تحلیل گونه‌های ارزشی سبزی‌کاران برای تولید سبزی سالم: مطالعه‌ی شهرستان کرمانشاه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی پایدار و منابع طبیعی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

2 استادیار گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی، پردیس کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران

چکیده

اهداف: شناسایی گونه‌های ارزشی سبزی‌کاران شهرستان کرمانشاه و تبیین نقش آنها در هدایت رفتارتولید سبزی سالم، هدف اصلی این پژوهش بود.
مواد و روش‌ها: ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها پرسشنامه‌ای محقق ساخت در سه بخش بود که پایایی و روایی آن با استفاده از محاسبه‌ی آلفای کرونباخ، نظرسنجی از متخصصان موضوعی و نسبت روایی محتوایی (CVR) تأیید شد. برای دستیابی به اهداف پژوهش از تحلیل واریانس یک‌طرفه، تحلیل همبستگی و تحلیل رگرسیون استفاده شد. داده‌ها در محیط نرم‌افزار PSSVer20 و Excel 2013 تجزیه و تحلیل شدند.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌ها نشان داد که سبزی‌کاران از نظر رفتار تولید سبزی سالم در سه گروه اکولوژیک، میانه‌گرا و متعارف قابل طبقه‌بندی هستند که بین گونه‌های ارزشی آنها از نظر آماری تفاوت معنی‌داری در سطح 01/0 درصد خطا وجود دارد. همچنین، رابطه‌ی مثبت و معنی‌داری بین ارزش‌های سبزی‌کاران و رفتار تولید سبزی سالم توسط آنها وجود دارد. با این وجود، بین ارزش‌های اقتصادی سبزی‌کاران و رفتار تولید سبزی سالم رابطه‌ی معنی‌داری از نظر آماری وجود نداشت ولی جهت این رابطه منفی بود. نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون گام به گام حاکی از آن بود که سه گونه‌ی ارزشی نظری، اجتماعی و دینی در مجموع 1/26 درصد از واریانس رفتار تولید سبزی سالم را تبیین می‌کنند.
نتیجه‌گیری: جدا از پاسخ‌های واکنشی از سوی سازمان‌های اجرایی برای مقابله با تولید سبزی ناسالم، ارزش‌ها از جایگاه ویژه‌ای در هدایت رفتارهای سبزی‌کاران برای تولید سبزی سالم برخوردارند. در بین گونه‌های ششگانه ارزشی سبزیکاران، توجه به ارزش‌های نظری، اجتماعی و دینیِ سبزی‌کاران نتایج بهتری به همراه خواهد داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the value types of vegetable growers in order to safety vegetable production: case study of Kermanshah

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nemat Darabi 1
  • Laleh Salehi 2
  • Ali Asghar Mirakzadeh 3
1 1. M.Sc. of Sustainable Agricultural Extension and Education and Natural Resources, Agriculture Extension and Education Department, College of Agricultural & Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Assistant professor of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
3 Assoc. Prof., of Agricultural Extension and Education Department, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Background & Objective: The purpose of this study was to identifying the different types of vegetable growers' values in Kermanshah and determining those effect on the behavior of safety vegetable production.
Materials & Methods: A researcher-made questionnaire in three sections was the main tool of this study which its reliability and validity were confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Content Validity Ratio (CVR), respectively. The One-Way Anova analysis, Correlation statistic, and regression analysis were used to achieve to the research's aims. Data were analyzed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Excel 2013 software.
Results: The results showed that vegetable growers can be classified into three groups in terms of safety vegetable production behavior: ecological, moderate and conventional. There was a statistically significant difference between their values types at the level of 0.01% error. There was a significant relationship between their different types of values and their safety vegetable production behavior, expected of economic values. Regression output identified that tree types of values including of theoretical, social, and religious in total predicted 26.1% of variances of vegetable growers’ behavior to product safety vegetable.
