Breakdown Surfaces Environmental Concerns Rural on Social Variables: Application of Two-Dimensional Logistic Model

Document Type : Research Paper


1 - Phd student agricultural extension in Tehran University

2 Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Tehran University

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Tehran University


The natural resources of any community are the wealth of there that not only do belong to the current generation, but also are heritages that would belong to the futures and are one of the inherent bases from human beings life. Revival natural resources are the widest resources of the environment from the earth and for their role which have in control of surface water, conflict with air pollution, conflict with soil erosion and maintenance and produce of it, prevention from sound pollution of environment, , reduction of climate in one region, prevention from earth .., produces of drug and industrial materials and the balance of hesitancies, are the basic factors in the process of sustainable development. For this reason, preserve, recovery and correct exploitation from these areas is considered the constitute duties of international institutions, governments, non-governmental organizations, local constitutions and nature friends. While per 1 min, 200tons of soil from the surface of farms and jungles is sent to seas, lakes and the back of dams per minute. In fact,annually consistentlyabout 20 tons per hectare of soil are washed by effect of water erosion in Iran which means the loss of 76 kg nitrogen, 24 kg phosphor and 8 kg potash per hectare and if we calculate the price of nutrition in soil, we will lose annually about 7.6 million $ of micronutrients inside the soil. In present conditions, success of environmental organizations in disseminating preservation innovations of environment and much more exploitation of preserve operations for developing countries require the existence a type of reality attitude and yet is holistic and systemic to influential factors on environmental behavior in acceptance of conservation innovations which this study follows that.
World countries during the past and present centuries, have reached to tremendous progresses and achievements by using new techniques and by relying on inexpensive natural resources in the field of food supply. However, these achievements have also lead to erosion and lose to environment and natural resources so that in present conditions, environmental destruction and change of jungle lands to farmlands, soil erosion and pollution of water resources by the effect of chemicals abuse and … have taken more critical aspects. Regarding to this case, analysis of factors and involved components in people behavior causing the emergence of such irreparable damages to environment is more important. Human behavior consists of a set of behaviors indicated by human beings that affected of cultures, attitudes, feelings, values, ethics, relation, persuasion, wrath, and heritage science. Human brain phenomena should be divided to 3 types of phenomenon i.e. information and cognitive phenomenon, empirical, religious, and conscience phenomena, and movement and behavioral phenomenon. The most obvious type of life phenomenon is behavioral phenomenon that is clearly observable and assessable. Two other kinds of phenomena are the component of hidden phenomena of human life. The villager's behavior should be modified on environment and there is not any other solution though originally many people believe that the nature and environment should be maintained but implementation and doing protective plan counterpart with resistance from them.
Environmental concern is increasing around the world. Environmental concerns, it appears as a auras to change the behavior, so that the study of environmental concern for the environmental behavior of people is very important. Some researchers have environmental concerns as an assessment or attitude of the facts, behavior or conduct oneself treat others with implications for the environment. Currently, environmental concerns are as one of the aspects of environmental attitudes. This specifically refers to those who are concerned about environmental issues. Success requires environmental protection programs, recognizing the different aspects of human behavior and the factors affecting it. Thus, the theoretical framework of this study is as follows:
Materials & Methods
Statistical population was including families of Ardabil province which were 109679 households. Applying Cokeran formula and a random sampling method, the appropriate sample for this study was calculated 250 households. The main instrument of the study for data collection was questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed based on the literature review and constructed to meet the objectives of the study. This questionnaire consisted of three sections: personal and professional characteristics of respondents, social factors and environmental concerns. Face validity of this questionnaire was approved by a panel of experts and reliability of which was measured by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, a measure of internal consistency.  To examine the reliability of the questionnaire a pilot study was conducted on 30 residents in Ardabil province and Coronbach’s Alpha for the items of Likert type scales were calculated. The results show that an appropriate internal consistency was among the items of each scale.
Score environmental concerns based on the mean of the sample was divided into two levels of favorable and unfavorable. Data processing for binomial logistic regression was used.
Ln (p/ (1-p) = Intercept + b1×X1 + b2×X2 + ... + bK × Xk
Discussion of Results
Results showed that most rural have favorable environmental concerns. Analyzes of the effects the rural social variables on environmental concerns, Logit two-dimensional test was used for this purpose. Between the social variables, respectively variables social welfare and membership in groups and fronts high strength breakdown of rural have environmental concerns.
(X2) 0.054+ (X1)0.104-0.064  = Ln (p/ (1-p)
Where P probability of superior environmental concern, X1 is equal to membership in groups and fronts and X2 is equal to social welfare. Based on these results was determined the most important variable affecting the breakdown surfaces concerns about the environmental, social welfare is a variable that is the coefficient B equal to 0.054 and the coefficient Exp. (B) is equal to 1.132. Was also identified variable membership in groups and fronts that is the coefficient B equal to -0.104 and the coefficient Exp. (B) is equal to 0.901.
A major factor in shaping environmental hazards is human. Between the social variables "social cohesion, social welfare, social interaction, social status, job satisfaction, environmental education, membership in groups and fronts, participate in conservation programs and information seeking behavior," social welfare varies greatly influence there are other variables than on environmental concerns. In other words, the sense of security and peace in life, hope for a better life in the future than in the present, Appropriateness of income with occupation, Rate feeling of satisfaction and happiness in life and rate sense about progress and success in life is high, rural concerned about environmental changes that resulted in the loss of it will be. Membership in groups and fronts is another variable that has a negative impact on environmental concerns. In other words, membership in groups and fronts, with the synergy of the scattered forces can reduce the effectiveness of the public concerns will follow. The present study is environmental concerns herself expressed in are measured. Is suggested that in research separate this variable real behavior to be considered .


