Determination of sufficient income farm size for sustainable development in agricultural enterprises in Aydın province

Öz

Purpose: This study investigates the economic size, sufficient income farm size, and sustainability of agricultural farms in Aydın Province, known for its diverse and intensive agricultural production. Design/Methodology/Approach: Data were collected via face-to-face surveys from 389 farms in 17 districts and 46 villages in 2022, using proportional sampling. Socio-economic characteristics were analyzed, and economic sizes were determined using ESU criteria. Income adequacy was assessed against the TURKSAT relative poverty line. Statistical methods, including ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Chi-Square tests, were employed to compare farm groups. Findings: Based on ESU, 30.85% of farms were large, 51.16% medium, and 18% small. Farms with agricultural incomes 15% below the poverty line were classified as insufficient. Sufficient income farms recorded a gross margin of 380 €/da/year and agricultural income of 299 €/da/year in 2022, while in 2024, these values were 13,300 TL/da/year and 10,465 TL/da/year, respectively. Farms with sufficient income exhibited greater economic size, income, and sustainability, while those below the threshold faced challenges in savings, investments, and self-sufficiency, limiting sustainable development. Originality/Value: This research uniquely integrates economic size, income adequacy, and sustainability in a high-potential agricultural region, addressing a gap in the literature by offering a comprehensive analysis of these dimensions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sufficient income
• economic size
• sustainable development
• sustainable agriculture
• Aydın

Aydın ili tarım işletmelerinde sürdürülebilir kalkınma için yeter gelirli işletme büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma, tarımsal üretimin yoğun ve ürün çeşitliliği ile bilinen Aydın ilindeki tarımsal işletmelerin ekonomik özelliklerini, yeter gelirli işletme büyüklüğünü ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma durumlarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Tasarım/Metodoloji /Yaklaşım: Veriler, 2022 yılında 17 ilçe ve 46 köydeki 389 çiftlikten orantılı örnekleme kullanılarak yüz yüze anket yoluyla toplanmıştır. Sosyo-ekonomik özellikler analiz edilmiş ve ekonomik büyüklükler ESU kriterleri kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Gelir yeterliliği, TÜİK göreli yoksulluk sınırına göre değerlendirilmiştir. Çiftlik gruplarını karşılaştırmak için ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis ve Ki-Kare testleri dahil olmak üzere istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: ESU kriterlerine göre, işletmelerin %30,85'i ekonomik olarak büyük, %51,16'sı orta ve %18'i küçüktür. 2022 gelir bazlı yoksulluk sınırı eşik olarak kullanılarak işletmeler gelir düzeylerine göre kategorize edilmiştir. Tarımsal gelirleri yoksulluk sınırının %15 altında olan işletmeler yeterli gelir sınırının altında kabul edilirken, yoksulluk sınırında olanlar yeterli gelire sahip kabul edilmiştir. Yeter gelirli işletmeler için 2022 yılında brüt marj 380 €/da/yıl, tarımsal gelir ise 299 €/da/yıl olmuştur. Bu değerler 2024 yılında sırasıyla 13.300 TL/da/yıl ve 10.465 TL/da/yıl olmuştur. Yeterli gelire sahip işletmelerin ekonomik büyüklük, tarımsal gelir, brüt kar marjı ve sürdürülebilirlik düzeyleri, yeterli gelir sınırının altındaki işletmelere göre daha yüksektir. Yeterli gelir seviyesinin altındaki işletmeler, yetersiz tasarruf, yatırım ve kendi kendine yeterlilik nedeniyle sürdürülebilir kalkınma fırsatlarından yoksundur. Özgünlük/Değer: Bu araştırma, yüksek tarımsal potansiyele sahip bir bölgedeki işletmelerin ekonomik büyüklüğünü, yeterli gelirli işletme büyüklüğünü ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma durumunu benzersiz bir şekilde bütünleştirmekte ve bu boyutların kapsamlı bir analizini sunarak literatürdeki bir boşluğu doldurmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yeter gelir
• ekonomik büyüklük
• sürdürülebilir kalkınma
• sürdürülebilir tarım
• Aydın

