농촌지도와개발 (Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development)

  • 제28권1호
  • /
  • Pages.1-12
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1976-3107(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-3705(eISSN)
한국농촌지도학회 (Korean Society of Agricultural Extension)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

농업생태환경 프로그램의 효과분석

The Effects of Agricultural Ecological Environment Programs

  • 이관률 (충남연구원 지역도시문화연구실) ;
  • 남궁영 (한국자산관리공사)
  • 투고 : 2020.11.15
  • 심사 : 2021.03.07
  • 발행 : 2021.03.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aims to analyze the effects of the Agricultural Ecological Environment Program, the first agri-environmental policy in Korea. To this end, as Janghyeon in Boryeong City and Hwaam in Cheongyang County were set up as experimental group. And similar to these villages nearby, Hwangryong in Boryeong and Gideok in Cheongyang have been set up as the control group. It compared and analyzed the farms' level and structure of awareness. The main results of the study can be summarized as follows. First, the Agricultural Ecological Environment Program improved the awareness of safe agricultural product cultivation and agricultural ecological environment stabilize. However, the contribution to the formation of rural community has not been statistically significant. Second, it was found that the farms clearly distinguish and recognize the safe agricultural products cultivation, the agricultural ecological environment stabilize, and the formation of rural community. On the other hand, it was found that the control group that did not participate in the agricultural ecological and environmental program was confused on the recognition of three things or did not recognize them. To summarized, the future agri-environmental policy can be grafted onto regional development policy. So, the areas of agri-environmental policy should include both agriculture and rural. In addition, the scientific discipline and movement approach should be all used also in the method of approach.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 김상현. (2001). 미국의 농업환경정책 동향. 세계농업, 10, 44-53.
  2. 김은순. (1997). 농업환경정책 효과의 동태 분석: 최적제어법의 응용. 농촌경제, 20(1), 39-51.
  3. 김태연. (2015). EU 농업환경정책의 변화과정 분석. 한국유기농업학회지, 23(3), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.11625/KJOA.2015.23.3.401
  4. 김태연. (2016). 영국 농업환경정책의 도입 및 정착과정 분석. 한국유기농업학회지, 24(3), 315-336. https://doi.org/10.11625/kjoa.2016.24.3.315
  5. 김태연. (2018). 농업환경정책, 어떻게 도입할 것인가? 농정연구, 64, 52-92.
  6. 남궁근. (1998). 행정조사방법론. 서울: 법문사.
  7. 농촌진흥청. (2019). 농업.농촌환경보전을 위한 농가실천 매뉴얼. 전주: 농촌진흥청.
  8. 이관률, 강마야, 강현수, 김수연, 김영일, 김종화, et al. (2018). 충청남도가 대한민국에 제안합니다. 서울: 박영사.
  9. 임영아. (2018). 농업의 공익적 가치 확산과 농업환경정책. 농정연구, 66, 155-180.
  10. 최정섭, & 김성용. (1995). 유럽연합 농업환경정책의 전개. 농촌경제, 18(2), 73-90.
  11. 충청남도. (2018). 농업직불금 제도개선 시범사업 모니터링 및 성과분석. 공주: 충남연구원.
  12. 허승욱. (2003). 지속가능한 환경농업정책의 기본 방향. 한국유기농업학회지, 11(3), 37-53.
  13. Adenuga, A. H., Davis, J., Hutchinson, G., Patton, M., & Donnellan, T. (2000). Analysis of the effect of alternative agri-environmental policy instruments on production performance and nitrogen surplus of representative dairy. Agricultural Systems, 184, 1-14. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102889
  14. Cullen, P., Ryan, M., O'Donoghue, C., Hynes, S., OhUallachain, D., & Sheridan, H. (2020). Impact of farmer self-identity and attitudes on participation in agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy, 95, 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104660
  15. European Commission. (2015). EU agriculture spending focused on results. Brussels.
  16. FAO. (2018a). The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Rome.
  17. FAO. (2018b). World food and agriculture: Statistical pocketbook. Rome.
  18. Gatto, P., Mozzato, D., & Defrancesco, E. (2019). Analysing the role of factors affecting farmers' decisions to continue with agri-environmental schemes from a temporal perspective. Environmental Science and Policy, 92, 237-244. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.001
  19. Herzele, A. V., Gobin, A., Gossum, P. V., Acosta, L., Waas, T., Dendoncker, N., et al. (2013). Effort for money? Farmers' rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. Journal of Environmental Management, 131, 110-120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.001
  20. Holt-Gimenez, E., & Altier., M. A. (2013). Agroecology, food Sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 90-102. http://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716388
  21. Kati, H., & Annette, P. (2020). Farmers' perception of co-ordinating institutions in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy, 1-7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104947
  22. Lampkin, N. H., Pearce, B. D., Leake, A. R., Creissen, H., Gerrard, C. L., Girling, R., et al. (2015). The role of agroecology in sustainable intensification. The UK strategy conservation. Countryside and Environment Agencies.
  23. Lastra-Bravo, X., Hubbard, C., & Garrod, G. (2015). What drives farmers' participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002
  24. Lehtonen, H., & Rankine, K. (2015). Impacts of agri-environmental policy on land use and nitrogen leaching in Finland. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 130-144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.001
  25. Martinez-Eixarch, M., Curco, A., & Ibanz, C. (2016). Effects of agri-environmental and organic rice farming on yield and macrophyte community in Mediterranean paddy fields. Paddy Water Environment, 15(3), 457-467. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-016-0563-x
  26. Natural England. (2012). Entry Level Stewardship.
  27. Natural England. (2013). Organic Entry Level Stewardship.
  28. Pajewski, T., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., & Golebiewska, B. (2020). Measuring regional diversification of environmental externalities in agriculture and the effectiveness of their reduction by EU agri-environmental programs in Poland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123013
  29. Randall, N. P., & James, K. L. (2012). The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe: A systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 1(4), 1-21. http://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-1-4
  30. Silici, L. (2014). Agroecology: What it is and what it has to offer. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.
  31. Tangermann, S. (2011). Direct payments in the CAP post 2013. Brussels: European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
  32. Uthes, S., & Matzdorf, B. (2012). Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Environmental Management, 51(1), 251-266. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6
  33. Veserager, J. P., Teilmann, K., & Vejre, H. (2012). Assessing long-term sustainable environmental impacts of agri-environment schemes on land use. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(1), 95-107. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0469-x
  34. Wezel, A., Bellom, S., Dore, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(4), 503-515. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_3
  35. Wrbka. T., Schindler, S., Pollhemer, M., Schnitzberger, I., & Peterseil, J. (2008). Impacts of the Austrian agri-environmental scheme on diversity of landscape, plants and birds. Community Ecology, 9(2), 217-227. http://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.9.2008.2.11