IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i20p13326-d944325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Kartepe Village Production Patterns and Farmer Profiles

Author

Listed:
  • Ehlinaz Torun Kayabaşı

    (Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Arslanbey Campus, University of Kocaeli, Kartepe 41285, Turkey)

  • Şenol Çelik

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Biometry and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Bingöl University, Bingöl 12000, Turkey)

  • Ahmet Emre Demirtaş

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Universty of Sakarya, Serdivan 54050, Turkey)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide necessary agricultural extension support while carrying out agricultural activities by revealing the production patterns and farmer profiles in the villages of the Kartepe district of the Kocaeli province. The farmers registered in the Farmer Registration System (FRS) were taken into account. A total of 260 farmers participated in a two-month study, answering a questionnaire during face-to-face interviews, and the data obtained were evaluated through performing statistical analyses. The data were interpreted by applying frequency tables and the Kruskal-Wallis test. A total of 89.6% of the farmers are male, 10.4% are female, 40.8% are 56 years old and over, and 34.6% are between 45 and 55 years old. In terms of education levels, 61.9%, the highest proportion, graduated from primary school, followed by 15.8% who graduated from secondary and high schools, those who graduated from university with a Bachelor/Associate Degree, and, finally, those who graduated with a postgraduate degree as well as those who are illiterate. A total of 69.2% of the farmers are retired, and 24.7% are workers. The land of 68.8% of the respondents is their own property, and the land of 11.9% of them is common land. This land ranges as follows: 32.7% consists of 1–10 acres and 11–20 acres, and 17.3% consists of 21–30 acres. More than half of the participants (51.9%) produce 4 tons or more of their product annually. The social security coverage of the respondents is as follows: 42.7% SSK, 21.2% Bagkur, and 16.5% Pension Fund. The analyses show that the differences in terms of occupation, land size, property status, number of workers and worker status, social security, the fight against diseases and pests, and the relationships between them are important.

Suggested Citation

  • Ehlinaz Torun Kayabaşı & Şenol Çelik & Ahmet Emre Demirtaş, 2022. "Evaluation of Kartepe Village Production Patterns and Farmer Profiles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13326-:d:944325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13326/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13326/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chunpeng Fan & Donghui Zhang & Cun-Hui Zhang, 2011. "On Sample Size of the Kruskal–Wallis Test with Application to a Mouse Peritoneal Cavity Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 213-224, March.
    2. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    4. Manning, Dale & Rad, Mani Rouhi & Ogle, Stephen, 2022. "Inferring the Supply of GHG Abatement from Agricultural Lands," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322539, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Ohler, Adrienne M. & Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2014. "Does environmental concern change the tragedy of the commons? Factors affecting energy saving behaviors and electricity usage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Huang, Shiyang & Hu, Guiping & Chennault, Carrie & Su, Liu & Brandes, Elke & Heaton, Emily & Schulte, Lisa & Wang, Lizhi & Tyndall, John, 2016. "Agent-based modeling of bioenergy crop adoption and farmer decision-making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1188-1201.
    7. Hana Stojanová & Veronika Blašková & Michaela Lněničková, 2018. "The Importance of Factors Affecting the Entry of Entrepreneurial Subjects to Organic Farming in the Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 66(4), pages 1017-1024.
    8. Dru Montri & Kimberly Chung & Bridget Behe, 2021. "Farmer perspectives on farmers markets in low-income urban areas: a case study in three Michigan cities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    10. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Sarah A. Jacobson, 2016. "Policies with varying costs and benefits: A land conservation classroom game," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 142-160, April.
    11. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    12. Sumaryanto & Sri Hery Susilowati & Fitri Nurfatriani & Herlina Tarigan & Erwidodo & Tahlim Sudaryanto & Henri Wira Perkasa, 2022. "Determinants of Farmers’ Behavior towards Land Conservation Practices in the Upper Citarum Watershed in West Java, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    13. Crudeli, Luca & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Pitoro, Raul, 2022. "Beyond individualistic behaviour: Social norms and innovation adoption in rural Mozambique," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J., 2010. "An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2033-2041, August.
    15. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    16. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    17. Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    18. Mariano Mezzatesta & David A. Newburn & Richard T. Woodward, 2013. "Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 722-742.
    19. Veldstra, Michael D. & Alexander, Corinne E. & Marshall, Maria I., 2014. "To certify or not to certify? Separating the organic production and certification decisions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 429-436.
    20. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13326-:d:944325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.