Comparison of the Opinions of Local Residents Who Have Benefited and Have Not Benefited from Murat River Rehabilitation Projects

Abstract

This research was carried out to compare the perspectives and satisfaction of local people who benefited and did not benefit from projects implemented in micro-catchments in the provinces of Bingöl, Elâzığ, and Muş. The survey, focus group (FG) interviews, and key informative (KB) interviews were conducted in selected villages between the 16th and 25th of August, 2021. The "Chi-square independence test" was used to compare beneficiary and non-beneficiary responses to some questions. It was determined that the participants were generally pleased with the project activities from which they benefited. Furthermore, the majority of people agreed that such projects should be continued. When individuals who do not benefit from the project are statistically compared, it has been determined that there are significant positive developments such as the use of new agricultural technology, increased production area, increased irrigated land, and increased use of forests and pastures. Within the context of all of this information, it is believed that the project is a significant source of development for the region, and that this level of development will become clearer in the coming years.

Keywords

• micro-watershed
• chi-square independence test
• new agricultural technology
• individuals benefiting from the project
• individuals not benefiting from the project.

Kaynakça

1. Yüksel A, Eraslan İH. Rural Development General Approach and Watershed Management Practices, 2015 Ankara.
2. Bilinmiş A.) Çapakçur, Göynük, Lediz ve Vahkin çanakçı havzaları yüksek lisans tezi Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (OGM) Bingöl (2016).
3. Baydas, A., Demirkiran, A.R. Bilinmiş, M. M.. Determining the satisfaction level of local people from Murat river rehabilitation projects: Example of Bingöl (lediz, vahkin-canakçı, Göynük stream and Çapakçur micro-catchments). JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 3 (1), 2018 31-57.
4. Danış, H. Murat nehri havzası rehabilitasyon projesi kapsamında Bingöl ili Genç ilçeside bulunan mikrohavza projelerinin verimliliği ve sürdürebilirliğinin araştırılması, Bingöl Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi 2019 s. 73.
5. Uslu, A., Yuksel, A., Karakaya, E., Çamuka, S., et al. (2024). Determination of the Satisfaction Level of the Local People Benefiting from Murat River Rehabilitation Project (Bingöl, Elâzığ, and Muş Microcatchment Sample). Türk Tarım Ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(4), 959-973. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1487427
6. Karakaya, E., Çamuka, S., Uslu, A., Yuksel, A., et al. (2024). Local People’s View of Non-Benefiting from Murat River Projects: Examples of Bingöl, Elazığ and Muş Basins. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(4), 1045-1057. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1436505
7. MacDonald, P. L., & Gardner, R. C. Type I error rate comparisons of post-hoc procedures for I J chi-square tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (2000). 60(5), 735-754.
8. Güngör M, Bulut Y. Ki-kare Testi Üzerine. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları. 2008;84-9.

9. Yılmaz, H., Demircan, V., Gül, M. Üreticilerin Kimyasal Gübre Kullanımında Bilgi Kaynaklarının Belirlenmesi ve Tarımsal Yayım Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, (2009). 4(1), 31-44.
10. Ludbrook, J. Is there still a place for Pearson's chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test in surgical research?. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, (2011). 81, 923- 926.
11. Franke, T. M., Ho, T., & Christie, C. A. The Chi-square test: Often used and more often misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, (2012). 33(3), 448–458.
12. Sharpe, D.E. Your Chi-Square Test Is Statistically Significant: Now What?. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, (2015). 20(8), 1-10.
13. Doğan, B. Üreticilerin iyi tarım uygulamaları istekliliklerini etkileyen faktörlerin analizi: Kahramanmaraş ili örneği. T.C. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi Tarım Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı, Kahramanmaraş 2017, s. 85.
14. Terzi, C., Şahin, M., & Yurdugül, H. İki-Yönlü Olumsallık Çizelgelerinde Gözenek Artık Testi: Ki-Kare Analizi İçin Post-Hoc Testleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram Ve Uygulama, (2023). 13(1), 304-328. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.1075830
15. Sulemana, M., Malongza, B. F. I., & Abdulai, M. Assessment of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty programme in Karaga district, Ghana. Development in Practice, (2018). 29(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1551859
16. Rambo CM. Effect Of The Natıonal Cash Transfer Programme For Older Persons On Access To Basıc Lıvelıhoods: A Comparatıve Analysıs Of Benefıcıarıes And Nonbenefıcıarıes In Sıaya County, Kenya European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy Vol. 6, No. 5, 2018 ISSN 2056-6018.
17. Ephraim Panwal F and Arene C.J. Assessment of National Special Programme for Food Security (NSPPS) Project on Productivity and Income of Beneficiary Farmers in Plateau State, Nigeria, Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability ISSN 2201-4357 Volume 8, Number 2, 2015, 43-60
18. Palmeira PA, Salles-Costa R, Pérez-Escamilla. Effects of family income and conditional cash transfers on household food insecurity: evidence from a longitudinal study in Northeast Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2020 Mar;23(4):756-767. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019003136. Epub 2019 Nov 5. PMID: 31685079; PMCID: PMC10200439.
19. IFAD https://www.ifad.org/documents/d/new-ifad.org/project-completion-report-digest_108, 2012.
20. Worldbank https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/02/28/karnataka-watershed-development-project. 2012
21. Vishalkumar R. Gor,, Vinodkumar M. Patel. Benchmarking the Impact of Micro Watersheds of Sabarkantha and Aravalli Districts of Gujarat, India, 2022 https://arccjournals.com/journal/agricultural-science-digest/D-5618
22. Kapil Dev, Ravinder Sharma, Amit Guleria and Dev Raj. 2017. Impact Analysis of Mid-Himalayan Watershed Development Project on Socio-Economic and Agricultural Status of Beneficiary Farms in Ani Tehsil of Kullu District in Himachal Pradesh.Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 6(7): 2244-2255. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.325
23. Anonymous Scaling and Replicating Sustainable Watershed Management: A Malawi Case Study https://www.crs.org/our-work-overseas/research-publications/scaling-and-replicating-sustainable-watershed-management, 2024.
24. Anonymous https://www.iucn.nl/en/story/bolivias-watershed-agreements-a-case-study-of-locally-led-adaptation-for-climate-resilience/