ارزیابی همزمان کارایی فنی و ریسک تولید مزارع برنج

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی به زبان انگلیسی

نویسندگان

• هانیه کظمی شعبانزاده افلاکی ¹
• عذرا جوان بخت ¹
• خدیجه الفی ²

¹ گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران

² گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2025.91636.1327

چکیده

فعالیت‌های کشاورزی در مقایسه با سایر فعالیت‌های تولیدی، فعالیتی پرریسک بوده و این ریسک اغلب با ناکارآمدی همراه است. بنابراین مطالعه همزمان ریسک و عدم کارایی می‌تواند منجر به تولید کاراتر شود. بر اساس داده‌های سازمان جهاد کشاورزی استان گیلان (سال ۱۳۹۵)، تعداد کل کشاورزان در زمان مطالعه ۳۸۷۶۳ نفر بود. با استفاده از فرمول کوکران، حجم نمونه مورد نیاز ۲۲۶ نفر محاسبه شد که تقریباً ۵۸ درصد از جمعیت را تشکیل می‌دهد. پرسشنامه شامل دو بخش بود که به‌ترتیب مربوط به نهاده‌های مورد استفاده در فرآیند تولید برنج و متغیرهای اجتماعی-اقتصادی کشاورزان و مزارع آنها بود. برای ارزیابی همزمان کارایی فنی و ریسک تولید برنج‌کاران، در شهرستان رشت در سال ۱۳۹۷، از یک مدل تولید مرزی تصادفی تعمیم‌یافته (SFP) با ویژگی‌های ریسک انعطاف‌پذیر استفاده شد. نتایج تخمین تابع ریسک تولید نشان داد که تولید برنج به‌طور معنی‌داری تحت تأثیر نهاده‌های زمین، بذر و نیروی کار قرار دارد. همچنین، نهاده‌های سطح زیرکشت، آب، سن شالیکار و جنسیت ریسک فزاینده و بذر، علف‌کش‌ها، ماشین‌آلات، تحصیلات کشاورز، اندازه خانواده و تجربه کشاورزی از نهاده‌های ریسک کاهنده هستند. علاوه بر این، بذر، نیروی کار، عضویت در تعاونی‌های کشاورزی و بیمه، ناکارایی فنی را افزایش می‌دهد. کود نیترات، آب، جنسیت، تجربه کشت برنج و شرکت در کلاس‌های آموزشی و ترویجی اثر مثبت بر کارایی فنی در منطقه‌ی مورد مطالعه داشتند. نتایج برآورد کارایی فنی نشان داد که میانگین کارایی فنی شالیکاران با مؤلفه ریسک 47/93 درصد و بدون مؤلفه ریسک 27/96 درصد بوده است. بنابراین واضح است که برآورد مدل بدون مؤلفه ریسک منجر به خطای بزرگنمایی در میزان کارایی فنی می‌شود. در نتیجه، توصیه می‌شود هنگام اندازه‌گیری کارایی فنی شالیزارها برای دستیابی به مدیریت ریسک صحیح و تولید بسیار کارآمد، مؤلفه ریسک در نظر گرفته شود. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

• ریسک تولید
• شالیکاری
• کارایی فنی
• مدل مرزی تصادفی (SPF)
• مدیریت ریسک
• نهاده‌های کشاورزی

موضوعات

• اقتصاد کشاورزی

عنوان مقاله [English]

Simultaneous Evaluation of Technical Efficiency and Production Risk of Rice Paddy Fields

نویسندگان [English]

• H. Kazmi Shabanzade Aflaki ¹
• O. Javanbakht ¹
• Kh. Alefi ²

¹ Agricultural Economics Department, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

² Agricultural Economics Department, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

چکیده [English]

