|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|92897||160101||2016||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد.
- تولید محتوا برای سایت و وبلاگ
- تولید محتوا برای کتاب
- تولید محتوا برای نشریات و روزنامه ها
پایگاه «دانشیاری» آمادگی دارد با همکاری مجموعه «شهر محتوا» با استفاده از این مقاله علمی، برای شما به زبان فارسی، تولید محتوا نماید.
• We assess policy priorities of family farmers in an area of sugarcane expansion.
• We use the analytic hierarchy process with participation of multiple stakeholders.
• A case study presents a practical application of the method.
• Public policies addressing family farming should focus on diversification of production.
• Sensitivity analysis demonstrates robustness of results.
In Brazil, some see intensive, large-scale production of sugarcane-based ethanol, based on a model of capital and land concentration, as a threat to the survival of family farming. Family farmers are increasingly under pressure to sell or rent land to mills where sugarcane monoculture is expanding. In this context, the government is working to formulate or change public policies in order to support farmer livelihoods in sugarcane growing regions. The present study is based on research conducted in the municipality of Ipiranga de Goiás, Goiás State, Brazil. It employs the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, with participation of stakeholders at federal, state and municipal levels, to support public policy decision-making addressing family farming. The stakeholders prioritize environmental and economic benefits as the most important criteria requiring the attention of policy makers. Also, stakeholders agree that diversification of production is the most appropriate alternative for strengthening family farming. The AHP approach can be the starting point in the formulation of public policies. The approach helps ensure transparency, and it purposefully includes family farmer points of view. Policies derived from this process, therefore, may have a higher likelihood of being supported and accepted by farmers.
Journal: Land Use Policy - Volume 51, February 2016, Pages 85–94