Bui Tuan Anh, Nguyen Dinh Bong,
Do Thi Tam
A study on some factors which
influence management of
agricultural land use in Sontay Town,
Hanoi City, Vietnam
Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Administratio Locorum 13/3, 7-25
Acta Sci. Pol., Administratio Locorum 13(3) 2014, 7—26
A STUDY ON SOME FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE
MANAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USE IN
SONTAY TOWN, HANOI CITY, VIETNAM
Bui Tuan Anh1, Nguyen Dinh Bong 2, Do Thi Tam 3
1 Ph.D student in Vietnam National University of Agriculture
2 Vietnam Society of Soil Science
3 Faculty of Land Management, Vietnam National University of Agriculture
A bstract. The sustainable land use management relates to the current and future areas of economics, society, culture and environment, limits land and water degradation and reduces production costs. The study aims to find out some limiting factors in the management of agricultural land use in Sontay Town. The impact of the factors on the management of agricultural land use was analyzed by using Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient in SPSS 17.0 with significant level 0.05 through the investigation of 160 households from 4 communes. The results of the research show that the local people realize that there has been a remarkable change in the land use management over the period and the main factors which influence the management of agricultural land use are land policies, policies supporting capital, techniques; characteristics of soil, scale of the area of farm land, and the roles of media and information.
Keywords: management of land use, agricultural land, land management, Sontay
IN T R O D U C T IO N
L a n d is a n a tu ra l r e s o u rc e , v a lu a b le n a tio n a l p ro p e rty , h e r ita g e o f m a n k in d , a prereq u isite for all m an u factu rin g processes. L an d use is the w ay in w h ich hum ans exploit the land and the natural resources w h ich are associated w ith the land to serve th e ir b e n e fits [M ey er 1996]. L an d u se s an d th e ir ch a n g es sh o u ld be d e te rm in e d by land-use m anagem ent practices including geographic distribution o f land, status o f land r e s o u r c e s a n d th e ir s u ita b ility , la n d u s e d y n a m ic s , p o lic y in te r v e n tio n s , s o c io e c o n o m ic p r a c tic e s a n d c o m p u ls io n s , sc ie n c e a n d te c h n o lo g y in p u ts , a n d so on. Therefore, land use m anagem ent practices are carefully considered in order to develop Adres do korespondencji - Corresponding author: Bui Tuan Anh, Nguyen Dinh Bong , Do Thi Tam , Ph.D student in Vietnam National University of Agriculture, 2. Vietnam Society of Soil
an integrated land use po licy fram ew ork [G autam and R aghavsw am y 2004]. L and use m a n a g e m e n t fo c u s e s o n th e la n d a n d th e w a y in w h ic h th e la n d is u s e d fo r th e p u rp o s e s o f m a n u fa c tu rin g , p re s e rv a tio n a n d a e s th e tic [V e rh e y e 2 0 1 0 ]. L a n d u se m an ag e m en t is th e com b in atio n o f all to o ls an d tech n iq u es u se d b y the au th o rities in order to m anage the w ay in w hich the land is used and developed including planning, la n d u se p la n n in g , law , la n d u se rig h ts, la n d v a lu a tio n a n d r e a l estate in fo rm atio n . M a n a g e m e n t o f su sta in a b le la n d u se re la te s to th e e c o n o m ic s, society, c u ltu re and e n v iro n m e n t, p r e s e n t a n d fu tu re , lim its s o il a n d w a te r d e g r a d a tio n a n d re d u c e s p ro d u ctio n costs.
S ontay T ow n is a th ird grade u rb a n area situ ated in th e n o rth -w e st o f H anoi city, w ith a to ta l a re a o f 113.5 k m 2 (9 2 3 .6 2 m 2 p e r c a p ita ), a n d th e av e ra g e p o p u la tio n d e n s ity o f 1083 p e o p le /k m 2. A t th e tim e o f M o rd e rn iz a tio n -In d u striliz a tio n , S ontay T ow n h a s b e e n fa c in g c h a lle n g e s o f th e p ro c e ss o f e x p a n d in g H an o i C a p ita l w ith in c re asin g p ressu re o f la n d d e m an d fo r in d u stry an d u rb a n d ev e lo p m e n t; o rg an izin g r e s e ttle m e n t a n d e m p lo y m e n t c h a n g e fo r a la rg e n u m b e r o f fa rm e rs w h o h a v e no c u ltiv a tio n land. T he p u rp o se o f th is re se a rc h is to fin d o u t the facto rs w h ich have im p act on the m an ag e m en t o f agricu ltu ral land use in o rd er to enhance the efficiency o f land m anagem ent in Sontay Town.
R e s e a rc h h y p o th e sis. The change in land use m an ag em en t is v ery crucial to adapt to th e tre n d o f a g ric u ltu re d e v e lo p m e n t in th e in d u s tria liz a tio n a n d m o d e rn iz a tio n p e rio d . I t is a s s u m e d th a t th e re a re r e la tio n s h ip s a m o n g th e te c h n ic a l fa c to rs in a g ric u ltu ra l p ro d u c tio n , so c io e c o n o m ic fa c to rs, p o lic y m e c h a n is m a n d th e ro le o f com m unity w ith agricultural land use m anagem ent.
M E T H O D O L O G IE S
P r i m a r y d a t a . th e p rim a ry d a ta w as c o lle c te d from 160 h o u se h o ld s w h ich w ere ran d o m ly se lec ted from 4 rep resen tativ e com m unes su rv ey ed o f 2 areas investigated. D u o n g L a m c o m m u n e a n d V ie n S o n c o m m u n e r e p r e s e n t p la in a r e a ; C o D o n g com m une and K im Son com m une represent sem i-m ountain and sem i-plain area.
S e c o n d a r y d a t a . T h e s e c o n d a r y d a t a w a s c o l l e c t e d f ro m a d m i n i s t r a t i v e organizations, land operation units in the research area and previous related studies.
