همکاری با انجمن علمی مدیریت و کنترل مناطق بیابانی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مرتع‌داری، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع‌طبیعی ساری، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه مرتع، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع‌طبیعی، ساری، ایران

3 هیئت علمی مؤسسه تونن، وابسته به وزارت کشاورزی آلمان و دانشگاه کیل

4 استاد، گروه مرتع، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع‌طبیعی، ساری، ایران

چکیده

     توسعه در مرتع بدون توجه به مشارکت بهره­برداران امکان­پذیر نخواهد بود. امروزه سرمایه­های اجتماعی شبکه می­تواند کنترل­کننده رفتار مشارکتی بهره­برداران در حفاظت از عرصه­های مرتعی و محدوده­های عرفی آنها باشد. هدف از این مطالعه، تحلیل سرمایه اجتماعیِ شبکه در بین بهره­بردارانِ با سطوح مختلف مشارکتی در پروژه­های حفاظتی (پروژه­های بیولوژیک شامل بذرکاری، کپه­کاری و قرق و پروژه بیومکانیک یا بانکت­بندی) محدوده­های عرفی مراتع شهرستان دهگلان است. روش تحقیق توصیفی-تحلیلی مبتنی بر پرسش‌نامه بوده و جامعه آماری آن شامل 275 نفر از بهره­برداران مراتعِ 10 سامان عرفی منطقه بر اساس لیست ممیزی است. انتخاب نمونه‌ها تصادفی و 160 بهره­بردار مرتعی با استفاده از فرمول کوکران انتخاب شدند. برای تعیین روایی پرسش‌نامه از پانل متخصصان استفاده شد که شامل استادان و کارشناس فنّی اداره کل استان کردستان بودند. مقدار آلفای کرونباخ هم برای"اهداف مشترک مرتع‌داران با شبکه­های محلّی" و "اهداف مشترک مرتع‌داران با شبکه­های دولتی" به­ترتیب 80/0 و 82/0 محاسبه شد. نتایج حاصل از رویکرد تقابل هلمرت نشان داد مرتع‌دارانی که در پروژه­های حفاظتی مراتع مشارکت دائم داشتند، نسبت به مرتع‌دارانی که در پروژه­های حفاظتی مراتع مشارکت موقت داشتند، اهداف مشترک بیشتری با شبکه­های محلّی و دولتی داشتند. همچنین نتایج نشان داد مرتع‌دارانی که در پروژه­های حفاظتی مراتع اصلاً مشارکت نداشتند، نسبت به مرتع‌دارانی که در پروژه­های حفاظتی مراتع مشارکت داشتند اهداف مشترک کمتری با شبکه­های محلّی و دولتی داشتند. نتایج نشان می­دهد که استفاده از ظرفیت سرمایه­های اجتماعی شبکه می­تواند با تقویّت انسجام جوامع محلّی، رویکرد مشارکتی بهره­برداران را برای اجرای پروژه­های حفاظتی مرتع تغییر بدهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of network social capital among ranchers with different levels of participation (Case study: rangeland of Dehgolan city, Kurdistan province)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farzad Ahmadi 1
  • Ghodratollah Heydari 2
  • Omid Zamani 3
  • Zeinab Jafarian Jeloudar 4

1 Ph.D. Student in Rangeland Management, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Rangeland, University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Sari, Iran

3 The faculty of the Thunen Institute, Affiliated to the German Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Kiel

4 Professor, Department of Rangeland, University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Sari, Iran

چکیده [English]