Abstract
Agricultural activities are inherently riskier than other types of production and are often accompanied by inefficiencies. Therefore, studying risk and inefficiency simultaneously can help enhance productivity. The statistical population in this study consisted of rice farmers in Rasht County. Based on data from the Agricultural Jihad Organization of Guilan province (2016), the total number of farmers at the time of the study was 38,763. Using Cochran’s formula, the required sample size was calculated to be 226, representing approximately 58 percent of the population. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: one focusing on the inputs used in the rice production process, and the other on the socio-economic characteristics of farmers and their farms. To simultaneously evaluate the technical efficiency and production risk of rice farmers in Rasht County in 2018, a generalized Stochastic Frontier Production (SFP) model with flexible risk properties was employed. The results of estimating production risk function showed that (i) rice production was significantly affected by land, seed and labour inputs; (ii) land, water, age, and gender variables were risk-increasing factors; (iii) seed, herbicides, machinery, farmer’s education, family size, and farming experience were risk-reducing inputs; (iv) seed, labour, membership in the agricultural cooperatives and insurance increased technical inefficiency; and (v) nitrogen  fertilizer, water, gender, experience, and participation in educational and promotional programs reduce technical inefficiency in the studied area. The results of estimating technical efficiency showed that the average technical efficiency of the rice paddy field was 93.47 percent and 96.27 percent with and without a risk component, respectively. Therefore, it is clear that estimating the model without a risk component leads to biased results of technical efficiency. In conclusion, it is recommended that the risk component be considered when measuring the technical efficiency of paddy fields to achieve sound risk management and highly efficient production.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• : Agricultural inputs
• Production risk
• Rice farming
• Risk management
• Stochastic frontier model
• Technical efficiency JEL classifications: M11
• O13
• Q12

