Does Organic Production and Marketing Training Improve the Agricultural Business Skills of Rural Women Farmers? A Case Study from Türkiye

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 240 - 250, 15.03.2025

Esin Hazneci , Kerem Hazneci , Cevahir Kaynakçı Baydar , İsmet Boz

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1634045

Öz

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the training activities provided to the female farmers supplying products to the organic product market in Sürmeli village, Bafra District, Samsun, Türkiye. A survey was used to collect data from female farmers who sell their products in the organic market and other farmers who do not sell their products in the organic market. The full-counting method was used to obtain the data. Within the scope of the research, a survey was administered to all participant farmers twice - before and after the training. The training was provided only to the female farmers producing organic products. When analysing the enterprises, the Kirkpatrick Program Evaluation Model, one-way analysis of variance, and covariance analysis were performed to determine the effectiveness of the training on organic agricultural production and marketing. Comparisons of the scores that measure the total knowledge levels of both production and marketing of organic production revealed that the score in the experimental group was statistically higher than that in the control group, and this difference was due to the training provided to the experimental group (R Squared = 0.633, 0.866). It can be said that among the participant farmers, those having a higher level of knowledge of organic production and marketing issues will carry out agriculture activities more successfully.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kirkpatrick program evaluation model, Marketing, Organic production, Women, Türkiye

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the Ondokuz Mayıs University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (approval date: March 13, 2018, protocol code: 2018 / 72-108).

Destekleyen Kurum

Ondokuz Mayıs University

Proje Numarası

Funding acknowledgment statement: Supported by the Ondokuz Mayıs University (Project number: PYO.ZRT.1901.18.009), Türkiye.

Teşekkür

This study is based on data derived from the project numbered PYO.ZRT.1901.18.009, supported by the Ondokuz Mayıs University. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ondokuz Mayıs University for their generous funding and support, which enabled this research.