Rangeland's development will not be possible without the participation of Ranchers. Today, network social capital can control the participatory behavior of users in the protection of rangelands and their customary boundaries. The purpose of this study is to analyze the social capital of the network among ranchers with different levels of participation in conservation projects (biological projects including seeding and enclosure; and biomechanics or banking projects) of the customary rangelands of Dehgolan city. The research method is descriptive-analytical based on a questionnaire, and its statistical population includes 275 users of rangelands in 10 conventional areas of the region based on the audit list. The samples were selected randomly, and 160 rangeland operators were selected using Cochran's formula. To determine the validity of the questionnaire, a panel of experts was used, which included professors and technical experts of the General Administration of Kurdistan Province. Cronbach's alpha values for "common goals of rangers with local networks" and "common goals of rangers with government networks" were calculated as 0.80 and 0.82, respectively. The results of the Helmert contrast approach showed that beneficiaries who were permanently involved in rangeland conservation projects had more common goals with local and government networks than beneficiaries who were temporarily involved in rangeland conservation projects. The results showed that using the social capital capacity of the network can change the participatory approach of users to implement rangeland conservation projects by strengthening the cohesion of local communities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Network Social Capital
  • local and state networks
  • levels of participation
  • common goals
  • -Ahmadi, F., Heidari, Q. and Shafiee, F., 2018. Social and economic factors affecting the willingness of ranchers to participate inrangelands rehabilitation and restoration projects (Case Study: Dehgolan Rangelands). Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 25 (1): 102-115.
  • Borg, R., Toikka, A. and Primmer, E., 2015. Social capital and governance: a social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland. Journal of Forest Policy and Economics, 50: 90-97.
  • Brook, A., Zint, M. and De Young, R., 2003. Landowners' responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Journal of Conservation biology, 17: 1638–1649.
  • Chowdhury, M. S. H., Gudmundsson, C., Izumiyama, S., Koike, M., Nazia, N., Rana, M. P. and Redowan, M., 2014. Community attitudes toward forest conservation programs through collaborative protected area management in Bangladesh. Environment, development and sustainability, 16 (6): 1235-1252.
  • Clements, T., Rainey, H., An, D., Rours, V., Tan, S., Thong, S., Sutherland, W.J. and MilnerGulland, E.J., 2013. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: the Bird Nest Protection Program in the Northern Plains of Journal of Biological Conservation, 157: 50–59.
  • Falcone, P. M., D'Alisa, G., Germani, A. R. and Morone, P., 2020. When all seemed lost. A social network analysis of the waste-related environmental movement in Campania, Italy. Journal of Political Geography, 77: 269-283.
  • Fanok, L., Beltrán, B., Burnham, M. and Wardropper, C. B., 2021. Visions for large landscape drought resilience in rangelands. Journal of Rangelands, 43 (2): 47-56.
  • Ghorbani, M. and Azadi, H., 2020. A social-relational approach for analyzing trust and collaboration networks as preconditions for rangeland comanagement. Journal of Rangeland Ecology & Management, 75: 170-184.
  • Ghorbani, M., RahimiBalkanlo, K.H., Jafari, M. and Tavili, A., 2015. Analysis of social capital of users' network in the direction of adaptive participatory management of rangeland. Journal of Rangeland, 9 (4): 91-105.
  • Harvstad, K.M., Peters, D.P.C., Skaggs, R., Brown, J., Bestelmeyer, B., Fredrickson, E., Herrick, J. and Wright, J., 2007. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Journal of Ecolgycal and Econmic, 64 (6): 261-268.
  • Heydari, G.H., Barani, H., Aghili, S.M., Ghorbani, J., Mahbobi, M.R. and Khoshfar, G., 2009. The role of social capital on participation in the implementation of rangeland management projects based on the views of the implementers of these projects (Study area: Baladeh rangelands, northern Iran). Environment, development and sustainability, 3 (1): 121-137.
  • Jafarian,, Ahmadi, F. and Karegar, M., 2017. Effects of grazing intensities on functional diversity and species diversity indices in the Bolban Abad rangeland, Kurdistan province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert, 24 (4): 214- 226.
