تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران

تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران

ارزشگذاری اقتصادی محصولات ارگانیک، کاربرد رهیافت ترجیحات اظهارشده (مطالعه موردی: گوجه ارگانیک دشت مَرغاب)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
احمد فتاحی 1
محمد هاشمی 2
1 دانشگاه اردکان
2 دانشجو
10.22059/ijaedr.2016.59706
چکیده
در سال­های اخیر افزایش آگاهی مردم نسبت به زیان مصرف محصولات متداول که در جریان تولید آن­ها از کود و سموم شیمیایی استفاده می­شود از یک سو و نیز فواید استفاده از کشت ارگانیک برسلامت و محیط زیست از سوی دیگر، باعث افزایش تقاضا برای محصولات ارگانیک شده است. با توجه به کاهش عملکرد محصول در کشت ارگانیک به دلیل عدم استفاده از مواد شیمیایی برآورد  تمایل به پرداخت مصرف­کنندگان جهت بررسی بازار این محصولات و برآورد ارزش کل اقتصادی محصول مورد نظر ضروری به نظر می­رسد. در این مطالعه تعداد 400 پرسشنامه از ساکنان شهرستان‌ دشت مَرغاب و به­صورت نمونه‌گیری تصادفی در سال 1394 جمع‌آوری شد. نتایج به دست آمده از برآورد مدل لوجیت نشان می‌دهد که  25/70 درصد از مصرف کنند­گان حاضرند مبلغ بالاتری جهت خرید گوجه ارگانیک نسبت به گوجه معمولی بپردازند. در نهایت، مشخص گردید که مصرف­کنند­گان حاضر به خرید هر کیلوگرم گوجه ارگانیک به ارزش ریالی34700 هستند، و ارزش کل اقتصادی گوجه ارگانیک در منطقه با توجه به افت عملکرد در مرحله گذار از کشت متداول به کشت ارگانیک با توجه به افت عملکرد ناشی از تغییرسیستم کشت، بیش از 487 میلیارد ­­ریال تعیین گردید. هم­چنین، با توجه به سطح زیر کشت، ارزش اقتصادی هر هکتار گوجه ارگانیک در بازار فرضی شکل گرفته از طرف تقاضا برابر با 6/1میلیارد ریال برآورد گردید.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ارگانیک
محیط‌زیست
تمایل به پرداخت
بازار
الگوی لوجیت

عنوان مقاله English

The Economic Valuation Of Organic Products, Application Of Stated Preferences Approach (Case Study: Organic tomatoes of Dasht-e Marghab)

نویسنده English

ahmad fatahi 1
1 university
چکیده English

In recent years, increased public awareness of the detriment of consuming common products, during whose production chemical fertilizers and pesticides are used, on the one hand, and the benefits of organic farming for health and environment, on the other hand, have caused an increase in the demand for organic products. Due to the yield loss in product in organic farming because of the lack of the use of chemicals, the estimation of the consumers' willingness to pay, for surveying the market of these products, and estimating the total economic value of the desired product, seem necessary. In this study, 400 questionnaires were collected from the residents of Dasht-e Marghab County, through random sampling method, in 2015. Results of the estimate logit model show that 70.25% of consumers are willing to pay more for buying organic tomatoes rather than ordinary tomatoes. Finally, it was determined that consumers are willing to buy each kilogram of organic tomatoes for 34,700 rials, and the total economic value of organic tomatoes in the region, considering the yield loss in transition from conventional farming to organic farming, due to the yield loss proceeding from the change in farming system, was determined over 487 billion rials. Also, according to the cultivated area, the economic value per hectare of tomatoes (organic) in a hypothetical market, formed from the demand side, was estimated equal to 1.6 billion rials.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Organic
environment
willingness to pay
Market
Logit Model
  1. Abedi, Z., Fattahi Ardakani, A., Hanifnejad, A.R. & Dashti Rahmatabadi, N. (2014). Groundwater valuation and quality preservation in Iran: The Case of Yazd. Interntional Journal of Environemental Research, 8(1): 213-220.
  2. Akgungor, S., Miran, B. & Abay, C. (2007). Consumer willingness to pay for organic products in Urban Turkey. European Association of Agricultural Economists. Bologna, Italy.
  3. Bateman, I. J., Langford, I. H., Turner, R. K., Willis, K.G.  & Garrod, G. D. (1995). Elicitation and Truncation Affects in Contingent Valuation Studies, 12  (2): 161-179.
  4. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. (1947). Capital returns from soil-conservation practices. Journal Farm Economics, 29(11): 81-96.
  5. Fattahi, A. (2013a). Economic valuation of the balminess of natural resources in dry climates: Case Study: Chack-Chack Tourism Region in Yazd. Agricultural Economics and Development, 91-111. (In Farsi)
  6. ­Fattahi A. (2013b). Principles of Economic Valuation of Natural Resources. Ardakan University Press. (In Farsi)
  7. Ghorbani, M., Koochaki, A. & Mahmoodi, H. (2009).Virtual Estimation of Wheat Yield in the Conditions of Organic Production; Khorasan Razavi Province. Environmental Sciences, 23-30. (In Farsi)
  8. Greene, W. (2002). Econometric analysis. Macmillan, New York, USA.
  9. Gündüz, O. &  Bayramoğlu, Z. (2011). Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken meat in Samsun province of Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 10(3): 334-340.