Kaynakça

• Abacı Nİ, Demiryürek K. 2019. Factors affecting farmers’ decision making on product pattern: A case of vegetable producers in Bafra district of Samsun province, Türkiye. Turkish JAF Sci Tech, 7(3): 426-434. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i3.426-434.2359.
• Aertsens J, Koen MGVH. 2009. Differences in retail strategies on the emerging organic market. Br Food J, 111(2-3): 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910931968.
• Ağızan K, Bayramoğlu Z. 2023. Marketing strategies in organic agriculture: Supplier selection criteria and efficiency analysis. J Agric Econ Resour, 9(2): 156-174. https://doi.org/10.61513/tead.1365192.
• Arslan B. 2016. Attitudes of consumers living in Şanlıurfa towards organic products. In: 12th National Agricultural Economics Congress, May 25-27, Isparta, Türkiye, pp. 623-631.
• Arslantürk Y, Aysen E. 2015. Fair trade and organic food markets: A case of Ankara. Kırıkkale Uni J Soc Sci, 5(1): 15-26.
• Ayan AK, Boz I, Kaynakci C, Aytac S. 2017. Suppliers of organic food: Evidence from Sisli and Kartal ecological bazaars of Istanbul. Inter J Sci Resour Manag, 5: 5553-5559. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v5i6.29
• Eryılmaz GA, Demiryürek K, Emir M. 2015. Consumer behaviour towards organic agriculture and food products in the European Union and Türkiye. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 30: 199-206. http://doi.org/10.7161/anajas.2015.30.2.199-206.
• Chen A, Scott S. 2014. Rural development strategies and government roles in the development of farmers’ cooperatives in China. J Agric Food Syst Comm Dev, 4(4): 35-55. https://doi.org/10.5304/JAFSCD.2014.044.005.
• Chernbumroong S, Sureephong P, Suebsombut P, Sekhari A. 2022. Training evaluation in a smart farm using Kirkpatrick Model: A case study of Chiang Mai. In: Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, January 26-28, Chiang Rai, Thailand, pp: 463-466.
• Erem KT, Atsan T. 2013. Factors affecting rural women's adoption of organic agriculture (TRA1 of sample). Res Agric Sci, 44(1): 43-49. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.408821.
• Eti HS. 2014. Marketing of organic food and analysis of consumer attitude and behavior towards organic food. Ph.D Thesis, Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Agricultural Economics, Tekirdağ, Türkiye, pp: 455.
• Gifford A, Philemon R, Halbert J, Hothersall EJ, Inglis R, Hart J, Byrne-Davis L, Thirsk J, Gifford H, Howells R, Weetch S, Prentice K, Jackson A, Kirkpatrick M. 2023. A narrative review of course evaluation methods for continuing professional development: The case of paediatric and neonatal acute-care in-service courses in low and lower-middle income countries: BEME Guide No. 76. Med Teach, 45(7): 685-697. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2137010.
• Grimm M, Luck N, Steinhübel F. 2023. Consumers' willingness to pay for organic rice: Insights from a non‐hypothetical experiment in Indonesia. Aust J Agric Resour Ec, 67(1): 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12501.
• Hauser M, Aigelsperger L, Owamani A, Delve RJ. 2010. Learning achievements of farmers during the transition to market-oriented organic agriculture in rural Uganda. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop, 111(1): 1-11. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2010082734305.
• Jaafar M, Jayabalan S, Ramasamy N, Suffarruddin SH. 2022. A four-level agropreneurship training evaluation model for rural communities. J Busin Soc Dev, 10(1): 41-58. http://doi.org/10.46754/jbsd.2022.03.004.
• Kaya İ. 2009. Marketing is Unique - A Marketing Encyclopedia / 387 Ways to Touch Your Customer. Babıali Kültür Publishers, İstanbul, Türkiye, pp: 376.
• Kaya Y, Günay R, Damgacı FK. 2015. Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. STM J, 2(5): 89-97.
• Kirkpatrick DL. 1995. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Train Dev J, 50(1): 54-57.
• Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick DJ. 2007. Implementing the four levels. Berrett Koehler Publishers, Broadway, ABD, pp: 143.
• Koday S, Çelikoğlu Ş. 2011. An example of traditional shopping site: Bartin ladies’ bazaar (Galla Bazaar). J Grad Sch Soc Sci, 15(2): 243-262.
• McLean S, Moss G. 2003. They’re happy, but did they make a difference applying Kirkpatrick’s framework to the evaluation of a national leadership program. The Canadian J Prog Eva, 18(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.018.001.
• Mignouna DB, Aighewi BA, Maroya N, Akinribido B, Balogun M, Akintayo OT, Amah D, Awotide B, Dontsop Nguezet PM, Abdoulaye T. 2023. Evaluation of training on good agronomic practices for seed yam production in Nigeria. Seeds, 2(1): 116-126. https://doi.org/10.3390/seeds2010009.
• Nagnur S, Hosamani V, Shapur A. 2012. Training on organic farming practices for women: An impact study. J Farm Sci, 25(2): 253-255.
• Qiao Y, Halberg N, Vaheesan S, Scott S. 2016. Assessing the social and economic benefits of organic and fair trade tea production for small-scale farmers in Asia: A comparative case study of China and Sri Lanka. Renew Agric Food Syst, 31(3): 246-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000162.
• Sahni J. 2020. Managerial training effectiveness: An assessment through Kirkpatrick framework. TEM J, 9(3): 1227-1233. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM93-51.
• Stefan H, Mortimer M, Horan B. 2023. Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual reality for safety-relevant training: A systematic review. Virtual Real, 27: 2839–2869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00843-7.
• Şahan G, Altaç İ, Yasa HD, Ay F, Şen Ş. 2014. An assessment about the perceptions of the women working in Bartin bazaar of ladies on life through the eyes of educators. Bartın Uni J Fac Edu, 3(2): 416-434. https://doi.org/10.14686/BUEFAD.201428192.
• TUIK. 2022. Turkish Statistical Institute (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu). URL: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr (accessed date: September 21, 2023)
• ZEEMAPS. 2024. ZeeMaps. URL: https://www.zeemaps.com/map?group=4980332&location=Bafra%2C%20Samsun%2C%20TUR&add=1 (accessed date: January 21, 2024).