  • Karimi, K., Karamidehkordi, A. and Badsar, M., 2016. The role of rural communities in the protection of rangelands in Mahneshan city. Rural development strategies, 3(1): 1-21.
  • Knoot, T. G. and Rickenbach, M., Best management practices and timber harvesting: the role of social networks in shaping landowner decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26 (2): 171-182.
  • Li, A. and Sakamoto, M., 2015. Hidden scientist network behind environmental management- Case study of grassland management in China. Journal of Environmental Science and Policy, 54: 248-253.‏
  • Lund, H.G., 2007. Accounting for the world’s rangelands. Rangelands, 29: 3–10.
  • Ma, Z., Butler, B.J., Kittredge, D.B. and Catanzaro, P., 2012. Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S: implications for policy design and outreach. Journal of Land Use Policy, 29: 53–61.
  • Mahmodi, J., SayedehMahdavi, K.H. and Lotfi, S.H., 2014. Investigating the effective factors on the participation of exploiters in the protection, rehabilitation and exploitation of rangelands (Case study of Khortab Rudbar watershed in Noor city). Protection and exploitation of natural resources, 3(1): 49-64.
  • Mesdaghi,, 2010. Pastoralists in Iran. Imam Reza University Press, 336 p.
  • Mustajoki, J., Saarikoski, H., Belton, V., Hjerppe, T. and Marttunen, M., 2020. Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis–Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland. Journal of Ecosystem Services, 41: (10): 110-124.
  • Neely, C., Bunning, S. and Wilkes, A., 2009. Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change: implications and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation. Land and Water Discussion Paper 8. Food and Agriculture Organziation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, 50 P.
  • Ohta, R., Ryu, Y. and Otani, J., 2020. Rural physicians' perceptions about the challenges of participating in interprofessional collaboration: Insights from a focus group interview. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 10 (21): 357-365.
  • Paletto, A., Ferretti, F. and De Meo, I., The role of social networks in forest landscape planning.Forest policy and economics, 15: 132-139.
  • Putnam, R.D., 1995. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Rural Studies, 62 (15): 21–28.
  • Riegels, N., Lynggaard-Jensen, A., Jensen, J. K., Gerner, N. V., Anzaldua, G., Mark, O. and Birk, S., Making the ecosystem services approach operational: A case study application to the Aarhus River, Denmark.Journal of Science of the Total Environment, 13 (24): 456-463.
  • Sarvilinna, A., Lehtoranta, V. and Hjerppe, T., 2018. Willingness to participate in the restoration of waters in an urban–rural setting: Local drivers and motivations behind environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Science & Policy, 85: 11-18.
  • Sayre, N.F., McAllister, R.R.J., Bestelmeyer, B.T., Moritz, M. and Turner, M.D., 2013. Earth stewardship of rangelands: coping with ecological, economic, and political marginality. Journal of Ecological and Environment, 11: 348–354.
  • Schröter, B., Hauck, J., Hackenberg, I. and Matzdorf, B., 2018. Bringing transparency into the process: Social network analysis as a tool to support the participatory design and implementation process of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Journal of Ecosystem services, 34: 206-217.
  • Smart, A. J., Harmoney, K., Scasta, J. D., Stephenson, M. B., Volesky, J. D., Vermeire, L. T. and McClaran, M. P., 2019. Critical decision dates for drought management in Central and Northern Great Plains rangelands. Journal of Rangeland Ecology & Management, 17 (13): 140-154.
  • Tiepoh, M., Nah, G. and Reimer, B., Social capital, information flows, and income creation in rural Canada: a cross-community analysis. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33: 427-448.
  • Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R. and Hujala, T., 2018. How are forest owners' objectives and social networks related to successful conservation?. Journal of Rural Studies, 62: 21-28.
  • Vejdani, H.R., Rostami, S.H., Taleshi, M., Aliakbari, A. and Jomepour, M., 2019. Investigation of rangeland conservation strategies with a participatory approach and a combined SWOT and AHP method (Case study: Hamadan province). Journal of Rangeland and Desert, 26 (4): 800-808.
  • Wang, X., Berman, E. M., Chen, D. Y. and Niu, X., Strategies to improve environmental networks for pollution control: Evidence from eco-compensation programs in China.Journal of environmental management, 234: 387-395.