10. Haghjou, M., Hayati, B., Mohammadrezaei, R., Pishbahar, A. & Dashti, G. (2011). Factors Affecting Consumers' Potential Willingness to Pay a Premium for Safe Food Products (Case Study: Agricultural Administration of East Azerbaijan) Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science, 105-117. (In Farsi)

11. Hanemann W. M. (1994). Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation. Journal  of  Economic Perspectives,  8(4) :19-43.

12. Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiment with discrete responses. American Journal of Agriculture Economics 71, 332-341.

  1. Hatirli, S. A., Ozkan, B. & Fert, K. (2005). An econometric analysis of energy input-output in Turkish agriculture, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,  9, 62-608
  2. Judge, G. G., Hill, R. C., Griffithes, W., Lutkepohl, H. &  Lee, T. C. (1988). The theory and practice of econometrics. (2nd edition), Wiley, New York. USA.
  3. Kaamkaar, B. & Mahdavi Damghani A. (2008).­ The Principles of Sustainable Agriculture, Jahad Daneshgahi Mashhad Press. (In Farsi)
  4. Koochaki,  A., Mansoori, H., Ghorbani, M. &  Rajabzadeh, M. (2012). A study on the factors affecting the willingness to consume organic products in Mashhad County. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development (3), 188-194. (In Farsi)
  5. Koocheki, A. (2004). Organic agriculture: Opportunity and challenges. Cultural science Letter, 24-25, 55-95.
  6. Vanloo,E. V., Caputo,V., Nayga, R.M.J.R., Meullent, C. & Ricke, C. (2011). Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Chicken Breast: Evidence for Choice Experiment; Food Quality and Preference,  22, 603-613.
  7. Mafi, H., Saleh, A. & Hoseini, S S. (2012). The Estimation of Willingness to Pay for Organic Products, Case Study; Vegetables and Cucumbers in Gilan and Tehran Provinces. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, (1) 11-18. (In Farsi)
  8. McFadden, D. (1994). Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 689-708.
  9. Mitchell, R.C., & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington DC, 462 pp.
  10. Park, T. &  Loomis, j. (1996). Joint Estimation of Contingent Valuation Survey Responses. Environment and Resource Economics, 7, 149-162
  11. Purmozaffar S H., Laiani Q., Shahabi Ahangarkolaey, S. & Rafiey, H. (2014). Estimating the consumers’ willingness to pay in order to take advantage of organic tomatoes: Application of Heckman's two stage method; Study sample: Organic Cucumber in Mazandaran Province. Environment Research, 5, 97-108. (In Farsi)
  12. Seufert ,V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J.A.(2012) . Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. doi: 10.1038/nature11069  .
  13. Tagbata, D. & Sirieix, L. (2008). Measuring consumer’s willingness to pay for organic and Fair Trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 479–490
  14. Vanloo, V., Caputo, M., Nayga, J.R., Meullent, C. & Ricke, C. (2011). Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic Chicken Breast: Evidence for Choice Experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 22: 603-613.
  15. Vatn, A. (2004). Environmental valuation and Rationality. Land Economics, 80, 1-18.
  16. Venkatachalam, L. (2003). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 89-124.

تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران
دوره 47، شماره 2
تابستان 1395
صفحه 325-334