2
nd
ICSAE 2015
International Conference on
Sustainable Agriculture and
Environment Proceeding Book
© Her hakkı saklıdır. Bu kitabın tamamı yada bir kısmı, yazarlarının izni olmaksızın,
elektronik, mekanik, fotokopi yada herhangi bir kayıt sistemi ile çoğaltılamaz,
yayınlanamaz, depolanamaz.
Bu kitaptaki bilgilerin her türlü sorumluluğu yazarına aittir.
Editör
Mithat D
İREK
ISBN: 978 - 605 - 9119 - 30 - 6
Aybil Yayınevi Sertifika No: 31790
Aybil Basımevi Sertifika No: 31790
www.aybilonline.com
Baskı & Cilt:
AYBİL DİJİTAL BASKI REKLAM MÜHENDİSLİK
TURİZM SANAYİ VE TİCARET LİMİTED ŞİRKETİ
Ferhuniye Mh. Sultanşah Cd. No:30/A KONYA
Tel: 0.332 350 21 71 Fax: 0.332 350 71 21
Honorary Committee
Prof. Hakkı Gökbel, President, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
Prof. Ir. Ahmad Yunus, Director, Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia Prof. Dean L. Bresciani, President, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Dr. Masum BURAK, General Director, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies Turkey
Dr. Mahmoud Solh, General Director, ICARDA, Beirut, Lebanon
Conference Chair
Dr. Mithat Direk, Agricultural Economy, Selcuk University, Turkey
Conference Co-Chair
Dr. Halis Simsek, Agricultural&Biosystems Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Organizing Committee (in alphabetical order)
Dr. Arzu Kan, Rural Development, Selcuk University, Turkey Dr. Bilal Acar, Irrigation, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Kubilay Baştaş, Plant Protection, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Komariah Kokom, Soil Science, Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
N. Kursat Akbulut, Veterinarian, Bahri Dagdas International Agricultural Research Institute-Konya-Turkey Dr. Muhammed Kamil Öden, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Mustafa Kan, Agricultural Economy, Bahri Dagdas International Agricultural Research Institute-Konya-Turkey
Dr. Richard Horsley, Department Head, Plant Science, North Dakota State University, USA Oktay OKUR, Bahri Dagdas International Agricultural Research Institute-Konya-Turkey
Zafer ARISOY, Agronomist, Bahri Dagdas International Agricultural Research Institute-Konya-Turkey
Conference Secretary
Dr. Gul Ülke, Bahri Dagdas International Agricultural Research Institute-Konya-Turkey
Scientific Committee (in alphabetical order) Dr. Ahmad Muhammed Ahmed, Agribusiness & Applied Economic, Tanta University, Egypt Dr. Alex Morgounov, CIMMYT Turkey Coordinator, Ankara, Turkey
Dr. Ali Osman SARI, Deputy General Director, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies Turkey
Dr. Amir Khalaf Aziz Al-Darwash, Nutrition&Food Technology, University of Baghdad, Iraq
Dr. Bahri Ozsisli, Food Science, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Turkey
Dr. Bilal Cemek, Agricultural &Biosystems Engineering, Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey Dr. Bonga Zuma, Goadex Engineering and Water Science, Rhodes University, South Africa
Dr. Cennet Oğuz, Agricultural Economy, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Cevdet Şeker, Dean, College of Agriculture, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Chaiwat Rongsayamanont, Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Thailand
Dr. Darlina Md. Naim, Biological Sciences, University Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Dr. David M. Saxowsky, Agribusiness & Applied Economic, North Dakota State University, USA Dr. Eakalak Khan, Civil & Environmental Engineering, North Dakota State University, USA Dr. Elias M. Elias, Plant Science, North Dakota State University, USA
Dr. Felix Arion, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Romania
Dr. Fikrettin Şahin, Genetic Engineering, Yeditepe University, Turkey
Dr. Ganesh Bora, Agricultural &Biosystems Engineering, North Dakota State University, USA Dr. Gary A. Anderson, Agricultural &Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State University, USA Dr. Latif Kalin, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, USA
Dr. M.Musa Ozcan, Vice President, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. M. Tariq Javed, Veterinary Medicine, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Dr. Mehmet Isleyen, Environmental Engineering, Bursa Technical University, Turkey
Dr. Mehmet Kobya, Environmental Engineering, Gebze Technical University, Turkey
Dr. Mesut KESER, ICARDA Turkey Coordinator, Ankara, Turkey
Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,Pakistan
Dr. Muhammad Subhan Qureshi, Dean, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan
Dr. Orhan Ozçatalbaş, Rural Development & Extension, Akdeniz University, Antalya
Dr. Probang Setyono, Environmental-Expert, Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
Dr. Rabha Bennama, Biology, University of Mostaganem, Algeria
Dr. Rudi Hari Murti, Vice Dean of Academic and Student Affairs, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia Dr. Said Wahab, Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture Peshawar, Pakistan Dr. Şenay Şimşek, Plant Science, North Dakota State University, USA
Dr. Shafiqur Rahman, Agricultural &Biosystems Engineering, North Dakota State University, USA Dr. Shazia Shafique, Plant Pathology, University of the Punjab, Pakistan
Dr. Sherin Ahmed Sherif, Economics & Agribusiness, Alexandria University, Egypt
Dr. Sobiya Shafique, Mycology &Plant Pathology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Dr. Şükrü Dursun, Environmental Engineering, Selcuk University, Turkey
Dr. Sutrisno Hadi Purnomo, Agribusiness, Sebelas Maret University Solo, Indonesia
Dr. Widyatmani Sih Dewi, Agricultural Technology, Sebelas Maret University, Indonesia
Abdallah Likava, Biochemistry, Mtwara, Tanzania Ahmad Said, Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Pakistan
Haroun Chenchouni, Ecology, University of Tebessa, Algeria
Reza Kamrani, Horticulture Science, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Keynote Speakers
Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Avni ÖKTEM
Nanobiotechnology: Potential Applications in Agriculture & Environmental Sciences
Konya Food and Agriculture University, Turkey
Prof. Sreekala G. Bajwa
Precision Agriculture at NDSU - Meeting Local Needs and Contributing to Global Food Security
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering North Dakota State University, USA
Prof. Amir M.H. Ibrahim
Breeding Wheat for Sustainable Production Systems
Texas A&M University, USA
Prof. Dr. Kenan PEKER Computational Science of Sustainability
Selcuk University, Konya, TURKEY
Prof. Dr. Eric Strausse Sustainable Land Management
School of Planning, Design and Construction Michigan State University, USA
Dr. Ronchi Cesare
Barilla Sustainable Farming Activities and Milano Protocol
PREFACE
Sustainable agriculture is "a way of practicing agriculture which seeks to optimize skills and technology to achieve long-term stability of the agricultural enterprise, environmental protection, and consumer safety. It is achieved through management strategies which help the producer select hybrids and varieties, soil conserving cultural practices, soil fertility programs, crop rotations, weed, pest and disease biological management programs, and strategic use of animal and green manures and use of natural or synthetic inputs in a way that poses no significant hazard to man, animals, or the environment. The system is envisioned in its broadest sense, from the individual farm, to the local ecosystem, and to communities affected by this farming system both locally and globally. The goal of sustainable agriculture is to minimize adverse impacts to the immediate and off-farm environments while providing a sustained level of production and profit. Sound resource conservation is an integral part of the means to achieve sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals--environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. A variety of philosophies, policies and practices have contributed to these goals. People in many different capacities, from farmers to consumers, have shared this vision and contributed to it. Despite the diversity of people and perspectives, the following themes commonly weave through definitions of sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agriculture presents an opportunity to rethink the importance of family farms and rural communities. Economic development policies are needed that encourage more diversified agricultural production on family farms as a foundation for healthy economies in rural communities. In combination with other strategies, sustainable agriculture practices and policies can help foster community institutions that meet employment, educational, health, cultural and spiritual needs. By helping farmers to adopt practices that reduce chemical use and conserve scarce resources, sustainable agriculture research and education can play a key role in building public support for agricultural land preservation. Educating land use planners and decision-makers about sustainable agriculture is an important priority.
Consumers can play a critical role in creating a sustainable food system. Through their purchases, they send strong messages to producers, retailers and others in the system about what they think is important. Food cost and nutritional quality have always influenced consumer choices. The challenge now is to find strategies that broaden consumer perspectives, so that environmental quality, resource use, and social equity issues are also considered in shopping decisions. At the same time, new policies and institution must be created to enable producers using sustainable practices to market their goods to a wider public.
We are yet a long way from knowing just what methods and systems in diverse locations will really lead to sustainability. In many regions of the country, however, and for many crops, the particular mix of methods that will allow curtailing use of harmful farm chemicals or building crop diversity, while also providing economic success, are not yet clear. The stage is set for challenging not only farm practitioners, but also researchers, educators, and farm industry.
New policies are needed to simultaneously promote environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. For example, commodity and price support programs could be restructured to allow farmers to realize the full benefits of the productivity gains made possible through alternative practices. Government and land grant university research policies could be modified to emphasize the development of sustainable alternatives. Marketing orders and cosmetic standards could be amended to encourage reduced pesticide use. Coalitions must be created to address these policy concerns at the local, regional, and national level. In addition to strategies for preserving natural resources and changing production practices, sustainable agriculture requires a commitment to changing public policies, economic institutions, and social values. Strategies for change must take into account the complex, reciprocal and ever-changing relationship between agricultural production and the broader society. Critical discussion of the sustainable agriculture concept will and should continue. Understanding will deepen; answers will continue to come. On-going dialog is important for another reason: with more parties, each with its own agenda, jumping into the sustainable agriculture "tent," only a continued focus on the real issues and goals will keep sustainable agriculture from becoming so all-encompassing as to become meaningless.
Finally, it is important to point out that reaching toward the goal of sustainable agriculture is the responsibility of all participants in the system, including farmers, laborers, policymakers, researchers, retailers, and consumers. Each group has its own part to play, its own unique contribution to make to strengthen the sustainable agriculture community.