M E T H O D O F D A TA P R O C E S S IN G
B o th q u a lita tiv e a n d q u a n tita tiv e a n a ly se s w e re u s e d in th e study. D e sc rip tiv e analysis, such as m eans, freq u en cy counts, p ercen tag es, an d sta n d ard deviation, w ere u s e d in d e s c r ib in g th e c h a r a c te r is tic s o f e a ch are a . L ik e rt s c a le s w ith fiv e -p o in t b ip o la r r e s p o n s e [ L ik e r t 19 3 2 ] w e r e a ls o u s e d to m e a s u r e p e o p l e ’s a ttitu d e to agricultural land use m anagem ent and the factors w hich influence it. These scales range from the low est to highest level o f the local p eople’s attitude as follow s - table 1.
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural... 9
Table. 1. Rating scales
Level Point Rating scale
Very good/ highly interested /rich/very large/very high 5 > 4.2
Good/ interested/good/large/high 4 3.4-4.19
M oderate/ moderate interested/ moderate/ moderate
large/moderate 3 2.6-3.39
Bad/ slightly interested /poor/small/low 2 1.8-2.59 Very bad/ very slightly interested /very poor/very
small/very low 1 < 1.8
B e sid e s th o se , th e T -te s t in s p e c tio n w as also u s e d to te s t th e d iffe re n c e in the q u o ta s b e t w e e n th e 2 s u r v e y e d a r e a s . A c c o r d i n g to th e th e o r y , i f X j, X
2
are independent ran d o m variab les p ick ed from tw o o verall subjects w hich are expected to be mi an d m respectively. To te s t th e eq u a lity o f th e average rate s o f th e tw o o verall subjects, hypothesis H Q: p i = P2 and opposite theory H p p j ^ P2 are built. To com e toth e co n clu sio n th a t h ypothesis H 0 is accep ted o r rejected, w e w ill use the appropriate in sp e ctio n . B a se d o n th e v a lu e o f P (p -v a lu e) (S P S S a b b re v ia te s p - v a lu e to sig) to c o n c lu d e th a t h y p o th e s is H Q is a c c e p te d o r re je c te d . I f th e p -v a lu e (s ig .) is < a (s ig n if ic a n t le v e l), h y p o th e s is H 0 is re je c te d . It m e a n s th a t th e re is a s ig n ific a n t r e la tio n s h ip a m o n g th e v a ria b le s w h ic h n e e d in sp e c tin g . I f th e p -v a lu e (sig .) > a (sig n ific a n t le v el), h y p o th e sis H 0 is ac cep ted . It m e an s th a t th e re is n o rela tio n sh ip am ong the variables w hich need inspecting.
O bserv atio n values o f th e areas w ere o rd in al data. So S pearm an R ank C o rrelation C o e ffic ien t w as u se d to m easu re th e degree o f re la tio n sh ip b etw e en th e in d ep en d en t v a r ia b le s a n d th e la n d u s e m a n a g e m e n t. T h e n u ll h y p o th e s is is: “ T h e r e is no rela tio n sh ip b e tw e e n tw o v a ria b le s ,” w h ile the a ltern ativ e h y p o th e sis is: “ T h ere is a relationship b etw e en tw o v aria b les” . T he follow ing form ula w as u se d to calculate the co- efficien cy :
6
Y
d2
r =1-^
—
n(n -1 )
Where: d2 = is the sum of the squared differences between the pairs of ranks, and
n = is the number of pairs.
Significance analysis o f rs w as done b y t statistics
r ^ n - 2
t =
a
/Ï
2 N u ll hypothesis w as rejected w h en t > ttabie (â/2(n-2))T h e g e n e r a l in t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f th e s tr e n g t h o f a r e la tio n s h i p ( e f f e c t s iz e s ) as follows:
Table 2. Category o f interpretations of the strength of a relationship (effect sizes). General interpretation
of the strength of a relationship
r
(coefficient correlation) Perfectly negative correlation -1.00 Extremely negative correlation - 0.75 - -0.99 Highly negative correlation -0.50 - -0.74 Moderately negative correlation -0.25 - -0.49 Slightly negative correlation -0.01 - -0,24
No correlation 0
Slightly positive correlation 0.01 - 0.24 Moderately positive correlation 0.25 - 0.49 Highly positive correlation 0.5 - 0.74 Extremely positive correlation 0.75 - 0.99 Perfectly positive correlations 1.00
Source: Zulueta and Costales [2005].
T he a c c e p ta b le le v e l o f sig n ific a n c e w as se t a t 0.05 a n d co n fid e n c e le v e l o f 95 p ercent. T he d ata w ere en tered in a co d in g sh eet an d sta tistica lly a n a ly z ed u sin g the softw are SPSS v ersio n 17.0.
R E S U L T S A N D D IS C U S S IO N
T h e s tu d y g e n e r a lly a im s to a n a ly z e th e f a c to r s w h ic h h a v e im p a c t o n th e m a n a g e m e n t o f a g r ic u ltu r a l la n d u se in o r d e r to e n h a n c e th e e ff ic ie n c y o f la n d m an agem ent in Sontay Town. This p art is divided into three sections. The first section d esc rib e s a g ric u ltu ra l la n d u se statu s in S o n tay Tow n. T he se co n d se ctio n re fe rs to land use m anagem ent in Son Tay w hich focuses on land use planning, m an agem ent o f la n d u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u se ; o rg a n iz in g th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts o n la n d u s e m a n a g e m e n t ; th e a l l o c a t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f la n d u se rig h ts; la n d v a lu a tio n ; a n d la n d u se rig h ts in fo rm a tio n m arket. The th ird section analyzes the factors affecting the m anagem ent o f agricultural la n d u se in c lu d in g g ro u p o f p o lic y fac to rs, g ro u p o f n a tu ra l a n d te c h n ic a l fac to rs, group o f econom ic an d social factors, and roles o f com m unity.
