MD-۴۰۵

توضیحات برای عکس ثبت نشده

انتقال انرژی شهری و تولید درآمد روستایی: فرصت های پایدار برای توسعه روستایی از طریق تولید زغال چوب

بنام خدا ISIعنوان مقاله بین المللی Urban energy transitions and rural income generation: Sustainable opportunities for rural development through charcoal production ترجمه فارسی عنوان انتقال انرژی شهری و تولید درآمد روستایی: فرصت های پایدار برای توسعه روستایی از طریق تولید زغال چوب این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد. پایگاه «دانشیاری» آمادگی دارد با همکاری مجموعه «شهر محتوا» با استفاده از این مقاله علمی، برای شما به زبان فارسی، تولید محتوا نماید. تولید محتوا کلمات کلیدی WoodfuelSmallholderAfrica - افریقاCharcoal - زغال Poverty - فقرLivelihoods - معیشت یا امرار معاش ترجمه چکیده بخش زغالسنگ جنوب صحرای آفریقا به ندرت مکانیسم توسعه روستایی یا کاهش فقر را در نظر می گیرد؛ در عوض، مقررات فعلی اغلب تولید کنندگان روستایی را به حاشیه می برند توسعه یک بخش پایدار، که بیشتر مردم روستایی را به حاشیه رانده است، با درک محدودی از این سهامداران محدود می شود. ما ارزیابی ناهمگونی تولیدکنندگان روستایی در بازارهای موزامبیک دو نوع متفاوت از بازار زغال چوب شهری را عرضه می کنیم. بر اساس داده های ۷۶۷ نظرسنجی خانوار، یافته های ما نشان می دهد که اندازه بازار شهری بر نوع تولید کننده روستایی و مقیاس تولید آن تأثیر می گذارد. درآمد خانوارهای عمومی تولیدکنندگان در بازار شهری بزرگتر به میزان نسبی بیشتر به زغال چوب برای تولید درآمد وابسته بود؛ تولیدکنندگان کوچک به طور خاص بیشتر بر درآمد زغال چوب متکی بودند، که در آن ۹۵ درصد از درآمد خانوار را تأمین می کند. در مقابل، تولیدکنندگان عرضه کننده بازار کوچکتر، درآمد متنوعتری داشتند و بنابراین کمتر وابسته به درآمد زغال چوب بودند. تولید کنندگان بزرگتر به طور کلی ثروتمندتر بودند؛ درآمد مطلق آنها بیشتر بود و به طور معکوس حداقل به درآمد زغال چوب بستگی داشت. یافته های بیشتر نشان می دهد که تولید زغال چوب روستایی لزوما دامنه فقیرترین فقرا نیست و وجود تولیدکنندگان در تولید مقیاس کوچک ممکن است ناشی از بازارهای بزرگتر شهری باشد، نه یک ویژگی ذاتی بخش. پیش بینی رشد مناطق کوچک شهری و افزایش تقاضا برای زغال چوب فرصت های قابل توجهی برای تولید درآمد روستایی خواهد داشت که به احتمال زیاد منجر به تغییر در تولیدات و مقیاس های تولید خواهد شد. به جای انتقال رویکردهای رسمی موجود، که حاوی دست اندرکاران بخش های روستایی است، مناطق کوچک شهری فرصت هایی برای ایجاد سیستم های تولید متعادل فراهم می کنند تا بتوانند انرژی پایدار و توسعه روستایی را تامین کنند. ناهمگونی تولیدکنندگان روستایی، مداخلات بهتری را هدف قرار داده است که اهمیت تولید زغال چوب برای معیشت روستایی را شامل می شود. موضوعات مرتبط علوم انسانی و اجتماعی اقتصاد، اقتصادسنجی و امور مالی اقتصاد و اقتصادسنجی پیش نمایش مقاله Urban energy transitions and rural income generation: Sustainableopportunities for rural development through charcoal productionHarriet Elizabeth Smitha,⇑, Daniel Jonesb, Frank Vollmerc, Sophia Baumertd, Casey M. Ryane,Emily Woollene, Sá N. Lisboaf, Mariana Carvalhog, Janet A. Fishere, Ana C. Luzh, Isla M. Grundyi,Genevieve PatenaudeeaSustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, United KingdombKing’s Somaliland Partnership, King’s Centre for Global Health and Health Partnerships, King’s College London, United KingdomcOxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford, United KingdomdUniversidade Eduardo Mondlane, MozambiqueeSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, United KingdomfDepartment of Forest Engineering, Faculty of Agronomy and Forest Engineering, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, MozambiquegBirdLife International, United KingdomhCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, PortugaliDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwearticle infoArticle history:Accepted ۳۱ August ۲۰۱۸Keywords:LivelihoodsPovertyAfricaSmallholderWoodfuelCharcoalabstractSub-Saharan Africa’s charcoal sector is rarely considered a mechanism for rural development or povertyalleviation; instead, current regulations often marginalise rural producers. The development of a sustain-able sector, that does not further marginalise rural populations, is restricted by limited understanding ofthese stakeholders. We assess the heterogeneity of rural producers supplying two differentially sizedurban charcoal markets in Mozambique. Drawing on data from ۷۶۷ household surveys, our findings sug-gest that the size of the urban market affects the type of rural producer and their scales