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
I
Contents
THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF WHEAT SUPPLY NETWORK AND STAKEHOLDERS’ ACTIVITIES
IN KONYA ... 1
FOOD INSECURITY IN AFRICA IN TERMS OF CAUSES, EFFECTS AND SOLUTIONS: A CASE STUDY OF
NIGERIA ... 6
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF SOME DIMENSIONS FOR THE FUTURE VISION OF AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT IN EGYPT ... 12
THE REFLECTIONS OF THE EGYPTIAN AGRICULTURAL AND ECONOMIC POLICIES ON PRODUCTION
AND THE FEDDAN COSTS FOR THE WHEAT CROP ... 17
SERICULTURE IN ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AREAS IN TURKEY AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO
SUSTAINABILITY OF SECTOR ... 26
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND RURAL WOMAN ... 34
THE COMPARISON OF PEST MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATION
NETWORKS FOR ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL HAZELNUT PRODUCERS IN SAMSUN PROVINCE OF
TURKEY ... 38
FOOD SECURITY AND FAMILY PLANNING IN OYO STATE, NIGERIA... 49
ORTAK TARIM POLITIKASI VE GELIŞMELER ... 64
RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ADOPTION OF FARMING HOUSEHOLDS IN KWARA STATE OF
NIGERIA: A PRAGMATIC APPROACH ... 70
CHILDREN EDUCATION AND RURAL DEVOLPMENT IN EGYPT ... 81
THE IMPACT OF CHANGING THE POLITICAL CONDITIONS ON THE EGYPTIAN CONSUMER PATTERN . 88
ENSURING RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE USING YOUR METHODS OF SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE ... 93
DETERMINANTS OF HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY AMONG WOMEN IN SOUTH-EAST AGRICULTURAL
ZONE, NIGERIA ... 100
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY IN FARMS PRODUCING PADDY IN
BAFRA DISTRICT OF SAMSUN, TURKEY ... 105
THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF THE RED MEAT PRODUCTION FARMS IN NUBERIA REGION AT THE
NEW LANDS. ... 113
COTTON GROWERS’ SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXTENSION SERVICES: CASE STUDY
OF MUZAFFARGARH DISTRICT OF PAKISTAN ... 119
Environmental Risk Perceptions of Students in Faculty of Agriculture in Turkey ... 127
WATER DEFENSE BEHAVIOR OF EGYPTIAN FARMERS... 135
SOME INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON EGYPTIAN FARMERS' KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BIO – FERTILIZERS .... 138
TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY OF RICE PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHERN AND ASHANTI REGIONS
OF GHANA ... 143
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD ECONOMICS – NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
II
YIELD AND PRICE RISK OF COMMONLY GROWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN ADANA PROVINCE OF
TURKEY ... 160
POLISH INTERNATIONAL TRADE OF HORTICULTURE PRODUCTS WITH TURKEY ... 163
ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE IN POLAND ... 168
CURRENT SITUATION IN DAIRY INDUSTRY AND FEED EFFICIENCY OF PROFESSIONAL DAIRY FARMS OF
TURKEY ... 175
TARIMIN TÜRKIYE EKONOMISINDE YERI ... 181
USING THE GRAVITY MODEL ... 189
FACTORS AFFECTING EGYPT’S POTATOES EXPORTS IN THE GLOBAL MARKET ... 195
THE REFLECTIONS OF EGYPT’S AGRICULTURAL AND ECONOMIC POLICIES ON PRODUCTION AND
FEDDAN COSTS OF WHEAT CROP ... 200
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY for the DEVELOPMENT of CONSUMERS’ EXPENDITURE and CONSUMPTION of
ANIMAL PRODUCTS in EGYPT ... 206
COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND ADAPTATION STRATEGY TO THE EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN
YOBE STATE, NIGERIA ... 213
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN TURKEY ... 221
EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY IN OLIVE GROWING FARMS IN TERMS OF INNOVATIVE
SUSTAINABILTY (A CASE STUDY OF IZMIR and MANISA) ... 230
RISK PERCEPTION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: A CASE OF
ADANA PROVINCE OF TURKEY ... 237
DEVELOPMENTS OF CITRUS FOREIGN TRADE IN TURKEY ... 245
RISK COMMUNICATION IN FOOD PRODUCTS: CASE OF MILK IN ADANA ... 251
SOME APPLICATIONS OF AUTOMATED DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN THE WORLD and TURKEY ... 259
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF SALT STRESS AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ON LEEK (ALLIUM
PORRUM L.) GROWTH AND YIELD PARAMETERS WITH 3D MODELS ... 268
ASSESSMENT OF SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION WITH DIFFERENT INTERPOLATION
METHODS FOR YEŞILIRMAK CATCHMENT ... 273
AGRICULTURAL WATER USE in TURKEY and WATER FOOTPRINT ... 279
ASSESMENT OF KONYA GREENHOUSE PROJECTION ... 285