Conclusion: Apart from the governmental organization reflections to deal with unsafety vegetable production in agricultural sector, vegetable growers’ values play a fundamental role in safety vegetables production. Therefore, considering them in planning processes in relation to agriculture sector can significantly contribute to the safety products and consequently the community health.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • values types
  • safety vegetables
  • sustainable agriculture
  • religious values
  • One-Way Anova analysis
Afshar Jahanshahi A, Brem A and Bhattacharjee A. 2017. Who Takes More Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurial Actions? The Role of Entrepreneurs’ Values, Beliefs and Orientations. Sustainability, 9(10): 1636.
Axsen J and Kurani KS. 2013. Developing sustainability-oriented values: Insights from households in a trial of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Global Environmental Change, 23(1): 70-80.
Bauer D, Arnold, J and Kremer K. 2018. Consumption-intention formation in education for sustainable development: An adapted model based on the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability, 10(10): 3455.
Bilsky W and Hermann D. 2016. Individual values and delinquency: On considering universals in the content and structure of values. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(10): 921-944.
Borg I. 2020. Unfolding persons' personal values in ideal-point and vector models. Personality and Individual Differences, 166: 110206.
Caputo A, Ayoko OB, Amoo N and Menke C. 2019. The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles. Journal of Business Research, 99: 23-36.
Caputo F, Carrubbo L and Sarno D. 2018. The influence of cognitive dimensions on the consumer-SME relationship: a sustainability-oriented view. Sustainability, 10(9): 3238.
Casper JM, McCullough BP and Pfahl ME. 2020. Examining environmental fan engagement initiatives through values and norms with intercollegiate sport fans. Sport Management Review, 23(2): 348-360.
Chan KM, Gould RK and Pascual U. 2018. Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Elsevier, pp. A1-A7.
Chen MF. 2020. Selecting environmental psychology theories to predict people’s consumption intention of locally produced organic foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 44(5): 455-468.
Chirumbolo A, Leone L and Desimoni M. 2016. The interpersonal roots of politics: Social value orientation, socio-political attitudes and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 91: 144-153.
Dumont J, Shen J and Deng X. 2017. Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human resource management, 56(4): 613-627.
Eidi A, Kazemiyeh F, Zarifian S. 2021. Investigation of Factors Affecting Farmers' Attitude toward Sustainable Management of Agricultural Water Resources (Case Study: Wheat Farmers in Maragheh County).Journal of agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 31(2): 361-375. (In Persian).
Gould RK, Pai M, Muraca B and Chan KM. 2019. He ʻike ʻana ia i ka pono (it is a recognizing of the right thing): How one indigenous worldview informs relational values and social values. Sustainability Science, 14(5): 1213-1232.
Hartmann N and Kinneging AA. 2017. Moral values. Routledge.
Hollands GJ and Marteau T M. 2016. Pairing images of unhealthy and healthy foods with images of negative and positive health consequences: Impact on attitudes and food choice. Health Psychology, 35(8): 847.
Ivanova M. 2017. Aesthetic values in science. Philosophy Compass, 12(10): e12433.
Jakkula VS and Wani S. 2018. Zeolites: Potential soil amendments for improving nutrient and water use efficiency and agriculture productivity. Scientific Reviews & Chemical Communications, 8(1): 1-15.
Kempton W, Boster JS and Hartley JA. 1996. Environmental values in American culture. mit Press.
Mahamuni R, Kalyani K and Yadav P. 2015. A simplified approach for making human values central to interaction design. Procedia Manufacturing, 3: 874-881.
McIntyre N, Moore J and Yuan M. 2008. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources, 21(8): 657-670.
Mitin SN, Shukshina LV, Bazhdanova YV, Koretskaya IA and Vasyakin BS. 2017. Value and meaning attitudes as a factor of forming tolerant ethnic consciousness in the multicultural milieu of a higher education institution. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 12(7): 1193-1200.
Monavvarifard F, Baradaran M and Khosravipour B. 2019. Increasing the sustainability level in agriculture and Natural Resources Universities of Iran through students’ engagement in the value Co-creation process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234: 353-365.
Noguero M and Lacombe B. 2016. Transporters involved in root nitrate uptake and sensing by Arabidopsis. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: 1391.
Norozi N, Marzoghi R, Torkzadeh J and Mohamadi M. 2012. A Comparison of the Value System of Dashtestan Schools Principals and Teachers based on Schwartz's Fundamental Values Theory. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 3(10): 99-118.
Oles PK and Hermans HJ. 2010. Allport‐Vernon Study of Values. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology: 1-2.
Park E, Lee S, Lee CK, Kim JS and Kim NJ. 2018. An integrated model of travelers’ pro-environmental decision-making process: The role of the New Environmental Paradigm. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(10): 935-948.
Patil MAB and Chaudhari G. 2019. A Study of Values and Sex Behavior Attitude among Medical College Students in Relation to Socioeconomic Status. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(1): 240.
Petway JR, Lin YP and Wunderlich RF. 2019. Analyzing opinions on sustainable agriculture: Toward increasing farmer knowledge of organic practices in Taiwan-Yuanli Township. Sustainability, 11(14): 3843.
Pizzi S, Moggi S, Caputo F and Rosato P. 2021. Social media as stakeholder engagement tool: CSR communication failure in the oil and gas sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2): 849-859.
Plumecocq. 2018. The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models. Ecology and Society, 23(1).
Porto JB and Ferreira MC. 2017. A Scale of Organizational Values Framed on Schwartz's Theory of Cultural Values1. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32.
Punzo G, Panarello D, Pagliuca MM, Castellano R and Aprile M.C. 2019. Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: A comparison across four EU countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 101: 311-322.
Salam A, Mulye R and Rahman K. 2022. Eating for the soul: a netnographic study of the ethical motives for organic food consumption. British Food Journal, 124 (12): 4868-4887
Salehi L, Monavarifard F, mohamadi Y. 2017. Analysis effect of curriculum components on students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy in Alborz agricultural technical higher education centers. Journal of Agricultural Education Administration Research, 8(39): 16-27. (In Persian).
Schwartz SH. 2007. Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6): 711-728.
Schwartz SH. 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 2307-0919.1116.
Sharma R and Jha M. 2017. Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: Exploring the contextual relationship. Journal of Business Research, 76: 77-88.
Shahedi M, Kadivar M. 2017. Evaluation of Contamination of Fruits and Vegetables with Pathogenic and Toxin Producing Microorganisms in Iran. Strategic Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 2(1): 77-94. (In Persian).
Shen K and Shen H. 2020. Chinese traditional village residents’ behavioural intention to support tourism: an extended model of the theory of planned behaviour. Tourism Review.
Skimina E and Cieciuch J. 2020. Explaining everyday behaviours and situational context by personality metatraits and higher‐order values. European Journal of Personality, 34(1): 29-59.
Smith E, Scarborough P, Rayner M and Briggs AD. 2018. Should we tax unhealthy food and drink?. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 77(3): 314-320.
Sreen N, Purbey S and Sadarangani P. 2018. Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41: 177-189.
Stern PC and Dietz T. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3): 65-84.
Tricase C, Lamonaca E, Ingrao C, Bacenetti J and Giudice AL. 2018. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment between organic and conventional barley cultivation for sustainable agriculture pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 3747-3759.
Touhidinia A. 2004. Ethics, economy, environment. Economic Research, 171: 2.
Urien B and Kilbourne W. 2011. Generativity and self‐enhancement values in eco‐friendly behavioral intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 28(1): 69-90.
Verma VK and Chandra B. 2018. An application of theory of planned behavior to predict young Indian consumers' green hotel visit intention. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 1152-1162.
Xiao J, Zhen Z, Tian L, Su B, Chen H and Zhu AX. 2021. Green behavior towards low-carbon society: Theory, measurement and action. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278:123765.
Yasir N, Mahmood N, Mehmood HS, Rashid O and Liren A. 2021. The Integrated Role of Personal Values and Theory of Planned Behavior to Form a Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intention. Sustainability, 13(16): 9249.