اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات286
تعداد نشریات سازمان84
تعداد شماره‌ها2,846
تعداد مقالات32,300
تعداد مشاهده مقاله41,387,120
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله18,562,183
نصیری, پروانه, یزدانی, سعید, مقدسی, رضا. (1398). ارزیابی پایداری سیاست‌های قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی با استفاده از شاخص ترکیبی: مطالعه موردی استان قزوین. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 27(4), 171-204. doi: 10.30490/aead.2020.273052.1035
پروانه نصیری; سعید یزدانی; رضا مقدسی. "ارزیابی پایداری سیاست‌های قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی با استفاده از شاخص ترکیبی: مطالعه موردی استان قزوین". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 27, 4, 1398, 171-204. doi: 10.30490/aead.2020.273052.1035
نصیری, پروانه, یزدانی, سعید, مقدسی, رضا. (1398). 'ارزیابی پایداری سیاست‌های قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی با استفاده از شاخص ترکیبی: مطالعه موردی استان قزوین', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 27(4), pp. 171-204. doi: 10.30490/aead.2020.273052.1035
نصیری, پروانه, یزدانی, سعید, مقدسی, رضا. ارزیابی پایداری سیاست‌های قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی با استفاده از شاخص ترکیبی: مطالعه موردی استان قزوین. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1398; 27(4): 171-204. doi: 10.30490/aead.2020.273052.1035

ارزیابی پایداری سیاست‌های قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی با استفاده از شاخص ترکیبی: مطالعه موردی استان قزوین

اقتصاد کشاورزی و توسعه
مقاله 8، دوره 27، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 108، اسفند 1398، صفحه 171-204    اصل مقاله (769.57 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30490/aead.2020.273052.1035
نویسندگان
پروانه نصیری1؛ سعید یزدانی* 2؛ رضا مقدسی3
1دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران.
2استاد گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران
3دانشیار گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران
چکیده
یکی از وظایف دشوار سیاست‌گذاران انتخاب بین مجموعه سناریوهایی است که برای دریافت تعرفه آب در اجرای سیاست قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی، از لحاظ اجرایی و قانونی امکان‏پذیر باشند. هدف تحقیق حاضر بررسی نتایج بالقوه ابزارهای مختلف قیمت‌گذاری آب (هکتاری، حجمی و تعرفه دوقسمتی) و اثرات آنها بر پایداری اراضی آبی با در نظر گرفتن ابعاد اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست‌محیطی بود. بدین منظور، با استفاده از روش برنامه‌ریزی ریاضی اثباتی، رفتار کشاورزان در مواجهه با ابزارهای مختلف قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی شبیه‌سازی شد و محاسبة شاخص ترکیبی برای اندازه‏گیری پایداری اجرای هر ابزار قیمت‌گذاری به کمک روش تحلیل سلسله‏مراتبی صورت گرفت. داده‌های مورد نیاز از طریق نمونه‏گیری خوشه‌ای دومرحله‌ای با تکمیل 120 پرسشنامه از کشاورزان زیر پوشش شبکه آبیاری دشت قزوین و همچنین، با بهره‏گیری از نظرات و تجارب کارشناسی و داده‌های اسنادی جمع‏آوری شد. نتایج نشان داد که اجرای ابزارهای سیاست قیمت‌گذاری مورد بررسی دارای اثرات منفی بر شاخص‌های پایداری اقتصادی (سودآوری) و اجتماعی (اشتغال) است و تنها بر شاخص‏های زیست‌محیطی تأثیر مثبت دارد؛ مصرف آب در روش قیمت‌گذاری هکتاری افزایش و در روش‌های حجمی و تعرفه دوقسمتی کاهش می‏یابد؛ همچنین، در روش قیمت‌گذاری تعرفه دوقسمتی، شاخص کل پایداری از سایر سناریوهای مورد بررسی بالاتر بوده، که بیانگر کارآیی این روش برای رسیدن به پایداری است و به بیشترین کاهش مصرف آب می‌انجامد. از این‏رو، اجرای سیاست قیمت‏گذاری تعرفه دوقسمتی و نیز اتخاذ سیاست‏های جایگزین در راستای پایداری کامل و جبران اثرات منفی این سیاست پیشنهاد شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
شاخص‌های ترکیبی؛ پایداری؛ ابزارهای قیمت‌گذاری آب کشاورزی؛ برنامه‌ریزی ریاضی اثباتی؛ قزوین (استان)
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluating the Sustainability of Agricultural Water Pricing Policies using Composite Indicator: A Case Study of Qazvin Province of Iran
نویسندگان [English]
P. Nasiri1؛ S. Yazdani2؛ R. Moghaddasi3
1PhD Student in Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