©2025 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

مراجع

1. Accra and Volta regions of Ghana. Doctoral dissertation. University of Ghana.
2. Agustina, S. (2016). The influence of technical inefficiency level that involve farmer’s behavior on risk towards profit in rice production of Indonesia. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 10, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2016-10.01
3. Aigner, D.J., Lovell, C.K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21–37. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:econom:v:6:y:1977:i:1:p:21-37
4. Alikhani, L., Dashti, G., Rahelei, H., & Hosseinzad, J. (2015). Technical efficiency and production risk in cold-water fish farming of Kamyaran County. Animal Science Research (Agricultural Knowledge), 25, 1-12. (In Persian). https://www.magiran.com/p1449103
5. Baawuah, G. (2015). Production risk and technical efficiency of lowland rice farms in Ashanti region, Ghana. Doctoral dissertation. University of Ghana.
6. Battese, G.E., & Coelli, T.J. (1988). Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 38(3), 387-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(88)90053-X
7. Battese, G.E., Rambaldi, A.N., & Wan, G.H. (1997). A stochastic production function with flexible risk properties. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007755604744
8. Bokusheva, R., & Hockmann, H. (2006). Production risk and technical inefficiency in Russian agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33, 93-118. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbi036
9. Esfandiari, M., Shahraki, J., & Karbasi, A. (2012). Study of efficiency and optimal inputs usage for rice production; case study: rice producers in Kamfirouz District, Fars Province. Agricultural Economics, 6(3), 1-21. (In Persian). https://www.iranianjae.ir/article_9299.html?lang=en
10. Esfandiari, M., Shahraki, J., & Karbasi, A. (2013). Determination of technical efficiency and production risk of rice: a case study of Marvdasht County of Fars Province. Agronomy Journal (Pajouhesh and Sazandegi), 100, 76 -87. (In Persian). https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/articles/a/1045442.pdf
11. Guttormsen, A.G., & Roll, K.H. (2014). Production risk in a subsistence agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20, 133-145.
12. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.775953
13. Hosseinzad, J., & Alefi, K. (2016). Simultaneous assessment of production risk and inefficiency simultaneously in Ardebil potato farms. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 47(3), 589-597. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijaedr.2016.60227
14. Jaenicke, E.C., Frechette, D.L., & Larson, J.A. (2003). Estimating production risk and inefficiency simultaneously: an application to cotton cropping systems. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28(3), 540-557. https://doi.org/22004/ag.econ.31059
15. Just, R.E., & Pope, R.D. (1978). Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications. Journal of Econometrics, 7, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(78)90006-4
16. Karbasi, A.R., Daneshvar Kakhakei, M., Karim Keshte, M.H., & Nouri Toupkanloo, Z. (2005). Investigating the factors affecting production risk of irrigated and rainy cumin in Khorasan province. Sciences and Agricultural Industry, 19(2), 57-64. (In Persian). https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-202700.html
17. Kea, S., Li, H., & Pich, L. (2016). Technical efficiency analysis of Cambodian household rice production. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 16, 32-44. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/1907
18. Kibaara, B.W. (2005). Technical efficiency in Kenyan's maize production: an application of the stochastic frontier approach. Doctoral Dissertation. Colorado State University.
19. Kopahi, M., Sadat Barikani, H., Kavoosi Kelashomi, M., & Sasoli M. (2009). Effects of inputs utilization on rice production risk in Guilan Province. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 13(48), 357-364. (In Persian). https://jcpp.iut.ac.ir/article-1-1012-fa.html
20. Kumbhakar, S.C. (2002). Specification and estimation of production risk, risk preferences and technical efficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1), 8-22. https://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8276.00239
21. Lemessa, S.D., Yismawu, M.A., Daksa, M.D., & Watabaji, M.D. (2017). Risk adjusted production efficiency of maize farmers in Ethiopia: Implication for improved maize varieties adoption. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 5(9), 1099-1107. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v5i9.1099-1107.1339
22. Meeusen, W., & Van Den Broeck, J. (1977). Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. International Economic Review, 18(2), 435-444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525757
23. Mehri, M., Eshraghi, F., & Keramatzadeh, A. (2020). An analysis of the determinants of wheat production risk in Gorgan County. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 22(5), 1153-1164. http://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-23169-en.html
24. Ogundari, K., & Akinbogun, O.O. (2010). Modeling technical efficiency with production risk: a study of fish farms in Nigeria. Marine Resource Economics, 25, 295-308. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-25.3.295
25. Ogunniyi, L.T., & Ojedokun, I.K. (2012). An investigation of production risk and economic efficiency of rice farmer in Kwara state, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture, 5(1), 35-43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299470074_An_Analysis_of_production_risk_and_economic_efficiency_of_rice_farmers_in_Kwara_State_Nigeria#fullTextFileContent
26. Onumah, E.E., & Acquah, H.D. (2010). Frontier analysis of aquaculture farms in the southern sector of Ghana. World Applied Sciences Journal, 9(7), 826-835. https://197.255.68.203/handle/123456789/1566
27. Oppong, B.A., Onumah, E.E., & Asuming-Brempong, S. (2016). Technical efficiency and production risk of maize production: Evidence from Ghana. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology, 11(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.26796/jenrm.v3i2.90
28. Sarker, M.A.A., Arshad, F.M., Alam, M.F., Mohamed, Z.A., & Khan, M.A. (2016). Stochastic modeling of production risk and technical efficiency of Thai koi (Anabas testudineus) farming in Northern Bangladesh. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 20(2), 165-184. https://doi.org/1080/13657305.2016.1156189
29. Sharzehei, Gh.A., & Zibaei, M. (2001). The effects of inputs application on cotton production risk in Fars Province. Agricultural Sciences and Technology, 15(2), 49-54. https://sid.ir/paper/22425/en
30. StataCorp (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC, 2017.
31. Statistical Yearbook of Guilan Province (2022).
32. Statistics of the Agricultural Jihad Organization of Guilan Province, 2016.
33. Taraka, K., Latif, I.A., Shamsudin, M.N., & Sidique, S.B.A. (2012). Estimation of technical efficiency for rice farms in Central Thailand using stochastic frontier approach. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.199098
34. Tiedemann, T., & Latacz‐Lohmann, U. (2013). Production risk and technical efficiency in organic and conventional agriculture: the case of arable farms in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64, 73-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00364.x
35. Tveteras, R. (1999). Production risk and productivity growth: some findings for Norwegian salmon aquaculture. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 12, 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007863314751
36. Villano, R.A., O'Donnell, C.J., & Battese, G.E. (2005). An investigation of production risk, risk preferences and technical efficiency: evidence from rainfed lowland rice farms in the Philippines. Working paper series in agricultural and resource economics, ISSN 1442. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.12953
37. Villano, R., & Fleming, E. (2006). Technical inefficiency and production risk in rice farming: Evidence from central Luzon Philippines. Asian Economic Journal, 20(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8381.2006.00223.x
38. Wik, M., Aragie Kebede, T., Bergland, O., & Holden, S.T. (2004). On the measurement of risk aversion from experimental data. Applied Economics, 36(21), 2443-2451. https://doi.org/10.1080/0003684042000280580
39. Yang, Z., Mugera, A.W., & Zhang, F. (2016). Investigating yield variability and inefficiency in rice production: a case study in central China. Sustainability, 8(8), https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080787
40. Yazdani, S., & Sassuli, M.R. (2008). The effect of usage of inputs on the rice production risk in Shaft County of Guilan province. Economics and Agriculture, 2(1), 35-46. https://www.magiran.com/p628354