Çiftçilerin tarımsal desteklemeden yararlanma durumu: Doğu Akdeniz Bölgesi-Mersin

Öz

Amaç: Tarımda risklerin ve belirsizliklerin olması, çiftçilerin tarımsal faaliyetlerinin sürdürülebilirliği açısından desteklemeleri önemli hale getirmektedir. Mersin ili tarımsal çıktı açısından yüksek potansiyele sahiptir. Bu araştırmada Mersin kırsalında “çiftçilerin demografik” özellikleri ile “tarım işletmelerinin büyüklüğü” ve “destekleme araçlarından” çiftçilerin yararlanma durumlarının ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Ancak destekleme araçları, araştırma alanında geçerli olan araçlarla sınırlandırılarak incelenmiştir. Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Bu çalışmada, Mersin il sınırları içinde 2020 döneminde tarımsal üretim faaliyetinde bulunan 297 çiftçiyle yüz yüze yapılan anketlerle veriler toplanmıştır. Anket sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesinde Ki-kare analizi kullanılmış; çiftçilerin tarımsal desteklemelerden yararlanma durumu, tarımsal işletme büyüklüğüne ve çiftçilerin demografik özelliklerine göre analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmada; destekleme miktarının işletme büyüklüğüne göre belirlenmesinin yani işletme ölçeği küçüldükçe destekleme miktarının artması, destekleme araçları ile üretim faaliyetlerinin yönlendirilebileceği, desteklenecek ürün ve destek miktarının ürün ekiminden önce açıklanması ve ödemelerin ekimden önce yapılması gerektiği saptanmıştır. Özgünlük/Değer: Türkiye’de tarımsal desteklemelerin çiftçilerin demografik özellikleri ve tarım işletmelerinin büyüklüğü göre destekleme araçlarından yararlanma durumlarının ortaya koyan çalışmalar literatürde sınırlıdır. Mersin ilinde bu konuda yapılan bir çalışma bulunmaması araştırmanın özgünlüğünü ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tarımsal işletme
• tarımsal destek
• çiftçi davranışları
• işletme ölçeği
• Mersin

The status of farmers benefiting from agricultural support: Eastern Mediterranean Region – Mersin

Öz

Objective: The presence of risks and uncertainties in agriculture underscores the importance of support mechanisms for ensuring the sustainability of farmers' agricultural activities. Mersin Province possesses high potential in terms of agricultural output. This study aims to examine the relationship between the demographic characteristics of farmers in rural Mersin, the size of agricultural holdings, and the extent to which farmers benefit from agricultural support instruments. However, the scope of support mechanisms considered in this study has been limited to those applicable within the research area. Design/Methodology/Approach: In this study, data were collected through face-to-face surveys conducted with 297 farmers engaged in agricultural production within the borders of Mersin Province during the 2020 period. The survey results were evaluated using the Chi-square analysis. The farmers’ utilization of agricultural support schemes was analyzed in relation to the size of their agricultural holdings and their demographic characteristics. Findings: The study revealed that determining the amount of agricultural support based on farm size specifically, increasing the support amount as farm size decreases can effectively guide production activities through support mechanisms. It was also determined that the type of supported products and the amount of support should be announced prior to the planting season, and payments should be made before planting begins. Originality/Value: Studies that examine how agricultural supports are utilized based on farmers’ demographic characteristics and farm sizes are limited in the literature in Türkiye. The absence of a study on this topic specifically in Mersin province highlights the originality of this research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Agricultural enterprise
• agricultural support
• farmer behavior
• farm size
• Mersin