A G R IC U L T U R A L L A N D U SE STATUS
Total natural area o f th e to w n is 11353.22 ha; in w hich, ag ricultural land occupies 4 3 .4 7 % , n o n - a g r ic u ltu ra l la n d a c c o u n ts fo r 5 4 .6 6 % , th e r e s t is u n u s e d la n d w ith 1 .8 6 % ( D i v is io n o f N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s a n d E n v ir o n m e n t , 2 0 1 1 ) . T h e a r e a o f
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 11
a g ric u ltu ra l la n d o f th e to w n in 2 0 1 0 w as 4 9 3 5 .3 6 h e c ta re s, d e c re a s in g b y 2 33.75 hectares com pared w ith the area in 2005, in w hich the area o f land used for agricultural p roduction w as 4050.10 hectares, accounting for 82.06% o f the area o f agricultural land and reducing b y 139.62 hectares in com parison w ith the area in 2005. The forestry area w as 719.35 hectares, occupying 14.58% o f the area o f agricultural land and declining by 93.2 com pared to the area in 2005. The area o f aquaculture land was 164.91 hectares, falling b y 0.93 hectares in com parison w ith the area in 2005. The area o f other agricultural land w as 1.0 hectare (D ivision o f Statistics in Son Tay tow n, 2011). The to w n h ad som e Land U se Types (LU Ts) including rice p ad d y L U T , rice p addy - vegetable LUT, vegetable LUT, flow er and landscaped plan t LUT, fruit trees LU T and aquaculture LUT. In plain a re a h a d 4 L U T s a n d 23 k in d s o f la n d u se , in w h ic h ric e p a d d y - v e g e ta b le LU T occupied the largest area o f all LUTs. In sem i-m ountain and sem i-plain area there w ere 5 LUTs and 18 kinds o f land use, in w hich rice p addy - vegetable L U T accounted for the la rg e s t o f a ll L U T s. In th e p a s t fe w y e a rs , th e v a lu e o f a g r ic u ltu r a l p ro d u c tio n a c c o u n te d fo r 11% to ta l v a lu e o f g ro ss p ro d u c tio n o f th e to w n S ontay. T h erefo re, enhancing the efficiency in m anagem ent o f agricultural land use is extrem ely important.
A G RICU LTU R AL LAND USE M A N A G EM EN T IN SONTAY T O W N
L a n d u se p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s f o r la n d use. S o n tay to w n h as m ad e p la n s for p la n n in g a n d im p lem e n tin g su p e rv iso n o f la n d use planning o f the tow n and all the w ards. H owever, land use planning had various aspects w h ich w ere n o t su itab le for th e re a lity an d it d id n o t re fle c t th e lo c a l p e o p le ’s real dem an d s p ro p e rly and sufficiently. T he status o f land allo ca tio n w as slo w er th a n the schedule. The investigation results o f the local p eo p le’s perception o f land use planning in the tow n show th at the vast m ajority (91.88% ) o f the people interview ed knew about the land use planning w hich w as m ade public. The detailed level o f land use planning w as ev a lu a ted w ith g o o d le v el - 63.13% o f re sp o n d e n ts ra te d it norm al. T he m a jo rity o f households (87.5% ) surveyed said th at the land use planning alternative h ad great tw o w ay im pact on their land use. 60% o f households assum ed that land use planning had big influence on m aking decision on their agricultural land use.
O rg a n iz in g th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts o n la n d u se m a n a g e m e n t. R esearch results show th a t p eople cared for la n d p olicies to find the b e st opportunity to ch a n g e la n d u se p u rp o se (1 0 0 % o f h o u se h o ld s c o n s id e re d it c h o ic e n u m b e r 1). B e sid e s, th e y also w a n te d to a v o id p ro b le m s o f ille g a l la n d u se a n d to p ro p e r ly im plem ent land u s e r ’s rights an d responsibilities. M o st o f the local people (m ore than 80 % o f h o u s e h o ld s q u e s tio n e d ) w e r e in t e r e s t e d in la n d p o l i c i e s , 4 6 % o f th e repondents surveyed stated th at it ’s good to issue and follow legal docum ents on land. T hey thought th at land policies had great effects on changing their decision m aking on th eir agriculture land use.
T h e a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se r ig h ts . L and allocation, la n d leasing an d la n d aq u isitio n have b e e n p erfo rm ed w ell. T he o rd er and procedures have b ee n in place and there is n o w no m ore inapproroate land allocation. P la n n in g a n d in fra s tru c tu re d e s ig n o f re s id e n tia l a re a s b e fo re la n d a llo c a tio n hav e s e rio u s ly b e e n c o n s id e re d . T h e la n d a llo c a tio n h a s b e e n c a rrie d o u t s tr ic tly a n d appropreately. U p to now , the to w n h as a llo ca te d a g ric u ltu ral la n d to h o u se h o ld s for stable use w ith 100% . In sp ectio n an d checking the state o f land use is reg u la rly done to ensure le g al land use an d h ig h ly econom ic efficiency. The stu d y resu lts show th at th e m a jo r ity o f th e r e s p o n d e n ts (6 8 % ) s ta te d th a t th e y w e re in te r e s te d o r v e ry in te re s te d in o b ta in in g la n d u se rig h ts. H o w ev er, th e y ra te d th is ta s k p e rfo rm a n c e m oderate. B ut they w ere clearly aw are o f the im pact o f allocation o f land use rights on their agricultural land use decision m aking.
L a n d v a lu a tio n . P e o p le ’s C o m m ite e o f th e city h as issu e d la n d p rice s according to th e re g u la tio n s and ad ju sts th e m every year. T he rese arch resu lts in d icate th a t the m a jo rity o f th e resp o n d en ts (91.26% ) sho w ed th e ir in terest in la n d price according to the regulations as w ell as agricultural land price o n th e m arket. H ow ever, th e y did not hig h ly ap preciate th e p ro m u lg atio n and im p lem en tatio n o f land p rice according to the regulations (40.63% o f respondents). A ccording to th e respondents, th e land v aluation did n o t have a big im pact o n th eir agicultural land use decision m aking.