One of the most difficult duties for public decision-makers is to select a practical and legal instrument to receive water tariffs in the agricultural water pricing policies. This study aimed at analyzing the potential consequences of different instruments for irrigation water pricing (area, volumetric and two-part tariff) and their effects on the sustainability of irrigated lands with respect to economic, social and environmental impacts. For this purpose, farmers’ behavior in response to pricing instruments was simulated through positive mathematical programming and the composite indicators were calculated for sustainability measurement of different instruments in these irrigation water pricing policies using Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP). The required data were collected in two-stage cluster sampling by 120 questionnaires completed from farmers under the irrigation network of Qazvin Plain in Iran as well as opinions and experiences of experts and documentary data. The results showed that the implementation of the studied irrigation water pricing policy instruments had negative impacts on economic sustainability indicator (i.e. profitability) and social sustainability indicator (i.e. employment) and a positive impact only on environmental sustainability indicators; and water consumption increased in area pricing and decreased in volumetric and two-part tariff pricing. In addition, the overall sustainability index in two-part tariff was higher than other water pricing instruments. Therefore, a two-part tariff pricing policy and adoption of alternative policies to achieve complete sustainability and compensate for the negative effects of this pricing policy were recommended.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Indicators, Sustainability, Irrigation Water Pricing Instruments, Positive Mathematical Programming, Qazvin (Province)
مراجع
  1. Arabiyoon, A., Kalantari, Kh., Asadi, A. and Shabanali Fami, H. (2009). Measuring the sustainability level of wheat cropping system in Fars province and determining the affecting factors. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal, 5(2): 17-29. (Persian)
  2. Ataei, M. (2009). Multi-criteria decision making. Shahrood, Iran: Shahrood University Press. (Persian)
  3. Azimifard, S., Zare Mehrjardi, M. and Mehrabi Boshrabadi, H. (2013). Sustainability of water resources in Qouchan County: fractional programming approach. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 23(3): 1-11. (Persian)
  4. Badri, S.A. and Rokneddin Eftekhari, A.R. (2003). Sustainability assessment. Geographical Researches, 18(2): 9-34. (Persian)
  5. Bagheri, A., Nikouei, A.R., Khodadad Kashi, F. and Shokat Fadaei, M. (2017). Evaluation of water pricing policy on aquifer stability and preservation: study of northern Mahyar Plain Aquifer in Zayandeh-Roud Basin. Economics and Agricultural Development, 31(2): 105-120. (Persian)
  6. Bagheri, M., Mohammadi, H., Nouri, G.R. and Mir, B. (2014). Determinants of sustainable use of water resources: the case of Kohgilouyeh and Boyerahmad province. Environmental Science and Technology, 15(1): 51-64. (Persian)
  7. Bakhshi, A., Daneshvar Kakhki, M. and Moghaddasi, R. (2011). An application of positive mathematical programming model to analyze the effects of alternative policies on water pricing in Mashhad Plain. Agricultural Economics and Development, 25(3): 284-294. (Persian)
  8. Balali, H., Ahmadian, M. and Khalilian, S. (2010). Analysis of water pricing infraction on groundwater balance in
    agricultural sector. Agricultural Economics and Development, 2(24): 185- 194. (Persian)
  9. Bartolini, F., Gallerani, V., Raggi, M. and Viaggi, D. (2010). Water management and irrigated agriculture in Italy: multicriteria analysis of alternative policy scenarios. Water Policy,12(1): 135-147.
  10. Berbel, J. and Gomez-Limon, J.A. (2000). The impact of water-pricing policy in Spain: an analysis of three irrigated areas. Agriculture Water Management, 43: 219-238.
  11. Berbel, J., Viaggi, D. and Manos, B. (2009). Estimating demand for irrigation water in European Mediterranean countries through MCDM models. Water Policy, 11(3): 348-361.
  12. Borimnejad, V. and Yazdani, S. (2004). Sustainability analysis in water resources management in agricultural sector using fractional programming, case study: Kerman province. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi [Research and Construction], 63: 2-16. (Persian)
  13. Devuyst, D. (2001). How green is the city? Sustainability assessment and the management of urban environments. New York: Columbia University Press.
  14. Ehsani, M., Hayati, B., Dashti, G., Ghahremanzadeh, M. and Hosseinzad J. (2011). Water economic value estimation in barley production at Qazvin plaim irrigation network. Water and Soil Science, 22(1): 187-200. (Persian)
  15. Fragoso, R. and Marques, C. (2013). The economic impact of alternative water pricing policies in Alentejo region (CEFAGE-UE Working Paper 2013/02).
