beneficiaries in range improvement and reclamation as compared with other levels of trust.

Keywords

References

- Ali pour, C., Zahedi, M. G. and Shiani, M., 2009. Trust and Partnership (study of the relationship of trust and partnership in Tehran). Iranian Journal of Sociology, 10 (2): 135-109.

-Alvani, S. M., 2001. Government and public trust management. Knowledge management, Especially a Public Administration, 55 (3): 27-5.

-Azkia, M. and Ghaffari, Gh., 2001. The relationship between trust and social participation in rural areas of Kashan. Letter Social Sciences, 17 (2): 31-3.

-Badri Pour, H., 2012. The centrality of the human need for comprehensive watershed management plan or master plan for natural resources in the watershed. The Eighth National Conference on Watershed Management Science and Engineering, University of Lorestan, 12-23.

-Bodin, O., Crona, B. and Ernstson, H., 2006. Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective. Ecology and Society, 11(2), r2, 8p.

-Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65-76.‏

-Cochran, W. G., 1977. Sampling techniques. 3nd Edition. Whley and Sons, USA, 428p.

-Department of Natural Resources of Kermanshah province., 2011. Choghakadoo range management plan. Ranch unit, Department of Natural Resources city Zahab, 50p.

-Farzane, S. and Ramezani, A., 2012. Relationship between Social Capital and Urban Development Case Study: Vice City. Journal of Sociology Youth Studies, 3 (6): 132-109.

-Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441-473.

-Ghorbani, M., Salari, F., Saeedi graghany, H. R. and Senaee, A., 2015. Analysis of bonds of trust and community participation in the network of farmers in participatory rangeland management (Case study: Grgv- area Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad. Journal of Pasture, 9 (2): 194-181.

-Ghorbani, M., Azarnivand, H., Mehrabi, A. A., Bastani, S., Jafari, M. and Nayebi, H., 2012. Social network analysis: a new approach in policy-making and planning collaborative management of natural resources. Journal of Range and Watershed Management, Natural Resource's Journal, 65 (4): 568-553.

-Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Johansson, K., 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34(4), 573-592.‏

-Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M., Boys, D., Bonn, A. and Dean, C., 2006. Using stakeholder and social network analysis to support participatory processes. The international Journal of Biodiversity science and management, 2(3), 249-252.‏

-Ingelhart, R., 2004. Cultural change in advanced industrial society. Translated by Maryam Watr, Tehran, Kavir, 564p.

-Khoshfar, Gh. R., 2008. The effect of social capital on political participation, Case study: Golestan Province. Thesis, sociology, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Iran, 300p.

-Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W., 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30: 607- 610.

-Levien, M., 2015. Social capital as obstacle to development: brokering land, norms, and trust in rural India. World Development, 74, 77-92.‏

-Lynam, T. J. and Stafford Smith, M., 2004. Monitoring in a complex world—seeking slow variables, a scaled focus, and speedier learning. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 21(2): 69-78.‏

-Navabakhsh, M., Rezaei, M. and Rahimi, M., 2014. The Relationship between the trust of citizens with their social participation (Case Study: Ilam, sociological studies of urban, 4 (10): 1-27.

-Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental management, 34(1): 75-90.‏

-Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C. and Reed, M., 2008. ‘Who’s in the network?’When stakeholders influence data analysis. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6): 443-458.‏

-Putnam, R. D., 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of democracy, 6(1), 65-78.‏

-Rijke, J., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., Morison, P. and Van Herk, S., 2012. Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science and Policy, 22: 73-84.‏

-Sarukhi, B., 2006. Methodology of research in social sciences. Trends and Techniques, Publications of Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Research Center, 520p.

-Sabatini, F., 2009. Social capital as social networks: A new framework for measurement and an empirical analysis of its determinants and consequences. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3): 429-442.‏

-Scholz, R. W., 2011. Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions. Cambridge University Press, 631p.‏

-Zanini, M. T. F. and Migueles, C. P., 2013. Trust as an element of informal coordination and its relationship with organizational performance. Economia, 14(2): 77-87.‏

-Zetomka, P., 2012. Trust: a sociological theory. Translated by Gholam reza Ghaffari, Tehran, The publishing Sheeraze, 376p.

Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research

Analysis of the relationship between different levels of trust with the participation of rangeland beneficiaries in rangeland improvement and reclamation (Case study: Choghakadoo, Kermanshah Province)

References

References

Volume 25, Issue 2
August 2018
Pages 344-354

Analysis of the relationship between different levels of trust with the participation of rangeland beneficiaries in rangeland improvement and reclamation (Case study: Choghakadoo, Kermanshah Province)

References

References

Volume 25, Issue 2August 2018Pages 344-354

Volume 25, Issue 2
August 2018
Pages 344-354