L a n d u se r ig h ts in f o r m a tio n m a r k e t. M a n ag em en t an d dev elo p m en t o f la n d use rights m arket is a n ew task. So far, the m arket o f land use rights has n o t been m anaged. L and transactions w ere m ain ly spontaneous b etw een buyers and sellers. The to w n has n o t h a d an ag en cy to m anage th is field. The research resu lts show th a t up to 91.88% o f r e s p o n d e n ts w e re in t e r e s t e d in th e in f o r m a ti o n o n la n d u s e r ig h ts m a rk e t. H ow erver, they did n o t appreciate the perform ance o f this task in the local area. U p to 75.63% co n sid ered th e p ro v isio n o f th e la n d u se rig h ts m a rk e t in fo rm atio n p o o r and v e ry poor. A c c o rd in g to th e m , th e la n d u se rig h ts in fo rm a tio n m a rk e t h a d a m a jo r influence o n th eir agricultural land use decision.
S o m e f a c to r s a f f e c tin g th e m a n a g e m e n t o f a g r i c u l t u r a l la n d u s e in S o n ta y Tow n
G r o u p o f p o lic y f a c t o r s . T h e i n v e s tig a tio n f in d in g s o f th e lo c a l p e o p l e ’s a s s e s s m e n t o f p o lic y m e c h a n ism , la n d p o lic ie s , su p p o rt p o lic ie s , an d o th e r so c ia l policies are sum m arized in Table 3 and F igure 1.
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural... 13
Table 3. Investigation results of policy mechanism
Criteria
Plain
n =
area 80
Semi-mountain and semi plain area n = 80 Total N =160 no of respondents % no of respondents % no of respondents % Land policies 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100,00 very good 17 21.25 14 17.50 31 19.38 good 46 57.50 43 53.75 89 55.62 moderate 12 15.00 16 20.00 28 17.50 poor 5 6.25 7 8.75 12 7.50 very poor 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mean 3.94 3.80 3.87 0.00 P-value 0.284 Support policies (technique, funding) 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very good 6 7.50 6 7.50 12 7.50 good 5 6.25 8 10.00 13 8.13 moderate 50 62.50 47 58.75 97 60.63 poor 10 12.50 15 18.75 25 15.62 very poor 9 11.25 4 5.00 13 8.12 Mean 2.89 2.98 2.93 P-value 0.571
Other social policies 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00
very good 3 3.75 4 5.00 7 4.38 good 15 18.75 17 21.25 32 20.00 moderate 40 50.00 50 62.50 90 56.25 poor 8 10.00 9 11.25 17 10.62 very poor 14 17.50 0 0,00 14 8.75 Mean 2.81 3.2 3.01 P-value 0.007
total
semi-mountain and semi-plain area
□ other social policies
□ support policies (technique, funding) ® land policies
plain area
0 1 2 3 4 5 Fig. 1. Asessment results of policy mechanism
It can be seen from the Table th at land policy m echanism w as rated relatively good, 19.38% o f resp o n d e n ts ra n k e d la n d p o lic y m e ch a n ism in th e p a s t p e rio d v e ry good, 55.62% o f th em considered it good and only 7.5% o f households th o u g h t it poor. It is also notew o rth y th a t land policies w ere highly appreciated b y the local people w ith the average level: 3.87. There w ere no differences betw een the tw o areas (the average rates o f the tw o areas w ere 3.94 an d 3.80 respectively). A p art from that, th e te ch n ic al and funding support policies w ere assessed at an average rate w ith the value: 2.93. There were no differences betw een tw o areas (2.89 and 2.98). In addition, social policies w ere rated m oderate b y nearly 60% o f the respondents. They also assessed other social policies at the average rate w ith 3.01. T here w as a clear difference b etw een the plain area an d sem i m ountain and sem i-plain area (the plain area has the average o f 2.81 com pared to 3.20 o f sem i-m ountain and semi-plain area). The people in sem i-m ountain and semi-plain area are significantly m ore aware o f social policies than those in the plain. This shows that the prior policies are implemented in accordance w ith certain regions.
Table 4. The relationships betw een policy m echanism factors and agricultural land use management
Agricultural land use management
Independent variables land use planning, management of land use planning and plans for land
use implementation of legal documents allocation and management of the implementaion of land use rights land evaluation real estate information market Land policies 0.558** 0,748 ** 0.288** 0.510** 0.427** Supportive policies (technique, funding) 0.321** 0,552** 0.217** 0.373** 0.383** Other social policies 0.214** 0,129 -0.027 0.221** 0.009
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 15
T he rese arch resu lts (table 4) show th a t there w ere po sitiv e rela tio n sh ip s b etw e en land polices and agricultural land use m anagem ent from m oderate to high levels: 0.288 < r s< 0 .7 4 8 ; P = 0 .0 1 . It is n o te w o r th y th a t s u p p o r t p o lic ie s h a d a h ig h ly p o s itiv e relationship w ith prom ulgation and im plem entation o f legal docum ents w ith r s = 0.552; P = 0.01. A p art from those, there w ere a slightly positive relationship b etw een support p o lic ie s an d th e allo ca tio n a n d m a n ag e m en t o f th e im p lem e n ta io n o f la n d u se rights w ith r s = 0.217; P = 0.01 and m oderately positive relationships betw een support policies a n d la n d u s e p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u s e , la n d evaluation, land inform ation m arket (0.321 < r s < 0.383; P = 0.01). It can also be seen fro m th e ta b le th a t o th e r s o c ia l p o lic ie s h a d s lig h tly p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h ip s w ith planning, m anagem ent o f planning and plans for land use (rs = 0.214; P = 0.01) and land evaluation ( r s = 0.221; P = 0.01). H ow ever, there w ere no relationships b etw e en other social p olicies and im plem en tatio n o f legal docum ents, allocation and m an ag em en t o f the im plem entaion o f land use rights, real estate inform ation m arket. In other words, the significant change in land policies and other supportive policies on technique and fund leads to positive change on the m anagem ent o f agricultural land use.
G ro u p o f n a tu r a l a n d te c h n ic a l fa c to rs. The survey results o f group o f natural and technical factors including characteristics o f soil, crops and crop varieties, crop structure, and cultivated area given b y the local people are presented in Table 5 and Figure 2.