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT IN A GREENHAOUSE BY AN AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ITS
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE COMPONENTS ... 289
SAMSUN ILI IÇIN BITKI SU TÜKETIMININ DETERMINISTIK MODELLE BELIRLENMESI ... 296
UTILIZATION OF CELLULOLYTIC ENZYMES TO IMPROVE MILK YIELD, MILK COMPOSITION, BLOOD
SERUM PARAMETERS AND THE FEED EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMICAL EVALUATION OF LACTATING
GOATS. ... 305
ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF SILAGE MAKING FROM GRASS IN INTERIOR COAST AREAS OF RIZE 312
A SUSTAINABLE MODEL FOR CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF NATIVE CHICKEN GENOTYPES OF
TURKEY ... 320
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
III
COMPARATIVE ANTHELMINTIC EFFICACY OF CHLOROFORMIC AND METHANOLIC EXTRACTS OF
CORIANDRUM SATIVUM AND IVERMECTIN IN SALT RANGE SHEEP ... 324
BRUCELLOSIS INFECTION IN LOCAL AND EXOTIC CATTLE OF PUNJAB, PAKISTAN ... 329
EFFECTS OF SOME FARM PRACTICES ON MILK PRODUCTION IN DAIRY FARMS OF SAMSUN PROVINCE
OF TURKEY ... 333
IMPROVING PHYTATE BOUND PHOSPHORUS BIOAVAILABILITY OF SORGHUM BY BROILERS USING
PHYTASE ENZYME ... 337
EFFECT OF CURCUMA (Curcuma roxb xanthorrhiza) MEAL AS FEED ADDITIVE IN BROILER RATIONS
ON PERFORMANCE AND AN ANTIBODY TITRES AGAINST ND ... 341
EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION NONI LEAF MEAL (Morinda citrifolia) IN THE RATION ON PRODUCTIVITY
AND QUALITY QUAIL EGGS ... 346
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY IN BROILER HOUSES HAVING DIFFERENT LITTER
MATERIALS ... 353
REPRODUCTIVE PARAMETERS OF BEETAL DOES IN ACCELERATED AND ANNUAL KIDDING
SYSTEMS ... 358
THE EFFECT OF TWO FEEDING REGIMENS (PROGRAMS) UPON BROILER GROWTH PERFORMANCE,
CARCASS TRAITS AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS... 364
THE EFFECT OF USING LEVELS OF RED TIGER SHRIMP MEAL IN STARTER BROILER DIET UPON
GROWTH PERFORMANCE ... 370
EFFECT OF DAIRY CATTLE BREEDERS’ ASSOCIATION (DCBA) MEMBERSHIP ON SUSTAINABILITY OF
INNOVATIONS IN SAMSUN PROVINCE OF TURKEY ... 375
SURVEY
ON
IMPACT
OF
DAIRY
HUB
TRAININGS
ON
LIVELIHOOD
OF
FARMERS
IN
PUNJAB
DISTRICT
SAHIWAL. ... 381
UTILIZATION OF CRYOPRESERVED RUMINAL FLUID IN IN VITRO GAS PRODUCTION TECHNIQUE FOR
EVALUATING ENERGY AND DIGESTIBILITY VALUES OF FEEDSTUFFS ... 388
DAIRY CATTLE BEHAVIOUR IN DIFFERENT HOUSING SYSTEMS ... 396
ANIMAL DEATH AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION ... 403
EFFECT OF PROBIOTIC AND UREA ON NUTRITIVE VALUE OF MALVA AND BARLEY SILAGE ... 405
LIVESTOCK WASTE-BASED BIOGAS ENERGY POTENTIAL of TOKAT PROVINCE and POSSIBLE
IMPLEMENTATIONS
*... 411
LOW-COST ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS (CONSTRUCTED
WETLANDS) ... 417
EVALUATION OF POLY (ETHYLENE TEREPHTALATE) WASTE CHAR IN EPOXY BASED COMPOSITES ... 425
EQUILIBRIUM AND KINETIC STUDIES ON LEVULINIC ACID ADSORPTION ONTO SUGAR PROCESSING
FLY ASH ... 430
REACTIVE EXTRACTION OF FORMIC ACID USING ALAMINE 336 IN SUNFLOWER OIL ... 433
REMOVAL OF TEXTILE DYES FROM AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS USING AN INDUSTRIAL BASED LOW COST
ADSORBENT ... 436
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
IV
KATI ATIKLARIN ÇEVREYE VE SAĞLIĞA ETKISI KONUSUNDA BIREYLERIN BILINÇ DÜZEYININ
BELIRLENMESI ÜZERINE BIR ARAŞTIRMA (TOKAT IL MERKEZI ÖRNEĞI) ... 448
KIMYASAL ATIKLARIN ÇEVRE VE SAĞLIĞA ETKISI KONUSUNDA BIREYLERIN BILINÇ DÜZEYININ
BELIRLENMESI ÜZERINE BIR ARAŞTIRMA (KARABÜK IL MERKEZI ÖRNEĞI) ... 457
TÜRKIYE TARIMINDA JAPON SENDROMU YAŞANIR MI? IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE “JAPAN SYNDROME”
IN TURKISH AGRICULTURE? ... 464
SÜRDÜRÜLEBILIR TOPRAK YÖNETIMI MÜMKÜN MÜ? SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT
POSSIBLE? ... 467
NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS ... 473
Environmentally sensitive agricultural manure nutrient management ... 479
A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF PUBLIC WILLINGNESS AND ACCEPTANCE OF SEGREGATION AND USE OF
HUMAN-URINE AS FERTILIZER IN TURKEY... 484
AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM IN ERZURUM CITY DURING 2014-2015 ... 492
STUDY OF İMPACT AGRİCUTURAL DRAİNAGE WATER ON SPİRULİNA CULTİVATİON İN OUARGLA
(ALGERİAN BAS SAHARA) ... 500
TÜRKIYE’DE SÜRDÜRÜLEBILIR KALKINMANIN MEVCUT DURUMU ... 506
CURRENT SITUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY ... 506
THE INVESTIGATION OF SOME OF THE OPERATION PARAMETERS FOR REMOVAL OF COLOR FROM
OLIVE MILL WASTEWATER BY ELECTROOXIDAION PROCESS ... 522
THE EFFECT OF STIRRING RATE, SUPPORT ELECTROLYTE TYPE and TEMPERATURE ON COLOR