Kaynakça

1. Agovino, M., Ferraro, A. & Musella G. (2023), “Agricultural policies and sustainable agriculture in EU countries”, Farooq, M. Gogoi, N., & Pisante, M. (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture Policies and the Environment, Elsevier, pp. 455-486.
2. Anderzén, J., Luna, A.G., Luna-Gonzaleza, D.V., Merrill, S.C., Caswella, M., Mendéza, V.E., Jonapa, R.H., & Terán Giménez Cachoc, G. (2020), “Effects of on-farm diversification strategies on smallholder coffee farmer food security and income sufficiency in chiapas, mexico”. Journal of Rural Studies, 77(2020), pp.33-46.
3. Aslan, F. & Armağan, G. (2020), “Socio-Economic Structure and Life Satisfaction in Rural Areas: The Case of Aydın”, Adnan menderes University Journal of Faculty Agriculture, 17(1), pp. 71-80.
4. Alcott, B. (2008), “The sufficiency strategy: would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecological Economics, 64(4), pp. 770–786.
5. Aydın, B. & Unakıtan, G. (2016), “Comparatively economical analysis of farms in Trakya Region”. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31, pp.221-232.
6. Bojnej, Š. & Latruffe, L. (2007), “Farm size and efficiency: the case of slovenia”. European Association of Agricultural Economists, 100th Seminar, June 21-23, 2007, Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro, 231-240.
7. Bozkıran, S. (2023), “Value chain analysis in dried fig and chestnut. Aydin Adnan Menderes University (Doctorate Thesis), p.176.
8. Castro, D. & Bleys, B. (2023), “Do people think they have enough? a subjective income sufficiency assessment”. Ecological Economics, 205, pp.1-21.

