تعداد نشریات | 161 |
تعداد شمارهها | 6,532 |
تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,099,330 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,206,853 |
کاربرد مدل توازن در ارزیابی استانها در زمینة کارایی مصرف نهادههای شیمیایی کشاورزی | ||
تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران | ||
مقاله 11، دوره 46، شماره 3، مهر 1394، صفحه 503-516 اصل مقاله (966.95 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/ijaedr.2015.55523 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
محمدرضا علیرضایی1؛ معصومه رجبی تنها* 2؛ غلامحسین عبدالله زاده3 | ||
1عضو هیئت علمی و دانشیار دانشکدة ریاضی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت | ||
2دانشجوی دکتری تحقیق در عملیات دانشکدة ریاضی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت | ||
3عضو هیئتعلمی دانشکدة مدیریت کشاورزی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان | ||
چکیده | ||
تحقیق حاضر با ارائة مدل توازن، در پی سنجش سطوح کارایی استانها در راستای سیاستهای بخش کشاورزی برای کاهش مصرف نهادههای شیمیایی (انواع کودها و سموم) بهتفکیک دو محصول گندم و جو است. بهاینمنظور، اطلاعات دو محصول گندم و جو در زمینة نهادههای زمین، بذر، کود (ازت، فسفات و سایر انواع کود)، سم (علفکش، آفتکش و بیماریکش) و میزان تولید از طریق ادارة کل آمار و اطلاعات وزارت جهاد کشاورزی برای استانهای کشور و در سال زراعی 1387- 1388 جمعآوری شد. کارایی استانها با استفاده از مدل پایهای (CCR: Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes) (بدون درنظرگرفتن سیاستهای راهبردی)، مدل توازن (با درنظرگرفتن سیاستهای راهبردی) و عامل توازن (که نسبت نمرههای حاصل از دو مدل مذکور است) بهدست آمد. نتایج نشان میدهد بعضی از استانهای محروم (ایلام، بوشهر، لرستان، چهارمحالوبختیاری و خوزستان) نمرة بالایی در عامل توازن دارند، اما بهعلت همراستایی با سیاستهای توسعة پایدار بخش، از نظر کارایی، سطح بالایی ندارند، درحالیکه بعضی از استانهای توسعهیافته (تهران، قم، اصفهان، مازندران و مرکزی)، علیرغم کارایی مطلوب، در زمینة عامل توازن امتیاز مطلوبی ندارند. این موضوع بیانگر آن است که آنها نتوانستهاند در راستای سیاستهای زیستمحیطی کلان بخش کشاورزی حرکت کنند. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
پایداری کشاورزی؛ تحلیل پوششی دادهها؛ عامل توازن؛ کارایی بیناستانی؛ مدل توازن | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
Application of balance model in assessing inter-provincial regarding agro-chemical inputs use efficiency | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Mohamad Reza Alirezaei1؛ Masoumeh Rajabi Tanha2؛ Gholamhossein Abdollah Zade3 | ||
1Member of Science, and Associate Professor, Science and Industry University, Faculty of Math, Iran | ||
2PhD. Student in Operations Research, Science and Industry University, Faculty of Math, Iran | ||
3Member of Science, and Assistant Profossor, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resource of Gorgan, Faculty of Agricultural Management, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
Current research aims to measure inter-provincial efficiency by balance model under agricultural policies to reduce chemical inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) for wheat and barley crops. Therefore data for wheat and barley related inputs such: land, seed, fertilizer (nitrate, phosphate and other fertilizer), pesticides (insecticide, herbicide and fungicide) and yield was collected through office of statistical and information, affiliated to the Ministry of Agricultural Jihad in cropping year 2008-2009. Using basic CCR model (disregarding strategic policies), balance model (considering strategic policies) and balance factor (ratio of score extracted from current two models) the provincial efficiency was calculated. The results showed that despite some deprived provinces (Eilam, Bushehr, Lorestan, Charmohal & Bakhtiari and Khozestan) attain high score in balance factor but they have been in low level of efficacy because of considering agricultural sustainable development macro policies. While some developed province (Tehran, Qom, Esfahan, Mazandaran and Markazi) have favorite situation in efficiency score but weak score in balance score. This implies that these provinces couldn’t reflect on agro-environmental macro policies. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
agricultural sustainability, balance factor, balance model, Data Envelopment Analysis, inter-provincial efficiency | ||
مراجع | ||
Abay, C., Miran, B., Gunden, B. 2004. An analysis of input use efficiency in tobacco production with respect to sustainability: The case study of Turkey, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 24: 123-143.
Ahn, H., Neumann, L., Vazquez Novoa, N. 2012. Measuring the relative balance of DMUs. European Journal of Operational Research, 221: 417–423 and (corrigendum) 222: 68.
Aldanondo-Ochoa, A. M., Casasnovas-Oliva, V. L., and Arandia-Miura, A. 2013. Environmental efficiency and the impact of regulation in dryland organic vine production. Land Use Policy, 36: 275- 284.
Alirezaee, M. R., Afsharian, M. 2010. Improving the discrimination of data envelopment analysis models in multiple time periods. International Transportations in Operational Research, 17: 667–679.
Alirezaee, M. R., Rajabi Tanha, M. 2013. Measuring productivity growth of the regional electricity companies with regard to sanctions and related policies, Iranian Electric Industry Journal of Quality and Productivity, 2 (3): 1-9.
Alirezaee, M. R., Rajabi Tanha, M., Abdollahzadeh, G. 2007. Analyzing regional differences in Agricultural Productivity with Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Agriculture & Economic, 1 (2): 241-254.
Antle, J.M., Pingali, P.L. 1994. Pesticides, productivity and farmer health: a Philippine case study. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76: 418-430.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 31: 1078–1092.
Burja, C. 2012. Determinants of the Agricultural Productivity Growth among Romanian Regions. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 14 (1): 217-225.
Callens, I. and Tyteca, D. 1999. Towards indicators of sustainable development for farms: A productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28: 41-53.
Carpenter, R. A. (1993). Can sustainability be measured? Environmental Strategy, 5, 13–16.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Rhodes, E. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of the decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2: 429–444.
Coelli, T. Rao, P. 2003. Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: A Malmquist Index Analysis of 93 Countries, 1980-2000. Agricultural productivity Conference, August, 2003. Durban, South Africa.
Dantsis, T., Douma, C., Giourga, C., Loumou, A., Polychronaki, E. A. 2010. A methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant production systems. Ecological Indicator, 10 (2): 256-263.
De Koeijer, T. J., Wossink, G. A. A., Struik, P. C., Renkema, J. A. 2002. Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers. Journal of Environmental Management, 66: 9-17.
Dimitrov, S., Warren S. 2010. Promoting symmetric weight selection in data envelopment analysis: A penalty function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 181: 281-288.
Dyckhoff, H., Dirksen, A., Mbock, E. 2012. Measuring Balanced Efficiency with DEA: New Approach and Case Study of German Business Schools' Research Performance. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1990233 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1990233.
Dyson, R. G., Thanassoulis, E. 1988. Reducing weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39: 563–576.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2005. Agriculture and Environment in EU-15: the IRENA Indicator Report, Preprint for Consultation. Joint Report by DG Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Environment, Eurostat, DG Joint Research Centre, European Environment Agency. http://webpubs.eea.eu.int/content/irena/Latestproducts.htm.
Eilat, H., Golany, B., Shtub, A. 2006. Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology. European Journal of Operational Research, 172: 1018 - 1039.
Falavigna, G., Manello, A., Pavone, S. 2013. Environmental efficiency, productivity and public funds: The case of the Italian agricultural industry. Agricultural Systems, 121: 73-80.
Gerdessen, J. C., Pascucci, S. 2013. Data Envelopment Analysis of sustainability indicators of European agricultural systems at regional level. Agricultural Systems, 118: 78-90.
Gomes, E. G., de Mello, J. C. C. B S., da Silva e Souza, G., Meza, L A., de Carvalho Mangabeira, J. A. 2009. Efficiency and sustainability assessment for a group of farmers in the Brazilian Amazon. Ann Oper Res (2009) 169: 167-181.
Kim, J. M. 2001. Efficiency analysis of sustainable and conventional farms in the re public of Korea with special reference to the data envelopment analysis (DEA). Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 18: 9-26.
Lissitsa A., Rungsuriyawiboom S., Parkhomenko S., 2007. How Far Are the Transition Countries from the Economic Standards of the European Union? Measuring Efficiency and Growth in Agriculture, Eastern European Economics, 45 (3), 51-75.
Lynam, J. H. Herdt, R. W. 1989. Sense and sustainability as an objective international agricultural research. Agricultural Economic, 3: 381-398.
Meul, M. Nevens. F. Reheul. D. 2009. Validating sustainability indicators: Focus on ecological aspects of Flemish dairy farms. Ecological indicators, 9: 284-295.
Nikolla, M., Meco, M., Bou Dib, J., Belegu, M., Qinami, I., Dulja, X., Kadiu, E. 2013. Increasing the efficiency of the Albanian agricultural farms using the DEA model. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 11 (3&4): 1286 - 1290.
OECD, 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Methods and Results. vol. 3. OECD Publications, Paris, France, p. 409.
Piot-Lepetit, I., Vermersch, D. and Weaver, R. D. 1997. Agriculture's environmental externalities: DEA evidence for French agriculture. Applied Economics, 29: 331-338.
Pingali, P.L. 1995. Impact of pesticides on farmer health and the rice environment: an overview of results from a multidisciplinary study in the Philippines. In: Pingali, P.L., Roger, P. (Eds.), Impact of Pesticides on Farmer Health and the Rice Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
Pourzand, F., Bakhshodeh, M. 2012. Assessing agricultural sustainability in Fars province using compromise programming. Journal of agricultural economic research, 4 (1): 1-26.
Rajabi Tanha, M., Abdollahzadeh, G. 2010. Evaluating provincial inequalities in agricultural productivity of Iran: introducing a real reference for inefficient provinces using data envelopment analysis with non-convex frontier. Journal of economic research, 10 (1): 171-199.
Rasmunssen, S. 2010. Scale efficiency in Danish agriculture: an input distance–function approach, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 37 (3): 335-367.
Rigby, D. Caceres, D. 2001.Organic Farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems, 68: 21-40.
Sauer, J., Abdallah, J. M. 2007. Forest diversity, tobacco production and resource management in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics, 9: 421-439.
Shokohi, M., Bakhshodeh, M. 2009. Regional inequality and cereal productivity convergence in Iranian province. Journal of agricultural economic and development, 23 (2): 103-116.
Thompson, R. G., Singleton, F. D., Thrall, R. M., Smith, B. A. 1986. Comparative site evaluations for locating a high-energy physics lab in Texas. Interfaces, 16: 35–49.
Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Mathijs, E., Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2007. Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecologicla Economics, 62: 149-161.
Von Wirén-Lehr, S. (2001). Sustainability in agriculture—an evaluation of principal goal oriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 84, 115-129.
Wong, Y. H. B., Beasley, J. E. 1990. Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41: 829–835.
Zhou, L., Hai-peng, H. 2013. Productivity Growth in China’s Agriculture During 1985-2010. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12 (10): 1896-1904.
| ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,462 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 852 |