REMOVAL FROM OLIVE MILL WASTEWATER ... 526
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLUG-FLOW BIODIGESTER WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATED MIXING DEVICE FOR
HOUSEHOLD USE ... 530
ACUTE TOXICITY DETERMINATION OF ANTIBIOTICS BY LEPIDIUM SATIVUM, DAPHNIA MAGNA AND
VIBRIO FISCHERI TOXICITY TEST METHODS ... 534
AN APPLICATION OF GIS TECHNOLOGY AND CLUSTER ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE THE SURFACE
SEDIMENT QUALITY: A CASE STUDY OF A LARGE BORATE RESERVE AREA IN CENTRAL ANATOLIA
(TURKEY) ... 540
ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE POLLUTION IN SOIL AND PLANTS FROM CROPLAND IN KONYA ... 547
OCCURRENCE and ECOTOXICOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT of ANALGESICS in WASTEWATER ... 554
COMBINED ANAEROBIC-ADSORPTION PROCESS FOR TREATMENT OF REAL TEXTILE WASTEWATER:
COD AND COLOR REMOVAL ... 561
TREATMENT OF REAL TEXTILE WASTEWATER USING ADSORPTION AS POST-TREATMENT FOLLOWED
BY ANAEROBIC BIODEGRADATION ... 569
PHYTOREMEDIATION: ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT... 577
DETERMINING THE WATER QUALITY OF BROOK MAZMANLI THROUGH PHYSICO-CHEMICAL
METHODS ... 584
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTS ON ECOLOGY ... 593
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
127
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS IN FACULTY OF
AGRICULTURE IN TURKEY
Seyit Hayran1 Tugce Ugur1 Dilek B. Budak2 Aykut Gül2
shayran@cu.edu.tr
1 Agricultural Economics Dept., University of Cukurova 2 Agricultural Economics Dept., University of Cukurova
ABSTRACT
Various environmental problems are related with wrong risk perception about the environment as well as insufficient interest, behavior and information. The purpose of this study was to analysis environmental risk perception of students in faculty of agriculture in Turkey. Data were obtained in 20 – 22 April 2015 from face-to-face interviews of 73 students who join to Fifth National Student Congress on Agriculture in Adana Province. Environmental Risk Perception Scale developed by Slimak and Dietz (2006) was used in the study. The result of factor analysis showed that the scale consists of 8 factors explaining 74.20 % of total variance. The internal consistency coefficient Cronbach Alfa of the scale was 0.887 and KMO was 0.751. According to the students three most important environmental risk factor are respectively radiation, global warming and hazardous waste site. Students environmental risk perception was found to be above average show that awareness of student about environmental problems is high.
Keywods: Environmental risk perception, Students, Faculty of agriculture, Environmental education, Turkey INTRODUCTION
After the industrial revolution, environment, natural resources and natural processes were contaminated as human origin and nature was forced extreme as well over the ability to renew itself. This case caused deterioration that compensation is very difficult and time-consuming or impossible. In addition, changes in consumption structure of society in that process led to increasing the pressure on natural resources and caused changes in the agricultural systems. Neglecting of nature for economic development, it was led to the emergence of risk which may threaten human life such as depletion of natural resources, global warming, depletion of the ozone layer. (Altunoğlu and Atav, 2009; Kaya et al., 2012). People's behavior on environmental issues depends on how they perceive environmental risks. In recent years, society's perception of the environment and concerns on environmental issues have been changed. If the society' perception of environment and environmental risk are wrong, environmental protection efforts would also be wrong (Sam et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important that training of new generation who sensitive to environmental problems and perceived environmental risks right for production environment. In this context, the aim of this paper is to examine students' perceptions of environmental risk in agricultural faculties in Turkey.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data were obtained in 20 – 22 April 2015 from face-to-face interviews of 73 students who join to Fifth National Student Congress on Agriculture in Adana Province. Environmental Risk Perception Scale developed by Slimak and Dietz (2006) was used in the study. This scale selected because it includes the key environmental issues that have been ongoing in the world and compatible with course which conducted in faculties of agriculture in Turkey (Altunoğlu and Atav, 2009; Slimak and Dietz, 2006).