9. Çukur, T. & Işın, F. (2008), “Industrial tomato producers’ practices on sustainable agriculture in Torbalı district of İzmir”. Jounal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 45(1), pp.27-36.
10. Çınar, G. & Armağan, G. (2009), “Determining the farmers’ willingness to pay for agricultural extension an the case of Aydın province”, Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 15(2), pp.83-92.
11. Doğan, T., & Akıncı Çötok, N. (2011), “Adaptation of the short form of the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire into Turkish: a validity and reliability study”. Turkish Journal of Psychological Counselling and Guidance, 4(36), pp.165-172.
12. Easterlin, R. (1974) “Does economic growth improve the human lot? some empirical evidence”. Nations and Households in Economic Growth, pp.89-125.
13. EUROSTAT. (2014). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1198/2014 of 1 August 2014 supplementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Union.
14. EU. (2015). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/220 of 3 February 2015 laying down rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1217/2009 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings in the European Union.
15. Fabusoro, E., Omotayo, A.M., Apantaku, S.O. & Okuneye, P.A. (2010), “Forms and determinants of rural livelihoods diversification in Ogun State”. Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 34(4), pp.417-438.
16. FAO, (2012), Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems. Guidelines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
17. Figge, F., Young, W., & Barkemeyer, R. (2014), “Sufficiency or efficiency to achieve lower resource consumption and emissions? the role of the rebound effect”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 69, pp.216–224.
18. Gómez-Limóna, J. A. & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010), “Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators”. Ecological Economics. 69(5), pp.1062-1075.
19. Gündoğmuş, M.E., Zan Sancak, A, & Dönmez, D. (2017), “The Determination of Farm Size With Sufficient Income In Country Wide According to Crops Cost Account Project (MOSIS)”. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 31(2), pp.83-100.
20. Hurduzeu, G., Pânzaru, R.L., Medelete, D.M., Ciobanu, A., & Enea, C. (2022) “The development of sustainable agriculture in EU Countries and the Potential Achievement of Sustainable Development Goals Specific Targets (SDG 2)”. Sustainability, 14(23), pp.1-24.
21. Katipoğlu, P., & Armağan, G. (2020), “The importance of human and social capital in rural development in agriculture”. İzmir Jounal of Economics, 35(1), pp.155-175.
22. Keleşoğlu, G.S. (2019) “A research on the determination of production and marketing efficiency in goose breeding: A case study of Kars province”. Ege University (Master’s Thesis), p.138.
23. Ken, E. (2023), “Economic analysis of thyme production in Denizli province”. Çanakkale Onsekiz Marc University (Master’s thesis), p.141.
24. Kınıklı, F. (2022), “Evaluation of performance in cooperatives and private sector in terms of social and economic”. Ege University (Doctorate Thesis), p.184.
25. Kizilaslan, H., & Adiguzel O. (2009), “Economic analysis of agricultural enterprises in Turkey according to their level of success”. Applied Economy Scientia Agricola (Piracicaba, Braz.), 66(2), pp.164-173.
26. Koç, G. (2022), “A study on the development of a farm-level index for availability dimension of food security in Turkey: case study of Thrace region”. Ege University (Doctorate Thesis), P.369.
27. Mellor, John W. (1995), Agriculture on the road to industrialization. Baltimore, MD: Published for the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) [by] Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Liao, T.F. (2021) “Income ınequality, social comparison and happiness in the United States”. American Sociological Association, 7, pp.1-17.
29. Newbold, P. (1995), “Statisticsfor business and economics (4th ed)”, Hall &Clifs, Prentice-Hall International Editions.
30. Nowak, A., Krokowski, A., & Różańska-Boczula, M. (2019). “Assessment of sustainability in agriculture of the European Union Countries. Sustainability”. 9(12), pp.1-13.
31. Özdemir, V., Yıldırım, Y., Tan Ş. (2020), “A meta-analytic reliability generalization study of the Oxford Happiness Scale in Turkish sample”. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(4), 374-404.
32. Özden, A., & Armağan, G. (2005), “Determination of plant production activities in agricultural enterprises in Aydin Province”. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(2), pp.111-121.
33. Özkan, M., & Armağan, G. (2018), “Measurement of sustainable agriculture: The Case of Aydin Province Abstract”. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 25(1), pp.109-116.
34. Pretty, J. (2008), “Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 363(1491), pp.447-465.
35. Princen, T. (2005), The logic of sufficiency, Mit Press Cambridge.
36. Sağlam, F. & Boz, İ. (2023), “Life satisfaction and future of rural farmers: the case of Çorum Province Kargı District”. MAS Kournal of Applied Sciences, 8(2), pp.403-411.
37. Smith, M.D. & Wesselbaum, D. (2023), “Well‐Being and income across space and time: evidence from one million households”. Journal of Happiness Studies. 24(5), pp.1813–1840.
38. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, New York, ABD.
39. Şekerdil, İ & Engindeniz S. (2020), “Cost analysis in cow milk production: a case study for Foça District of Izmir”. Jounal of Animal. Production. 61(1), pp.41-48.
40. Tımbıl, A. (2003), The determination of production pattern and farm size with sufficient income by using of linear programming method in Mesarya Plain Of Turkish Republic Of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Ankara University (Master’s Thesis), pp.91.
41. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002) “Agricultural sustainability and ıntensive production practices”. Nature 418, pp.671–677.
42. TÜİK. (2022), “Yoksulluk ve Yaşam Koşulları İstatistikleri, 2022”. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Yoksulluk-ve-Yasam-Kosullari-Istatistikleri-2022-49746.
43. UNDP, (1990) Human development report 1990: Concept and Measurement of Human Development. New York Oxford University Press.
44. Yılmaz, H.İ. (2021), “Analysis of impact of supports applied to sustainable oriented agriculture: The case study of fig farmers in Aydin”. Aydin Adnan Menderes University (Doctorate Thesis), p.124.
45. Wiskerke, J.S.C. (2009), “On places lost and places regained: reflections on the alterna-tive food geography and sustainable regional development”, International Planning Studies, 14(4), pp.369–387.