Table 5. Survey results of group o f natural and technical factors
Criteria Plain n = area 80 Semi-mountain and semi-plain area n = 80 Total N =160 no. of respondents % no. of respondents % no. of respondents % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interest in soil characteristics 80 100 80 100 160 100 highly interested 27 33.75 45 56.25 72 45.00 interested 36 45.00 15 18.75 51 31.88 moderately interested 12 15.00 18 22.50 30 18.75 slightly interested 5 6.25 2 2.50 7 4.37 very slightly interested 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Mean 4.06 4.29 4.18
P-value 0.109
Interest in selection of
crops and crop varieties 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 highly interested 17 21.25 14 17.50 31 19.38
cont. table 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
moderately interested 12 15.00 16 20.00 28 17.50 slightly interested 5 6.25 7 8.75 12 7.50 very slightly interested 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Mean 3.94 3.80 3.87
P-value 0.284
Interest in crop structure 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 highly interested 16 20.00 19 23.75 35 21.88
interested 54 67.50 47 58.75 101 63.13
moderately interested 8 10.00 7 8.75 15 9.37 slightly interested 2 2.50 1 1.25 3 1.87 very slightly interested 0 0.00 6 7.50 6 3.75
Mean 4.03 3.90 3.96 P-value 0.352 Cultivation area 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very large (>2000 m2) 3 3.75 4 5.00 7 4.38 large (1700 - 2000m2) 48 60.00 52 65.00 100 62.50 moderately large (1400 - 1699 m2) 21 26.25 14 17.50 35 21.88 small (1100 - 1399 m2) 8 10.00 9 11.25 17 10.62 very small (<1100 m2) 0 0.00 1 1.25 1 0.62 Mean 3.58 3.61 3.59 P-value 0.757
R esearch results in Table 5 and Figure 2 show th a t characteristics o f soil, selection o f c ro p s a n d v a rie tie s o f cro p a n d cro p s tru c tu re in flu e n c e d a g ric u ltu ra l la n d use efficiency. U p to 76.88% o f resp o n d en ts w ere in terested in characteristics o f soil, the rate o f interest w as high w ith 4.18 and there w ere no differences betw een the tw o areas w ith 4.06 and 4.29 respectively. 55% o f the people surveyed cared about crop selection; 1 9 .3 8 % o f th e m w e r e v e r y i n t e r e s t e d in c r o p s e l e c t i o n a n d th e ra te o f in te re s t w a s also h ig h w ith 3.87. T h e re w ere no d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n tw o areas (th e a v e ra g e r a te s w e re 3 .9 4 a n d 3 .8 0 r e s p e c tiv e ly ) . It s h o u ld b e n o te d th a t u p to 85.01% o f resp o n d en ts p aid atten tio n to crop structure. T he average rate w as high w ith 3.96 and there w ere no differences betw een the tw o areas. The average cultivated
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 17
a r e a w a s b ig w ith th e h ig h a v e r a g e r a te 3 .5 9 . U p to 8 4 % o f r e s p o n d e n ts h a v e 1400-2000 m 2 o f cultivated area. The average rates o f the tw o areas w ere 3.58 and 3.61 respectively. The differences betw een tw o areas cannot be found.
cultivation area
interest in crops structure
interest in selection of crops and crop varieties
interest in soil characteristics
□ total
I I semi-mountain and semi-plain area ■ plain area
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 Fig. 2. Asessment results of group of natural and technical factors
T he rela tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n n atu ra l an d te ch n ic al fac to rs and ag ric u ltu ra l la n d use m anagem ent w ere show n in Table 6.
Table 6. The relationships between natural and technical factors and agricultural land use management
Agricultural land use management
Independent variables land use planning, management of land use planning and plans for land
use implementation of legal documents allocation and management of the implementaion of land use rights land evaluation real estate information market Soil properties 0.758** 0.322** 0.161* 0.325** 0.110 Crops and crop varieties 0.614** 0.364** 0.323** 0.206** 0.318** Crop structure 0.417** 0.267** 0.269** 0.260** 0.312** Cultivated area 0.515** 0.321** 0.209** 0.376** 0.236**
T he results show th a t the positive relationship betw een soil properties and land use planning, m an agem ent o f land use planning and plans for land use w as v ery high w ith r s = 0.758; P = 0.01. The p ositive relationship b etw een soil properties an d agricultual la n d u s e m a n a g e m e n t in te rm s o f im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts a n d la n d e v a lu a tio n w as m o d e ra te w ith 0.322 < r s < 0.325; P = 0.01. B esid es, soil p ro p ertie s
h a d a s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith a l l o c a t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts ( r s = 0.1 6 1 ; P = 0.05). T h ere w as n o rela tio n sh ip betw een soil properties w ith land inform ation m arket.
It is interestin g to note th a t cu ltiv ated area h ad a h ig h ly p ositive relationship w ith land use planning, m anagem ent o f land use planning and plans for land use (rs = 0.515;
P = 0.01), m o d e ra te ly p o sitiv e rela tio n sh ip s w ith im p lem e n ta tio n o f le g al d o cu m en ts
and land evaluation (0.321 < r s < 0.376; P = 0.01), an d slightly p ositive relationships w ith a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts a n d re a l estate inform ation m ark et (0.209 < r s < 0.236; P = 0.01).
It should also be n o te d th a t the selection o f crop structure h a d m oderately positive relationships w ith la n d use planning, m an ag em en t o f p lanning and plans for la n d use: r s = 0 .4 1 7 ; P = 0 .0 1 , im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts : r s = 0 .2 6 7 ; P = 0 .0 1 , a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts : r s = 0 .2 6 9 ;
P = 0.01, la n d ev aluation: r s = 0.2 6 0 ; P = 0.01, an d rea l estate in fo rm a tio n m arket:
r s = 0.312; P = 0.01.