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
128
Students’ perception on sources of environmental risk was analyzed using descriptive statistics and factor analysis. The large numbers of variables were reduced in to smaller. This was done through factor analyses for sources of environmental risk. Factor analysis is a popular multivariate technique used to assess the variability of variables of a data-set (in our case, environmental risk sources variables) through linear combination of smaller number of latent variables, called factors. The extent of variation between variables in each factor is expressed by Eigenvalues. If there is a strong relationship between variables, the first few factors explain a high proportion of the total variance and the last factors contain very little additional information. In our analysis, factors whose Eigenvalues are greater than one were retained. Total variance accounted for environmental risk sources was observed to be 74.20 %. Varimax rotation was used to maximize the variance of the squared loadings for each factor, and thus polarizes loadings (either high or low) on factors for easy interpretation. To check the internal reliabilities, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach alpha values were found to be 0.887 which is acceptable. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measures of sampling adequacy for sources of enriromental risk scale gave a value of 0.751. This KMO values show that overall the scale ise adequate for factor analysis due to large portion of communality (Alpar, 2011; Hair et al., 1994; Kalaycı, 2008; Miran, 2002).
Multiple regression analysis was used to study in order to examine relationship between students’ enviromental risk perception and socioeconomic variables (Alpar, 2011; Hair et al., 1994; Kalaycı, 2008). Regression model was established accordance with the following general form.
In equality;
Y: Perception of risk and risk amnagement strategies (as the factor scores) Xi - n: Socioeconomic variables.
RESULTS
Characteristics of Students
General characteristics of students who daha collected were presented in table 1. Students’ grade point average was 2.75 and average age was 22.00 years old. All of students consisted of % 58.20 boys and % 41.80 girls. All of students' class consisted of % 13.70 first, % 27.40 second, % 34.20 shirt and % 19.20 fourth classes, % 5.50 also masters / PhD. students' learning departments are presented in table 1.
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
129 Table 1: Characteristics of Students
Results of Statistical Analysis
Means, standard deviation and factor loading belong to Environmental Risk Perception Scale's items are given in table 1. Principal component factor analysis carried out using varimax rotation in order to determine factor structure of scale. Scale's the internal consistency coefficient Cronbach Alpha of the scale was 0.887 and KMO sample adequacy measure was 0.751. This values indicated that scale was appropriate and adequate for factor analysis. It must show a normal distribution of the measured property to use the parametric method. Bartlett Sphericity test is a multivariate technique used to check whether variables have a normal distribution (Alpar, 2011; Hair et al., 1994; Kalaycı, 2008). Bartlett Sphericity test was significant in this study. (Chi - Square: 881.44, p <0.000). The result of factor analysis showed that the scale consists of 8 factors explaining 74.20 % of total variance. According to the students three most important environmental risk factor are respectively global warming, hazardous waste sites and radiation. Students environmental risk perception was found to be above average show that awareness of student about environmental problems is high (Table 1).
The factors 1 to 8 were labelled "ecological risks", "economy-induced risks", "agricultural origin risks," invasive species and human-induced risks", "water pollution risks", "entertainment and sporting fishing", "acid rain", and "GMO" respectively.
Factor 1, ecological risk, loads significantly from a variety of ecological variables like radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming and habitat. Risks arising from economic activities as mountain top mining, damming and destruction of wetlands variables indicates economy-induced risks in factor 2. Significant loadings of eutrophication, persistent and toxic organic pollutants, overgrazing and pesticides reflect role of agriculture in environmental pollution because that factor 3 called as agricultural origin risks. Factor 4 is called invasive species and human-induced risks because of the extremely high loadings of clear-cut logging of large tracts of
Grade Point Average 2.75
Age (year) 22.00
Gender (%) Female 58.20
Male 41.80
Departments (%) Agricultural Economics 15.10
Plant Protection 19.20
Agricultural Structures and Irrigation 4.10
Horticulture 20.50
Agricultural Machinery and Technology Engineering 5.50
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 13.70
Food Engineering 1.40 Field Crops 11.00 Animal Science 8.20 Agricultural Biotechnology 1.40 Class (%) First 13.70 Second 27.40 Third 34.20 Fourth 19.20 Masters / PhD 5.50
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
130
forests for pulp, paper, and wood products, sewage and invasive species variables. Factor 5 was labeled as water pollution risks because of the loadings petrol exploration and transport in sea adn Surface runoff (also known as nonpoint pollution) contaminated with agricultural chemicals and sediment variables. Factor 6, 7 ve 8 were labeled as entertainment and sporting fishing, acid rain, and GMO respectively. Because of the extremely high loadings sports and recreational fishing and hunting, acid rain, GMO vairables respectively.