Main Subjects

آرایش، محمدباقر و فرج اله حسینی، سیدجمال.1390. تحلیلرگرسیونیعواملموثربرمشارکتمردمدرحفظ،احیاء،توسعه وبهرهبرداریمنابعطبیعیتجدیدشوندهازدیدگاهکارشناسانمنابعطبیعیاستانایلام. نشریه اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی( علوم صنایع کشاورزی)، جلد2، شماره1. 49-58.
شریفی، امید؛ رضایی، روح اله و برومند، ناصر .1390. بررسی عوامل موثر بر پایداری نظام کشت گلخانه ای در منطقه جیرفت و کهنوج. مجله تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران، دوره 2-42، شماره 1. 152-143.
احمدوند، مصطفی و نوری پور، مهدی .1389. نگرش زیست محیطی دانشجویان کشاورزی دانشگاه یاسوج (تحلیل جنسیتی). مجله علوم ترویج و آموزش کشاورزی ایران، جلد6، شماره 2.
پور، سمیرا و سعادت یار، فهیمه سادات .1390. بررسی ارتباط میان نگرش ها و نیات رفتاری مسئولانه زیست محیطی. پنجمین همایش ملی بحرانهای زیست محیطی ایران و راهکارهای بهبود آنها 14 و 15 اردیبهشت ماه 1390دانشگاه آزاداسلامی- واحد علوم و تحقیقات خوزستان.
مرکز آمار ایران. 1391. سرشماری جمعیت خانوارهای روستایی. قابل دسترسی در:
Ahn, J. M., Koo, D. M. and Chang, H. S. 2012. Different impacts of normative influences on pro-environmental. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science. 22( 2), 163–182.
Agresti, A. (2012). Categorical data analysis. Wiley, 3 editions. 744 pages.
Bayard, B. and Jolly, C. M. 2007. Environmental Perceptions and Behavioral Change of Hillside Farmers: The Case of Haiti. Journal of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society (CAES). 7 (1). 122-138.
Bickerstaff, K .2004. Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International Journal. 30:827–840.
Blake, J. 1999. Overcoming the ‘value–action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Journal of Local Environment, 4(3), 257–278.
Bluemling, B. Yong, H. and Mosler, H.J. 2010. Adoption of agricultural water conservation practices – a question of individual or collective behavior? The case of the North China Plain. Journal of Outlook on Agriculture. 39(1), 7–16.
Brehm, J. Eisenhauer, B. and Krannich, R .2006. Community attachments as predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. Environment Behavior Journal, 37(2):237–257.
Brown, G. Harris, G. and Reed, P .2002. Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Applied Geography Journal. 22(1):49–76.
Clark, C. F. Kotchen, M. J. and Moore, M. R. 2003. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (2003), 237–246.
Clearfield, F. and Osgood, B. T. 1986. Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Washington, D.C.
Dietz, T. Stern, P. and Guagnano, G. 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases for environmental concern. Environment Behavior Journal, 30(4):450–471.
Dunlap, R.E. and Jones, R.E. 2002. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues”, In Dunlap RE and Michelson W (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 482- 524.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press (2002).
Fransson, N, T. Gärling .1999. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods and Research Findings”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382 (1999).
Gangadharappa, H.V, Pramod, K.T.M, and Shiva, K.H.G. 2007.Gastric floating drug delivery systems: a review. Indian J. Pharm. Ed. Res. 41, 295–305.
Givens, J. E and Jorgenson, A. K., 2011. The effects of affluence, economic development, and environmental degradation on environmental concern:a multilevel analysis. Organization & Environment 24, 74–91.
Givens, J. E and Jorgenson, A. K., 2013. Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Social Science Research, 42 (2013) 418–431.
Kalantari, Kh. and Asadi, A. 2010. Designing a structural model for explaining environmental attitude and behavior of urban residents (Case of Tehran). International Journal of Environmental Research, 4 (2), 309-320.
Kalantari, Kh. Shabanali Fami, H. Asadi, A and Movahed Mohammadi, H. 2007. Investigating Factors Affecting Environmental Behavior of Urban Residents: A Case Study in Tehran City- Iran. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3 (2): 67-74.
Krywkow, J. and Hare, M. 2008. Participatory process management. International Congress on Environmental Modeling and Software, EMSs, pp. 888-899.
Lichtenberg, E. and Zimmerman, R. 1999. Information and farmers’ attitudes about pesticides, water quality, and related environmental effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 73(3), 227-236.
Masuda, J. and Garvin, T. 2006. Place, culture and the social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis Journal, 26(2):437–454.
Mendoza, C.C. 2006. Factors influencing participation in environmental stewardship programs: A case study of the Agricultural and forestry sectors in Louisiana, USA. A Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University, USA, pp: 10-25.
Millfont, T. l; Duckitt, J. and Cameron, L. D. 2006. A cross-cultural study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for pro environmental behavior. Journal of environmental and behavior. Vol. 38, No. 6. 745-767.
Mohai, P. Simoes, S and Brechin, S. R., 2010. Environmental concerns, values and meanings in the Beijing and Detroit metropolitan areas. International Sociology 25 (6), 778–817.
Munasib, A. B. and Jordan, J. L. 2006. Are Friendly Farmers Environmentally Friendly? Environmental Awareness as a Social Capital Outcome. Annual Meetings, Southern Agricultural Economic Association Orlando, Florida, 2006.
Sattler, C. and Nagel, U. J.  2010. Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures: A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy, 27(1), 70–77.