A n o th e r n o tic e a b le th in g is th a t cro p v a rie tie s a n d c ro p s h a d a h ig h ly p o sitiv e relatio n sh ip w ith land u se p lanning, m a n ag e m en t o f p la n n in g and p lan s for la n d use: r s = 0.614; P = 0.01; m o d e ra tely p o sitiv e rela tio n sh ip s w ith im p lem e n ta tio n o f legal do cu m en ts: r s = 0.3 6 4 ; P = 0.01, a llo c a tio n an d m a n a g e m e n t o f the im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rights: r s = 0.323; P = 0.01, re a l estate in fo rm a tio n m ark et: r s = 0.318;
P = 0.01 and a slightly positive relationship w ith land evaluation: r s = 0.206, P = 0.01.
In g en e ral, gro u p o f n a tu ra l a n d te c h n ic a l fac to rs h a s h ig h p o sitiv e in flu e n ce on ag ric u ltu ral la n d u se m a n ag e m en t in te rm o f la n d use p lan n in g , m a n ag e m en t o f land u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s for la n d u se. T h u s, w h e n p la n n in g fo r la n d u se , th e ab o v e factors should be ta k en into considerstion.
G r o u p o f e c o n o m ic a n d so c ia l fa c to rs .
G roup o f eco n o m ic an d so cial fac to rs in c lu d es h o u se h o ld eco n o m ics, c u ltiv a tio n level an d p ro d u ct co n sum ption m arket. The survey results w ere show n in Table 7 and Figure 3.
Table 7. Survey results o f group of economic and social factors
Plain area Semi-mountain and Total C riteria n = 80 sem i-plain area n = 80 N =160
no. % no. % no. %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic status o f households 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 rich 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 good 28 35.00 28 35.00 56 35.00 m oderate 46 57.50 52 65.00 98 61.25 poor 6 7.50 0 0.00 6 3.75
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 19 cont. table 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very poor 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mean 3.28 3.35 3.31 P-value 0.381 Educational attainment 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very high (higher
education) 2 2.50 5 6.25 7 4.38
high (grades 10-12) 54 67.50 47 58.75 101 63.13 moderate (grades 6-9) 18 22.50 19 23.75 37 23.12 low (grades 3-5) 4 5.00 7 8.75 11 6.87 very low (lower grades 3) 2 2.50 2 2.50 4 2.50
Mean 3.63 3.58 3.60 P-value 0.689 Product consumption market 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very good 3 3.75 4 5.00 7 4.38 good 17 21.25 9 11.25 26 16.25 moderate 45 56.25 44 55.00 89 55.62 bad 8 10.00 14 17.50 22 13.75 very bad 7 8.75 9 11.25 16 10.00 Mean 3.30 2.81 2.92 P-value 0.156
T he d a ta sh o w th a t th e m a jo rity o f h o u se h o ld s h a d m o d e ra te a n d g o o d lev els o f econom ic grow th w ith 96.25% and po o r households accounted for only 3% and the rate w as m o d e ra te w ith 3.31. T here w ere no d ifferen ces in th is c riterio n b etw e en th e tw o areas. The n o tic ea b le th in g is th a t th e lo c al p eo p le h a d h ig h educatio n al attainm ents. U p to 9 0 .6 3 % o f r e s p o n d e n ts g r a d u a te d fro m m id d le s c h o o l a n d th e d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n th e tw o areas ca n n o t be found. A cc o rd in g to th e lo c al p e o p le ’s percep tio n , 55.62% o f the households stated th at the pro d u ct consum ption m arket w as at m oderate level, 23.75% o f th e respondents co n sid ered it b ad an d v e ry bad. T he average rate o f this criterion w as m oderate w ith 2.92. T here w ere no differences betw een the tw o areas.
0 1 2 3 4
Fig. 3. Asessment results o f group of economic and social factors
T he re la tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n ec o n o m ic an d so c ial fac to rs a n d a g ric u ltu ra l la n d use m anagem ent w ere show n in Table 8.
Table 8. The relationships betw een economic and social factors and agricultural land use management
Agricultural land use management
Independent variables land use planning, management of land use planning and plans for land
use implementation of legal documents allocation and management of the implementaion of land use rights land evaluation real estate information market Economic status of households 0.045 0.116 0.052 0.113 -0.072 Educational attainment 0.034 0.123 -0.021 0.102 0.174* product consumpüon 0.221** 0.208** 0.203* 0.168* 0.315** market T he re su lts in ta b le 8 sh o w th a t p ro d u c t c o n s u m p tio n m a rk e t h a d a m o d e ra te ly positive relationship w ith real estate inform ation m arket (rs = 0.315; P = 0.01), slightly p o sitiv e rela tio n sh ip s w ith la n d u se p lan n in g , m a n ag e m en t o f la n d u se p la n n in g and p la n s fo r la n d u s e ( r s = 0 .2 2 1 ; P = 0 .0 1 ), im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts (r s = 0.208; P = 0.01), allo ca tio n an d m an ag e m en t o f th e im p lem en taio n o f land use rig h ts ( r s = 0.203; P = 0.05) , la n d ev a lu a tio n ( r s = 0.168; P = 0.05). T h ere w as no r e la tio n s h i p b e tw e e n e c o n o m ic s ta tu s o f h o u s e h o ld s a n d a g r ic u ltu r a l la n d u se m a n a g e m e n t. T h e T a b le 6 a ls o sh o w s a s li g h tly p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h i p b e tw e e n ed ucational attainm ents an d real estate in fo rm atio n m a rk e t (r s = 0.174; P = 0.05) b u t
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 21
th ere w ere no rela tio n sh ip s b etw e en ed u c atio n al attain m en ts w ith la n d u se p lanning, m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u se , im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g al do cu m en ts, allo c a tio n an d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p lem e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts and land evaluation.
R o les o f c o m m u n ity . R oles o f co m m u n ity in a g ric u ltu ral la n d u se o f h o useholds w ere ev a lu a te d th ro u g h th e ro les o f lo c a l a u th o rities, ro les o f a g ric u ltu ra l ex ten sio n an d fo re stry ex ten sio n o rg an iz atio n s, ro les o f o th e r social o rg an iz atio n s an d ro le s o f m edia and inform ation. The survey results w ere show n in Table 9 and Figure 4.