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment
(2nd ICSAE) September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
131 Table 1: Rotated Component Matrix
Items Mean SD Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Radiation: Release of radioactive materials associated with nuclear power generation. 4.750 0.465 0.747 -0.003 0.069 0.231 0.065 -0.086 0.204 0.046 The ozone hole caused by ozone-depleting substances like refrigerants (e.g.,freon) that reduces the
protective ozone layer and leads to an increase in ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Also known as
stratospheric ozone depletion. 4.640 0.562 0.659 0.179 0.386 0.172 0.191 0.134 0.123 -0.261
Global warming caused by excessive amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane that
may lead to weather extremes, such as temperature increases, flooding, sea level rise, extreme storms. 4.780 0.417 0.659 0.116 -0.028 0.364 0.006 0.279 0.306 -0.122
Worldwide human population growth. 4.260 0.882 0.617 0.100 0.179 -0.342 0.089 0.435 -0.201 0.059
Hazardous waste sites which may release toxic chemicals into streams and estuaries and landscapes. 4.780 0.449 0.560 0.225 -0.003 0.316 0.428 0.036 0.098 0.319 Destruction and fragmentation of wildlife habitat due to urbanization and suburban sprawl. 4.470 0.851 0.559 0.478 0.207 0.130 0.442 0.003 -0.215 -0.102 Mountain top mining:Atechnique that removes portions of mountain tops to reveal an ore seam (e.g.,
coal). The mined residue is then used as fill material that may alter the landscape. 3.780 0.961 -0.017 0.792 0.096 0.028 0.069 0.142 0.256 -0.118 The damming of rivers for electric power generation, flood control, navigation, and recreation. 3.560 1.105 0.191 0.703 0.206 0.125 -0.282 0.098 0.074 -0.088 Destruction and loss of wetlands by residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or recreational
development. 4.420 0.815 0.478 0.599 0.162 0.189 0.196 0.037 -0.214 0.212
Entrainment and impingement of fish in water intake pipes at power plants and hydroelectric dams. 4.140 0.871 0.090 0.442 -0.058 0.034 0.400 0.427 0.072 0.386 Heavy metals like lead, zinc, and cadmium released into surface waters from mining operations and
mercury released from the burning of coal. 4.180 0.752 0.081 0.003 0.815 0.190 -0.039 0.098 -0.036 0.259
Eutrophication: the overenrichment of waters due to nitrogen fertilizer runoff and nitrogen oxide deposition in watersheds. This may lead to algal blooms and depletion of dissolved oxygen in rivers and
coastal waters. 4.010 0.920 0.263 0.225 0.677 0.109 0.007 0.250 0.317 0.056
Persistent and toxic organic pollutants (e.g., PCB’s, DDT, dioxin, toluene, benzene) that are discharged into surface streams or into the air from chemical manufacturing plants. These chemicals are long-lived in
the environment and can be transported great distances. 4.560 0.623 -0.070 0.319 0.602 0.391 0.310 0.035 0.065 -0.029
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
132 Table 1: Rotated Component Matrix
Items Mean SD Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pesticides: Insecticides used to treat insect pests; herbicides used to treat weeds; and rodenticides used to kill animal pests (e.g., gophers, prairie dogs).
4,320 0,743 0,251 0,346 0,413 0,037 0,328 0,316 0,342 -0,120
Clear-cut logging of large tracts of forests for pulp, paper, and wood products. 4,220 0,786 0,160 0,194 0,147 0,795 -0,105 0,032 -0,022 -0,045 Sewage: Untreated sewage dumped from cruise ships and treated sewage from
waste water treatment plants discharged into streams.
4,560 0,707 0,188 -0,138 0,159 0,696 0,314 0,118 0,096 0,050
Invasive species: Plants like kudzu and cheat grass and animals like zebra mussels and sea lampreys.
4,160 0,866 0,241 0,149 0,234 0,587 0,135 0,383 0,210 -0,010
Drilling for oil from offshore drilling platforms along the coasts and on lands and the transportation of oil and petroleum products (e.g., pipelines, tank trucks, and supertankers) that may result in spills.
4,300 0,794 0,164 -0,110 0,092 0,063 0,798 0,003 0,226 -0,112
Surface runoff (also known as nonpoint pollution) contaminated with agricultural chemicals and sediment.
4,410 0,704 0,391 0,212 0,047 0,412 0,485 0,127 0,043 0,221
Sport fishing (e.g., fishing for bass, trout, catfish, deep sea and coastal fish) and sport hunting (e.g., hunting for deer, squirrels, waterfowl, and other wildlife).
3,490 1,226 0,070 0,207 0,067 0,203 0,187 0,766 -0,048 -0,053
Acid rain caused by the deposition of acid-producing sulfur dioxide into streams and on forests, usually from the burning of coal
4,560 0,623 0,182 0,146 0,100 0,121 0,225 0,017 0,833 0,115
The growing of genetically engineered crops (e.g., corn); also known as genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
3,990 1,074 -0,038 -0,127 0,178 -0,020 -0,057 -0,042 0,070 0,870
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
133
Current study results and a few study results about environmental risk perception were given together in the table 2 in order to make comparisons. Current study results, a few research results about environmental risk perception, data collection survey and top five ranking environmental risk are presented in the table 2.
When table 2 examine, it is seen that in the all of studies conducted in different times and with different samples, there are radiation and ozone depletion in the top five environmental risks. In the all of studies which reported in this study, there were radiation and ozone depletion in the top five environmental risks can be explained by the huge negative result of these risks may cause for human life. As the same way, chemical and biological risks in taking in the top five environmental risks could be explained by health problems caused by these risks. Another common result of studies is that important risk factor for people’s perception are related to human life strongly.