Kaynakça

1. Abacı, N. İ. (2018), “Farmers' decision-making process on production pattern: The case of vegetable cultivation in Bafra district of Samsun province”, Doctoral dissertation, On Dokuz Mayis University.
2. Abay, C., Türkekul, B., Ören. M.N., Gürer, B. and Özalp, B. (2017), “A study on the utilization of agricultural supports by producers in Türkiye”, Balkan and Near East Journal of Social Sciences, 03(1), pp.130-136.
3. Aksoy A, Isik HB, Ikikat Tumer E, (2010), “Analysis of factors affecting agricultural credit utilization in pistachio enterprises”, Türkiye 9th National Agricultural Economics Congress, Şanlıurfa, Türkiye.
4. Altıntaş, G., Altıntaş, A., Oruç, E., Kızılaslan, H., Çakmak, E., Birol, D. (2020), “Factors affecting the utilization of young farmer project support; TR-83 region example”, Turkish Agricultural Engineering Research Journal (Turkager), 1(1), pp.152-168.
5. Ataseven, Y., Arısoy, H., Gürer, B., Demirdöğen, A., & Olhan, N. Ö. E. (2020), “Global agricultural policies and their reflections on Turkish agriculture”, 9th Technical Congress of Turkish Agricultural Engineering, Ankara, Türkiye, pp.1-11
6. Aydın, Z. (2001), “Structural adjustment policies and privatization of rural survival strategies: The case of Söke's Turburgazı and Sivrihisar's Kınık Villages”, Journal of Society and Science, 88, pp.11- 31.
7. Aydın, B., Özkan, E., (2017), “Evaluation of fertilizer and soil analysis support in terms of producers: The case of Kırklareli province”, Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, 4(3), pp.302-310.
8. Bragg LA and Dalton TJ. (2004), “Factors affecting the decision to exit dairy farming: a two-stage regression analysis”, Journal of Dairy Science, 87(9), pp.3092-3098.