Table 9. Survey results of roles of community
Criteria Plain n = area 80 Semi-mountain and semi-plain area n = 80 Total N =160
no. % no. % no. %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Local authorities 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very good 1 1.25 0 0.00 1 0.63 good 20 25.00 27 33.75 47 29.38 moderate 44 55.00 45 56.25 89 55.62 bad 9 11.25 5 6.25 14 8.75 very bad 6 7.50 3 3.75 9 5.62 Mean 3.01 3.2 3.11 P-value 0.134 Agricultural extension, forestry extension organizations 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very high 3 3.75 4 5.00 7 4.38 high 19 23.75 16 20.00 35 21.87 moderate 33 41.25 41 51.25 74 46.25 low 18 22.50 10 12.50 28 17.50 very low 7 8.75 9 11.25 16 10.00 Mean 2.91 2.95 2.93 P-value 0.811
Other social organizations 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00
very good 15 18.75 14 17.50 29 18.13
good 39 48.75 41 51.25 80 50.00
cont. table9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bad 5 6.25 6 7.50 11 6.87 very bad 6 7.50 4 5.00 10 6.25 Mean 3.61 3.69 3.65 P-value 0.656 Communication and information 80 100.00 80 100.00 160 100.00 very good 3 3.75 2 2.50 5 3.13 good 45 56.25 37 46.25 82 51.25 moderate 17 21.25 23 28.75 40 25.00 bad 9 11.25 10 12.50 19 11.87 very bad 6 7.50 8 10.00 14 8.75 Mean 3.38 3.19 3.28 P-value 0.245 communiction and information
other social organizations
agricultural extension, forestry extension organizations
local authorities
0 1 2 3 4
Fig. 4. Asessment results o f roles of community
T he survey resu lts show th a t ro les o f lo c al auth o rities w ere h ig h ly app reciated by 0 .6 3 % a n d 2 9 .3 8 % o f th e r e s p o n d e n ts . T h e a v e r a g e r a te o f th is c r it e r io n w as c o n s id e re d m o d e ra te w ith 3.11. T h ere w ere no d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n tw o are as, and 55.62% o f th em ran k e d these roles m oderate. A lso, th e roles o f ag ricultural extension an d forestry ex ten sio n organ izatio n s w ere a ssessed a t m o d e ra te rate w ith 2.93. There w e re 2 1 .8 7 % o f r e s p o n d e n ts w h o r a n k e d th e s e ro le s g o o d a n d 4 6 .2 5 % o f th e m
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 23
th o u g h t th e s e r o le s m o d e ra te . T h e re w e re n o d iffe r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e tw o a re a s because the average rates w ere 2.91 and 2.95 respectively. A p art from those, the roles o f o ther social o rganizations w ere h ig h ly appreciated w ith th e high average rate 3.65. A b o u t 1 8 .1 3 % o f th e r e s p o n d e n ts r a te d th e s e r o le s v e r y g o o d a n d 5 0 % o f th e resp o n d e n ts c o n sid ered th e m good. T he d ifferen ces b etw e en th e tw o areas ca n n o t be fo u n d b ec au se th e a v e rag e ra te s w ere 3.61 a n d 3.69 resp ectiv ely . B esid es, th e roles o f m e d ia an d info rm atio n system w ere co n sid ered m o derate w ith 3.28. A b o u t 51.25% o f the respondents ran k e d th ese roles h ig h and 25% reg a rd e d th em m oderately. T here w ere no differences betw een the tw o areas (average rate o f 3.38 and 3.19).
T he influence o f roles o f com m unity on agricultural land use m anagem ent in Sontay w ere show n in Table 10.
Table 10. The relationships between roles of community and agricultural land use management
Agricultural land use management
Independent variables land use planning, management o f land use planning and plans for land
use implementation o f legal documents allocation and management o f the implementaion o f land use rights land evaluation real estate information market Local authorities 0.250** 0.243** 0.204** 0.193* 0.268** A gricultural extension, forestry extension organizations 0.411** 0.260** 0.205** 0.283** 0.201*
Other social organizations 0.163* 0.171* 0.209** 0.267** 0.211** M edia and information 0.813** 0.384** 0.338** 0.416** 0.291**
R esearch results in table 10 show th at there w ere m oderately positive relationships b e tw e e n r o le s o f lo c a l a u th o r itie s a n d la n d u s e p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d use p lanning and plans for land use w ith r s = 0.250; P = 0.01, real estate inform ation m arket ( r s = 0.268; P = 0.01). T here w ere slightly positive relationships betw een roles o f lo c a l a u th o ritie s a n d im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts , a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p l e m e n ta io n o f la n d u s e r i g h t s , la n d e v a lu a tio n (0.193<rs < 0.243; P= 0.01).
T h e r o le s o f a g r ic u ltu r a l e x te n s io n a n d fo re s try e x te n s io n o r g a n iz a tio n s h a d m o d e ra te ly p o sitiv e re la tio n sh ip s w ith la n d u se p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u se ( r s = 0 .4 1 1 ; P = 0 .0 1 ), im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g a l d o cu m en ts ( r s = 0 .2 6 0 ; P = 0.0 1 ), a n d la n d e v a lu a tio n ( r s = 0.2 8 3 ; P = 0 .0 1 ), an d slightly positive relationships w ith allocation an d the im plem entaion o f land use rights ( rs = 0.205; P = 0.01), and real estate inform ation m ark et (rs = 0.201; P = 0.01).
T he roles o f o ther social organizations h ad a m o d erately p ositive relationship w ith land evaluation (rs = 0.267, P = 0.01) and slightly positive relationships w ith land use p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d u s e p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u se ( r s = 0 .1 6 3 ;
P= 0.05), prom ulgation and im plem entation o f legal docum ents ( rs = 0.171; P = 0.05),
a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts ( r s = 0 .2 0 9 ;
P = 0.01), real estate inform ation m arket (rs = 0.211; P = 0.01).