Table 2 : Results of A Few Studies About Enviromentally Risk Perception
Researcher (s) Data Collection Survey Working Group Top Five Ranking Environmental Risks
Current Study Environmental Risk Perception Scale, 24 items
Agricultural engineer candidate 73 students, Turkey
1. Hazardous waste sites 2. Global warming 3. Radiation
4. Stratospheric ozone depletion. 5. Persistent and toxic organic pollutants 5. Sewage
Altunoğlu and Atav (2009)
Environmental Risk Perception Scale, 23 items
320 secondary school students, Turkey
1. Global warming 2. Radiation
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion 4. Hazardous waste sites 5. Sewage
Sayan (2013) Environmental Risk Perception Scale, 24 items
Nurses candidate 778 student, Turkey
1. Radiation
2. Hazardous waste site 3. GMO
4. Sewage
5. Persistent and toxic organic pollutants Slimak and Dietz
(2006) Environmental Risk Perception Scale, 24 items University graduates, 614 People, USA
1. Hazardous waste site
2. Persistent and toxic organic pollutants 3. Sewage
4. Radiation 5. Heavy metals Sam and ark.
(2010)
Environmental Risk Perception Scale, 23 items
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 424 students, Turkey
1. Radiation
2. Hazardous waste site 3. Sewage
(4 and 5 are absent)
References: (Altunoğlu and Atav, 2009; Sam et al., 2010; Sayan, 2013; Slimak and Dietz, 2006)
Relationship Between Students' socioeconomic Characteristics and Risk Perception
In order to examine relationship between students’ enviromental risk perception and socioeconomic, multiple regression models carried out in this study. The regression coefficients and significant variables and models are presented in Table 3. Only two models which establish for economy-induced risks and GMO are significant at 0.10 level. Only one variable, age, is negatively related to economy-induced risks. This implies that studensts who younger are likely to perceive this risk source as significantly more than students who older. Sex of students is negatively related to GMO. This results shows that female studensts perceive risk related to GMO as highly important.
Table 3. Relationship between risk perception and socioeconomic variables
Socioeconomic Variables
Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef. coef.
(Constant) 1.204 5.303 -2.141 0.670 1.101 1.547 -1.639 3.258 Sex* -0.159 -0.104 -0.219 -0.237 -0.302 -0.249 -0.069 -0.835*** Age -0.097 -0.215*** 0.093 -0.025 -0.014 0.009 0.068 -0.110 GPA 0.308 -0.307 0.248 -0.010 -0.116 -0.411 0.066 0.039 Class** 0.109 0.191 -0.081 0.108 0.020 -0.082 -0.002 0.099 R2 0.063 0.144 0.043 0.023 0.229 0.070 0.014 0.217 P value 0.450 0.065*** 0.641 0.855 0.791 0.384 0.941 0.008***
* Measured as a dummy variable where 1 denotes female and 0 denotes male.
** Measured as a dummy variable where 1 first class, 2 second class, 3 third class, 4 fourth class and 5 masters PhD ***Variables and models significant at p < 0.10
2nd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (2nd ICSAE)
September 30 – October 3, 2015, Konya, Turkey
134 CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to analysis environmental risk perception of students in faculty of agriculture in Turkey. Data were obtained in 20 – 22 April 2015 from face-to-face interviews of 73 students who join to Fifth National Student Congress on Agriculture in Adana Province. Environmental Risk Perception Scale developed by Slimak and Dietz (2006) was used in the study. The result of factor analysis showed that the scale consists of 8 factors explaining 74.20 % of total variance. The internal consistency coefficient Cronbach Alfa of the scale was 0.887 and KMO was 0.751. In this study, it is aimed to determine how students perceive environmental risk based on research findings. According to the result the most important risk that the students perceive are radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming, worldwide human population growth and hazardous waste sites. Considering the first five ranks risks, it is seen that this risks directly affecting human life and they may cause terrible health problem for human. Accordingly, students have not seen themselves as a part of nature and it could be concluded that they perceive risk is important when it adversely affect the them.
REFERENCES
Alpar, R. (2011). Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistiksel Yöntemler (3. Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
Altunoğlu, B. D., and Atav, E. (2009). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin çevre risk algısı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 36, 1 - 11.
Hair, F. J., Anderson, J. R., Tatham, R. Z., and Black, W. C. (1994). "Multivariate data analysis," McMillan Publishing Company. 3rd Edition, New York.
Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). "SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri," Asil Yayın Dağıtım, İstanbul.
Kaya, M. F., Kahyaoglu, M., and Birel, G. F. (2012). An evaluation of elementary teacher candidates' environmental approaches, environmental risk perceptions and environmental behaviours. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55, 655 - 660.
Miran, B. (2002). Temel istatistik. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, Bornova, İzmir.
Sam, N., Gürsakan, S., and Sam, R. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin çevresel risk algısı ve çevresel tutumlarının belirlenmesi. Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E-Dergisi 20, 1 - 16.
Sayan, B. (2013). Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin çevresel risk algısı ve çevresel tutumlarının belirlenmesi, İstanbul. Slimak, M. W., and Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis 26 (6),