  16. Franco-Crespo, C. and Sumpsi J.M. (2017). The impact of pricing policies on irrigation water for agro-food farms in Ecuador. Sustainability, 9: 1-18.
  17. Gallego-Ayala, J. (2012). Selecting the irrigation water pricing alternatives using a multimethodological approach. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 55: 861-883.
  18. Gallego-Ayala, J. and Juizo, D. (2012). Performance evaluation of river basin organizations to implement integrated water resources management using composite indexes. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 50-52: 205-216.
  19. Gallego-Ayala, J., Gomez-Limon, J.A. and Arriaza, M. (2011). Irrigation water pricing instruments: a sustainability assessment. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(4): 981-999.
  20. Gallego-Ayala, J. and Gómez-Limón, J.A. (2009). Analysis of policy instruments for control of nitrate pollution in irrigated agriculture in Castillay León, Spain. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(1): 24-40.
  21. Gómez-Limón, J.A. and Atance, I. (2004). Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support. Policy Model, 26(8-9): 1045-1071.
  22. Gómez-Limón, J.A. and Riesgo, L. (2004). Irrigation water pricing: differential impacts on irrigated farms. Agricultural Economics, 31(1): 47-66.
  23. Gujarati, D. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd Ed., Vol. I). Translated byAbrishami, H., Tehran, Iran: Tehran University Press. (Persian)
  24. Giupponi, C. (2007). Decision support systems for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: the MULINO approach. Environment Model Software, 22(2): 248-258.
  25. Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z. and Karami, E. (2012). Biodiversity, biofuels, agroforestry and conversation agriculture (Chapter: Measuring the agricultural sustainability) (Ed.) E. Lichtfouse. Pp 73-100. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9513-8_2.
  26. Hayati, D. and Karami, E. (1999). Factors influencing sustainable agricultural knowledge and sustainability of farming systems: a case study in Fars province. Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 3(2): 21-34. (Persian)
  27. Hezareh, R. (2013). A study on the economic, social and environmental impacts in irrigation water pricing using multicriteria approach in Qazvin Plain. MSc. Thesis. Tehran, Iran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (Persian)
  28. Hosseinpour Talebi, S. (2016). An economic study on rice cropping pattern in Mazandaran province with an emphasis on ratoon planting: the application of PMP in the case of Amol County. MSc. Thesis. Tehran, Iran: Department of Agricultural Economics and Development, Tehran University Press. (Persian)
  29. Howitt, R.E. 1995. Positive mathematical programing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77: 329-342.
  30. Howitt, R.E., Medellin-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D. and Lund, J.R. (2012). Calibrating disaggregate economic models of agricultural production and water management. Environmental Modeling and Software, 38: 244-258.
  31. Agriculture - Jahad of Qazvin (2014). Data and statistics of agricultural sector. Qazvin: Agriculture – Jahad, Depatment of Planning and Economic Affairs. (Persian)
  32. Jamali Moghaddam, E., Yazdani, S., Salami, H. and Peykani, G.R. (2017). Measurement of sustainability of farmers of Kamin plains in Fars province: comparison of PCA and AHP methods. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 48(3): 23-33. (Persian)
  33. Jamali Moghaddam, E. (2016). Assessment of economic and environmental sustainability of the agricultural sector in Fars province. MSc. Thesis. Tehran, Iran: Department of Agricultural Economics and Development, Tehran University Press. (Persian)
  34. Johanson, R.C., Tsur, Y., Roe, T.L., Doukkali, R. and Dinar, A. (2002). Pricing the irrigation water: a review of theory and practice. Water Policy, 4(2): 173-199.
  35. Kavousi Akbaripour, Z. (2013). The selection of irrigation water pricing alternative using an integrated positive mathematical programming and multicriteria decision-making approach. MSc. Thesis. Zabol, Iran: Zabol University Press. (Persian)
  36. Mamitimin, Y., Feike, T., Seifert, I. and Doluschitz, R. (2015). Irrigation in the Tarim Basin, China: farmers’ response to changes in water pricing practics. Environment Earth Science, 73: 559-569.
  37. Medellin-Azuara J., Howitt, R. and Harou, J. (2012). Predicting the farmer responses to water pricing, rationing and subsidies assuming profit maximizing investment in irrigation technology. Agricultural Water Management, 108: 73.
  38. Mohammadi, Y., Iravani, H. and Kalantari, Kh. (2014). Assessing the sustainability of rice production in Iran using composite index: a practical methodology. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and
    Development Research    , 45(1): 79-90. (Persian)
  39. Molle, F. and Berkoff, J. (2007). Water pricing in irrigation: mapping the debate in the light of experience. In: Molle, F. and Berkoff, J. (Eds) Irrigation water pricing: the gap between theory and practice. Wallingford, UK: CABI. 21-93.