T h e re w a s a e x tre m e ly p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e r o le s o f m e d ia a n d inform ation and land use planning, m anagem ent o f land use planning and plans for land u s e ( r s = 0 .8 1 3 ; P = 0 .0 1 ). H o w e v e r, th e r o le s o f m e d ia a n d in f o r m a ti o n h a d m oderately positive relationships w ith im plem entation o f legal docum ents ( rs = 0.384;
P = 0 .0 1 ), a llo c a tio n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f th e im p le m e n ta io n o f la n d u se rig h ts
( rs = 0.338; P = 0.01), real estate inform ation m arket (r s = 0.291; P = 0.01), and land evaluation ( r s = 0.416; P = 0.01).
C O N C L U S IO N
S ontay T ow n h as a to ta l n atu ra l are a o f 11353.22 h ec ta re s in w hich, agricu ltu ral la n d o cc u p ie s 43.47% , n o n -ag ricu ltu ra l la n d acco u n ts for 54.66% , th e re st is un u sed la n d w ith 1.86% . T he re su lts sh o w th a t th e lo c a l p eo p le re a liz e th a t th e re h a s b e e n g rea t ch an g es in la n d u se m a n ag e m en t in th e p a s t y ears an d th e m a jo r factors w hich influence agricultural land use m anagem ent are:
In group o f p o lic y m ech an ism factors, land policies h av e h ig h ly p ositive influence on ag ricu ltu ral la n d use m an ag e m en t in te rm s o f im p lem e n ta tio n o f legal docum ents; land use planning, m an ag em en t o f land use plan n in g and p lan s for land use and land evaluation. In addition, su p p o rt p olicies hav e h ig h ly p ositive influence o n ag ricultural la n d use m a n ag e m en t in te rm s o f im p lem e n ta tio n o f legal docum ents. T hus, creatin g appropriate land policies and supportive policies is a crucial task.
G ro u p o f n a tu ra l a n d te c h n ic a l fac to rs h a s h ig h im p a c t o n a g ric u ltu ra l la n d use m anagem ent in term s o f land use planning, m anagem ent o f land use planning and plans fo r la n d u se . T h e re f o r e , th e a b o v e fa c to rs s h o u ld c a r e f u lly b e c o n s id e r e d w h e n planning for land use.
G ro u p o f e c o n o m ic a n d s o c ia l f a c to r s h a s s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e in f lu e n c e o n agricultural land use m anagem ent. This phenom enon hardly ever happens in developing c o u n trie s . H o w e v e r, th e r e a s o n is th a t S o n ta y is th e p la c e w h ic h h a s c o n v e n ie n t g eo g ra p h ica l location, h ig h goods consum ption, w ell-e d u ca ted lo c al p eo p le and good h o u se h o ld econom y.
A m o n g ro le s o f c o m m u n ity fac to rs, m e d ia a n d in fo rm a tio n h a s h ig h ly p o sitiv e in flu e n c e o n a g r ic u ltu r a l la n d u se m a n a g e m e n t in te rm s o f o f la n d u se p la n n in g , m a n a g e m e n t o f la n d u se p la n n in g a n d p la n s fo r la n d u se a n d m o d e ra te ly p o sitiv e in flu e n c e o n a g ric u ltu ra l la n d u se m a n a g e m e n t in te rm s o f im p le m e n ta tio n o f le g al docum ents, allo catio n an d m an ag e m en t o f th e im p lem e n ta io n o f land u se rig h ts, land evaluation, real estate in fo rm atio n m arket. T herefore im p ro v in g system o f m e d ia and inform ation is necessary for h ig e r efficiency o f agricultural land use m anagem ent.
A study on some factors which influence management o f agricultural.. 25
REFERENCES
Likert R. A Technique for the Measurement o f Attitudes. 1932. Archives o f Psychology 140(55). Meyer W.B., Turner B.L. II., 1996, Land-Use/Land-Cover Change: Challenges for geographers,
Geojournal 39(3), 237-240.
Department o f Natural Resources and Environment in Son Tay Town, 2011. Statisitcal Land Data in 2010.
Gautam N.C., Raghavswamy V., Preface. 2004. In Land use/land cover and management practices in India, BS Publications, Hyderabad India.
Statistical Department in Son Tay Town, 2011. Statisitcal Data o f socio-economic development from 2005 to 2010.
Zulueta M. F N.E.B. Costales JR, 2003. Methods o f research thesis. Writing and Applied Statistics. National Bookstore, Mandaluyong, Philippines.
Verheye W. 2010, Land use management. Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Science IV. University Gent, Belgium.
B A D A N IE W P Ł Y W U Z A L E Ż N O Ś C I W Y B R A N Y C H C Z Y N N IK Ó W N A R O Z W Ó J R O L N IC Z E G O U Ż Y T K O W A N IA G R U N T Ó W W M IE J S C O W O Ś C I SONTAY, H A N O I, W IE T N A M
Streszczenie. Zrównoważone użytkowanie gruntów aktualnych obszarów ziemskich zależy i będzie zależeć od ekonomii, społeczeństwa, kultury i środowiska, limitacji gruntów i wody oraz od kosztów produkcji. Badanie ma na celu porównać wybrane czynniki istotne dla użytkowania gruntów rolnych w miejscowości Sontay. Wpływ czynników na użytkowanie gruntów rolnych określano za pomocą współczynnika korelacji rang Spearmana (SPSS) 17.0 na znaczącym poziomie 0,05 poprzez analizę 160 gospodarstw z czterech gmin. Wyniki badań pokazują, że mieszkańcy Sontay zdają sobie sprawę, że miały miejsce znaczące zmiany w użytkowaniu gruntów w badanym okresie. Zauważają przyczyny, potrafią wyod rębnić główne czynniki, które mają wpływ na sposób użytkowania gruntów rolnych, a są to: gospodarka przestrzenna, polityka wspierania koncentracji kapitału, techniki, właściwości gleby, skale obszaru użytków rolnych i rola mediów i informacji.
Słowa kluczowe: użytkowanie gruntów, grunty trolne, Sontay