9. Briggs, J. (1991), “The peri-urban zone of dar es salaam, Tanzania: Recent trends and changes in agricultural land use”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16(3), pp. 319-331.
10. Boratav, K. (1980), “Agricultural structures and capitalism”, Ankara University Press
11. Daldal, N., (2016),” Producers' approach to agricultural supports: Tekirdag example”, Master's thesis, Namık Kemal University.
12. Erdal, G., Erdal, H., Gürkan, M., (2013), “Evaluation of agricultural supports implemented in Türkiye in terms of producers (The case of Kahramanmaraş province)”, International Journal of Social and Economic Sciences, 3 (2), pp. 92-98.
13. Featherstone A., M and Goodwin B., K. (1993), “Factors influencing a farmer's decision to invest in long-term conservation improvements”, Land Economics, 69(1), pp. 67-81.
14. Filli, F.B., Onu, J., I., Adebayo, E.F. and Tizhe, I., (2015), “Factors influencing credits access among small fish farmers in Adamawa State, Nigeria”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Environment and Social Sciences, 1 (1), pp. 46-55.
15. Gökdoğan, (2012), “Agricultural structure and mechanization characteristics of agricultural enterprises in Isparta province”, Adnan Menderes University Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, 9(2), pp. 13 - 17.
16. Günden, C. and Miran, B. (2008), “Analysis of Farmers' Basic Business Decisions in terms of Priority and Support”, Journal of Tekirdağ Faculty of Agriculture, 5 (2), pp. 68-80.
17. Gürkan, M. (2012). Evaluation of agricultural supports applied in Türkiye in terms of producers (The case of Kahramanmaraş province). Master's thesis. Gaziosmanpaşa University.
18. Hayran, S., Gül, A. (2018), “Factors affecting farmers' agricultural credit utilization decisions in Mersin province”, Iğdır University Industrial Journal of Science and Industry, 8(1), pp. 271-277.
19. Iqbal SMM, Ireland CR and Rodrigo VHL. (2006), “A logistic analysis of the factors determining the decision of smallholder farmers to intercrop: A case study involving rubber-tea intercropping in Sri Lanka”, Agricultural Systems, 87(3), pp. 296-312.
20. İkikat Tümer, E., Birinci,A. and Aksoy, A., (2010), “Determination of socio-economic characteristics of farmers by cluster analysis: Erzurum province case”, Journal of Atatürk University Faculty of Agriculture, 41(1), pp. 29- 37.
21. Jaffe, J. (1989), “Land use, soil degradation, and farmer decision-making: A sondeo report of Cavalier, Despa, Kols, and Saut Mathurine, Haiti”.
22. Kalabak, A.Y. and Aslan, R. (2021), “The effect of some area-based agricultural supports on wheat production: Balıkesir case (2009-2015)”, Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 39 (1), pp. 85-102.
23. Latruffe, L., Davidova, S., Douarin, E. and Gorton, M. (2010), “Farm Expansion in Lithuania after accession to the EU: The role of CAP payments in alleviating potential credit constraints”, EuropeAsia studies, 62(2), pp. 351-365.
24. Lee D, Newman P, and Price R. (1999), Decision making in organizations, Londra : Financial Times/Pitman.
25. Ololade, R.A. and Olagunju, F.I., (2013), “Determinants of access to credit among rural farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria”, Global J. Sci. Front. Res. Agric. Vet. Sci., 13 (2), pp.17-22.
26. Önal, N.E. (2012), “The 150-Year Story of Anatolian Agriculture”, Yazılama Publishing House, Second Edition, Istanbul.
27. Özçelik, A., Özer, O.O. (2006), “Evaluation of support payments to farmers for chemical fertilizer support and diesel oil used in agricultural activities”, Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(1), pp.1-8.
28. Republic of Türkiye. (December 08, 2021). Communiqué on Payment of Support Payment for Crop Production, Official Gazette (31683).
29. Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2024). Agricultural supports. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konular/Tarimsal-Destekler . Accessed June 20, 2025. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2021/12/20211208-3.htm on September 5, 2022.
30. Sadler-Smith E and Sparrow PR. (2008), Intuition in organizational decision making, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. pp. 305-324.
31. Sharma, N. K. (2021), “Easy Way to Determine the Sample Size. Easy Way to Determine the Sample Size”, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35758.84808.
32. Stirm JEW and St-Pierre NR. (2003), “Identification and characterization of location decision factors for relocating dairy farms”, Journal of Dairy Science, 86(11), pp. 3473-87.
33. Talawar, S. and Rhoades, R.E., (1998), “Scientific and local classification and management of soils”, Agriculture and Human Values, 15 (2), pp. 3-14.
34. Taşkaya Top, B. and Özüdoğru, T. (2016), “Factors Affecting the Choice of Sunflower Support Policies in Türkiye”, TEAD, 2(2), pp. 1-10.
35. Teoman, Ö. (2001), “A contribution to discussions on capitalist transformation in Turkish agriculture”, G.Ü.İ.İ.B.F. Journal, 3, pp. 41-60.
36. Topçu, Y., (2008), “Analysis of effective factors in farmers' willingness to benefit from agricultural support policies: The case of Erzurum province”, Akdeniz University Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, 21(2), pp. 205-212.
37. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), (2018), Agricultural enterprise structure survey, Retrieved from https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ on March 5, 2023.
38. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), (2019), Agriculture. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Tarim-111 on March 20, 2020.
39. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), (2020), Agricultural enterprise structure survey, Retrieved from https://www.tuik.gov.tr/ on April 15, 2023.
40. Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat), (2023), Population and demography, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Nufus-ve-Demografi-109 Retrieved on January 20, 2023.
41. Tüzün Rad, S. and Aydoğdu, C., (2019), “Agricultural financing: Agricultural credit utilization in Mersin province”, Journal of Agricultural Economic Research, 5(2), pp. 58-67.
42. Wu, S., Wang, X., Redy, U. and Sun, H. (2019), “Genome of 'Charleston Gray', the principal American watermelon cultivar, and genetic characterization of 1,365 accessions in the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System watermelon collection”, Plant Biotechnology Journal, 1-13.
43. Yıldırım, A.E. (2024), “New support model in agriculture from the farmer's perspective”, Agriculture World, 10.