  40. Mousavi, S. and Gharghani, F. (2009). Calculating the agricultural water sustainability indexes by fractional programming model: the case study in Marvdasht. Agricultural Economics, 3(3): 143-160. (Persian)
  41. Mozaffari, M.M. (2016). Determination of the appropriate policy programming to conservation of water resources in Qazvin Plain. Water and Soil Resources Conservation, 5(2): 29-45. (Persian)
  42. OECD (2001). Environmental indicators for agriculture: methods and results (Vol. 3). Paris: OECD.
  43. Parhizkari, A., Sabouhi, M., Ahmadpour, M. and Badi Barzin, H. (2014). Simulation of farmers' response to irrigation water pricing and rationing policies (case study: Zabol County). Agricultural Economics and Development, 28(2): 164-176. (Persian)
  44. Parhizkari, A. and Sabouhi, M. (2013). Simulationof farmers’ response to reducing available water policy. Water and Irrigation Management, 3(2): 59-74. (Persian)
  45. Pinter, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A. and Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17: 20-28.
  46. Pourzand, F. and Bakhshoudeh, M. (2012). Evaluating the agricultural sustainability of Fars province with compromise programming approach. Agricultural Economic Research, 4(1): 1-26. (Persian)
  47. Rahnama, A., Kohansal, M. and Dourandish, A. (2013). Estimating the economic value of water using positive mathematical programming in Qouchan County. Agricultural Economics, 6(4): 127-146. (Persian)
  48. Rao, N.H. and Rogers, P.P. (2006). Assessment of agricultural sustainability.Current Science, 91(4): 439-448.
  49. Sabouhi, S. and Azadegan, A. (2014). Irrigation water pricing: the case study of Mashhad-Chenaran Plain, Agricultural Economics and Development, 28(2): 185-196. (Persian)
  50. Shankayi, R. (2016). A study on the impacts of the governmental policies on cropping pattern in different utilization systems in Tehran province. MSc. Thesis. Tehran, Iran: Department of Agricultural Economics and Development, Tehran University Press. (Persian)
  51. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.
  52. Senthilkumar, M.T., Lubbers, M.H., de Ridder, N., Bindraban, P.S., Thiyagarajan, T.M. and Giller, K.E. (2011). Policies to support economic and environmental goals at farm and regional scales: Outcomes for rice farmers in Southern India depend on their resource endowment. Agricultural System, 104: 82-93.
  53. Speelman, S., Buysse, J., Farolfi, S., Frija, A., D’Haese, D. and D’Haese, L. (2009). Estimating the impacts of water pricing on smallholder irrigators in North West Province, South Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 96: 1560-1566.
  54. Tsur, Y. and Dinar, A. (1997). The relative efficiency and mplementation costs of alternative methods for pricing irrigation water. The World Bank Economic Review, 11(2): 243-262.
  55. Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Garcia Cidad, V., Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., Sauvenier, X., Valckx, J., Vanclooster, M., Van der Veken, B., Wauters, E. and Peeters, A. (2007). SAFE— a hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. AgriculturalEcosystem Environment, 120(2-4): 229-242.
  56. Varela-Ortega, C., Sumpsi, J.M., Garrido, A., Blanco, M. and Iglesias, E. (1998). Water pricing policies, public decision making and farmers’ response: implications for water policy. Agricultural Economics, 19: 193-202.
  57. Vaziri, A., Vakilpour, M. and Mortazavi, S. (2016). The effects of economic pricing of irrigation water on cropping pattern in the Dehgolan Plain. Agricultural Economics Research, 8(31): 81-100. (Persian)
  58. Water Research Institute (2008). A study on unofficial agricultural water market in a region as a pilot: final report. Iran's Water Resources Management Company. (Persian)
  59. Yazdani, S., Mohamadian, F., Taheri, O. and Kalhori, S. (2016). Defining the sustainability indicators and improving the productivity of resources production in cropping pattern in Mahidasht Plain, Kermanshah province: fractional programming approach. Agricultural Economics, 10(1): 115-136. (Persian)
  60. Zamani, O., Sabouhi Sabouni. M. and Nader, H. (2010). Determining the cropping pattern corresponding sustainable agriculture using multi-objective Fuzzy fractional programming: a case of Piranshahar County. Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 20(4): 101-112. (Persian)
  61. Iglesias, E. and Blanco, M. (2008). New directions in water resources management: the role of water-pricing policies. Water Resource Research, 44: 406-417.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 668
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 582


counter
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب