کاربرد ردپای اکولوژیک چند کارکردی در تحلیل پایداری تولید زعفران در خراسان جنوبی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار توسعه کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران ، ایران

2 مربی بخش مدیریت، اقتصاد و حسابداری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

10.22048/jsat.2019.119069.1290

چکیده

با توجه به اثرات سوء مصرف نهاده‌های خارجی در بخش کشاورزی و وابستگی این بخش به انرژی‌های مستقیم و غیرمستقیم، تحلیل پایداری تولیدات کشاورزی از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار شده است. شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک یک شاخص قوی در تحلیل پایداری است که امروزه در مجامع علمی از آن استفاده می‌شود. این شاخص فضای لازم برای حمایت از یک فعالیت را بوسیله میانگین مساحت لازم برای فراهم آوردن منابع مصرفی و جذب مواد زائد برحسب هکتار جهانی تعیین می‌کند. در این مطالعه با توجه به افزایش قابل ملاحظه تولید زعفران در سال‌های اخیر، پایداری تولید زعفران در استان خراسان جنوبی به عنوان یکی از مهمترین مراکز تولید زعفران کشور بررسی شد. اطلاعات لازم برای این پژوهش از طریق پرسشنامه و مصاحبه رودررو با 396 کشاورز در سال 1396 جمع آوری شد و با توجه به عملکرد و مصرف نهاده در سال‌های مختلف، محاسبات مربوط به پایداری برای سال‌های مختلف اول تا ششم انجام شد. برای این منظور میزان زمین بهره­ور زیستی که به طور مستقیم برای تولید محصول لازم است به عنوان شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک مستقیم و میزان زمین لازم برای جذب مواد زائد حاصل از فرآیند تولید به عنوان ردپای غیر مستقیم در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج مطالعه نشان داد که میانگین شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک غیرمستقیم زعفران 20/0 هکتار جهانی بود که 07/0 به انتشارات داخل مزرعه و 13/0 به انتشارات خارج مزرعه مربوط می‌شد. بیشترین شاخص ردپا به سال اول تولید اختصاص داشت. شاخص ردپای چند کارکردی نشان داد که شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک بر حسب زمین 01/0 هکتار جهانی، برحسب درآمد 63/0 هکتار جهانی و بر حسب عملکرد 003/0 هکتار جهانی است. مقایسه نتایج این مطالعه با نتایج مطالعات دیگر محصولات بخش کشاورزی که در ایران و سایر نقاط جهان انجام شده است نشان داد که تولید زعفران در حالت نسبتاً پایدارتری نسبت به سایر محصولات کشاورزی قرار دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Application of Multifunctional Ecological Footprint in Sustainability Analysis of Saffron Production in Southern Khorasan

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Mohammad Jafar Esfahani 1
  • javad Khazaee 2
1 Assistant Professor of agricultural development, Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran,Iran
2 Instructor of Department of Management, Economics and Accounting, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The ecological footprint (EF) is a strong indicator of sustainability analysis that is used today in scientific communities. The footprint index determines the space required to support an activity by the average area needed to provide resources and absorb waste in term of global hectare (ghaGha). In this study, due to the significant increase in saffron production in recent years, the sustainability of saffron production in southern Khorasan province as one of the most important saffron production centers in the country was investigated. The data for this research was collected through questionnaires and interviews with the 396 farmers in 2017. According to the different yield and consumption of inputs in different years, sustainability investigation was carried out for the first to sixth years. For this purpose, the amount of bioproductve land directly required for the production of the saffron was considered as an indicator of the direct ecological footprint and the amount of bioproductve land needed to absorb the waste generated by the production process as indirect ecological footprint. The results of this study showed that the average indirect EF of saffron was 2.02 global hectare (ghaGha), which 0.07 was related to on farm and 0.13 gha Gha was related to off farm emission. The highest EF was allocated to the first year of production.
The multi-functional ecological footprint showed that the EF land was 0.01 gha, EF revenue 0.63 gha Gha and EF yield was 0.003 ghaGha. Comparing the results of this study with the results of other agricultural sector studies conducted in Iran and elsewhere in the world showed thatGeneraly it seems that saffron production is relatively sustainable farming compared to other agricultural productscrops.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Saffron
  • Ecological Footprint
  • Global hectare
  • equevalant factor
  • Greenhouse gas
 
 
 
Alhajj Ali, S., Tedone, L., and De Mastro, G. 2013. A comparison of the energy consumption of rainfed durum wheat under different management scenarios in southern Italy. Energy 61: 308-318.
Agriculture Jihad Organization Statistics of South Khorasan Province. 2017. The MAJ Database. Available at Web site http://www.maj.ir. (Verified 5 November 2017).
Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F.M., Castellini, C., Granai, C., Dal Bosco, A., and Brunetti, M. 2007. Emergy evaluation and the management of systems towards sustainability: A response to Sholto Maud. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 120: 472-474.
Cerutti, A., Beccaro, G.L., Bagliani, M., Donno, D., and Bounous, G. 2013. Multifunctional ecological footprint analysis for assessing eco-efficiency: A case study of fruit production systems in Northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 40: 108-117.
Cerutti, A.K., Bagliani, M., Beccaro, G.L., and Bounous, G. 2010. Application of ecological footprint analysis on nectarine production: methodological issues and results from a case study in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (10): 771-776.
Cerutti, A.K., Bruun, S., Beccaro, G.L., and Bounous, G. 2011. A review of studies applying environmental impact assessment methods on fruit production systems. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (10): 2277-2286.
EPA, 2016. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Esengun, K., Gündüz, O., and Erdal, G. 2007. Input–output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management 48 (2): 592-598.
Esfahani, S.M.J., Naderi Mahdei, K., Saadi, H., and Dourandish, A. 2017. Efficiency and sustainability of silage corn production by data envelopment analysis and multi-functional ecological footprint: evidence from Sarayan county, Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 19 (7): 1453-1468.
Fang, K., Heijungs, R., and de Snoo, G.R. 2014. Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint family. Ecological Indicators 36: 508-518.
Ferng, J.J. 2005. Local sustainable yield and embodied resources in ecological footprint analysis—a case study on the required paddy field in Taiwan. Ecological Economics 53 (3): 415-430.
Giljum, S., Burger, E., Hinterberger, F., Lutter, S., and Bruckner, M. 2011. A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (3): 300-308.
González-Vallejo, P., Marrero, M., and Solís-Guzmán, J. 2015. The ecological footprint of dwelling construction in Spain. Ecological Indicators 52: 75-84.
Holmberg, J., Lundqvist, U., Robèrt, K.-H., and Wackernagel, M. 1999. The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6 (1): 17-33.
Houshyar, E., Dalgaard, T., Tarazkar, M.H., and Jørgensen, U. 2015. Energy input for tomato production what economy says, and what is good for the environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 89: 99-109.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hungerbühler, K., and Hendriks, A.J. 2008. Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycleassessment o f products. Ecological Economics 64 (4): 708-897.
IEEO. 2015. Energy balance sheet, Iran Energy efficiency organisation.
Kanitschar, C., Gassner, A., and  Brunner, P. H. 2014. Combining the analysis of resource demand and Ecological Footprint. 28th EnviroInfo 2014 Conference. Oldenburg, Germany.
Khanali, M., Movahedi, M., Yousefi, M., Jahangiri, S., and Khoshnevisan, B. 2016. Investigating energy balance and carbon footprint in saffron cultivation – a case study in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 115: 162-171.
Koocheki, A., Karbasi, A., and Seyyedi, M. 2017. Some reasons for saffron yield loss over the last 30 years period (Review Article). Saffron Agronomy and Technology 5 (2): 107-122.
Lenzen, M., and Murray, S.A. 2003. The Ecological Footprint – Issues and Trends. The University of Sydney, Sydney.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., and Deumling, D. 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy 21 (3): 231-246.
Naderi Mahdei, K., Bahrami, A., Aazami, M., and Sheklabadi, M. 2015. Assessment of agricultural farming systems sustainability in Hamedan province using ecological footprint analysis (Case study: irrigated wheat). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 17 (6): 1409-1420.
Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Pulselli, R.M., Borsa, S., and Marchettini, N. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 128 (3): 162-166.
Nguyen, T.L.T., and Hermansen, J.E. 2012. System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production. Applied Energy 89 (1): 254-261.
Passeri, N., Borucke , M., Blasi , E., Franco , S., and  Lazarus , E. 2103. The influence of farming technique on cropland: A new approach for the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Indicators 29: 1-5.
Ruviaro, C.F., Gianezini, M., Brandão, F.S., Winck, C.A., and Dewes, H. 2012. Life cycle assessment in Brazilian agriculture facing worldwide trends. Journal of Cleaner Production 28: 9-24.
Saadi, H., and Esfehani, S.M.J. 2015. Job burnout in employees of Agricultural Jahad Organization of Southern Khorasan province application of job demand-control- social support model. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research 46 (3): 599-608.
Sands, G.R., and Podmore, T.H. 2000. A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79 (1): 29-41.
Snyder, C.S., Bruulsema, T.W., Jensen, T.L., Fixen, P.E. 2009. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133 (3-4): 247-266.
Van der Werf, H.M.G., Kanyarushoki, C., and Corson, M.S. 2009. An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (11): 3643-3652.
Yilmaz, I., Akcaoz, H., and Ozkan, B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30 (2): 145-155.
     Zadehrahim, S., radad, I., and  behzadi, H. 201). A Comparative Study of information searching behavior of elite saffron farmers with that of normal saffron farmers in South Khorasan province. Saffron Agronomy and Technology 4 (4): 313-334.