of production.Overall household income of producers supplying the larger urban market were proportionally moredependent on charcoal for income generation; small-scale producers in particular relied most on charcoalincome, contributing >۹۵% of household incomes. In contrast, producers supplying the smaller markethad more diversified incomes, and were thus less dependent on charcoal income. Larger-scale producerswere generally wealthier; their absolute incomes were higher and they were proportionally the leastdependent on charcoal income. Further findings suggest that rural charcoal production was not necessar-ily the domain of the poorest of the poor and the existence of producers trapped in small-scale productionmay be a consequence of larger urban markets, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the sector.Predicted growth of smaller urban areas and associated higher demand for charcoal will provide substan-tial opportunities for rural income generation, most likely leading to shifts in producers and productionscales. Rather than transferring existing formal approaches, which marginalise rural stakeholders, smallurban areas provide opportunities to develop equitable production systems, with potential to deliver sus-tainable energy and rural development. The heterogeneity of rural producers calls for better-targetedinterventions that incorporate the importance of charcoal production for rural livelihoods.Ó۲۰۱۸ The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-NDlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/۴.۰/).۱. IntroductionUrbanisation and economic growth across sub-Saharan Africa(SSA) are resulting in pronounced consumption shifts from fuel-wood to charcoal (Girard, ۲۰۰۲), with rising demand for charcoalin many cities directly linked to population growth (Chidumayo& Gumbo, ۲۰۱۳). There is a predicted ۴۰% rise in biomass energydemand across Africa by ۲۰۴۰ (IEA, ۲۰۱۷). As large villages trans-form into secondary urban centres, ۷۵% of urban growth acrossSSA is expected to occur in cities with populations of fewer thanone million (UN-Habitat, ۲۰۱۴), thus small urban areas representsignificant future charcoal consumption zones. Per terajoule ofenergy consumed, charcoal is estimated to create around ۲۰۰–۳۵۰ jobs, a figure triple that of electricity and ۲۰ times that of ker-osene (World Bank, ۲۰۰۵ as cited inMugo and Ong, ۲۰۰۶). As ahttps://doi.org/۱۰.۱۰۱۶/j.worlddev.۲۰۱۸.۰۸.۰۲۴۰۳۰۵-۷۵۰X/Ó۲۰۱۸ The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/۴.۰/).⇑Corresponding author at: University of Leeds, Leeds LS۲ ۹JT, United Kingdom.E-mail addresses:h.x.smith@leeds.ac.uk(H.E. Smith),daniel.jones@kcl.ac.uk(D. Jones),frank.vollmer۱@googlemail.com(F. Vollmer),sophia.baumert@posteo.de(S. Baumert),casey.ryan@ed.ac.uk(C.M. Ryan),e.woollen@ed.ac.uk(E. Woollen),Janet.Fisher@ed.ac.uk(J.A. Fisher),Genevieve.Patenaude@ed.ac.uk(G. Patenaude).World Development ۱۱۳ (۲۰۱۹) ۲۳۷–۲۴۵Contents lists available atScienceDirectWorld Developmentjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev source of livelihoods this makes charcoal comparable in size tocash cropping in some countries (Matly, ۲۰۰۰). Despite the eco-nomic importance of charcoal for rural livelihoods in SSA (Zulu &Richardson, ۲۰۱۳), charcoal production is rarely considered amechanism for rural development, in strong contrast to other sec-tors such as agriculture. Promoting the commercialisation of forestproducts is thus one mechanism for rural development (Belcher &Schreckenberg, ۲۰۰۷; Shackleton & Pandey, ۲۰۱۴), and the antici-pated demand for charcoal in small urban areas may provide sub-stantial opportunities for rural income generation.Charcoal has the potential to be a sustainable energy source(Iiyama et al., ۲۰۱۴), yet links between poorly regulated productionpractices and environmental degradation have led to restrictivemanagement approaches that discourage the extraction of woodfu-els (Mwampamba, Ghilardi, Sander, & Chaix, ۲۰۱۳). National char-coal policies need to reflect the importance of woodfuels in theenergy sector (Dovie, Witkowski, & Shackleton, ۲۰۰۴), promote sus-tainability, ensure social equity, as well as being business-oriented(Neufeldt et al., ۲۰۱۵). Yet few countries have explicit legislationenabling such a sector (Mugo & Ong, ۲۰۰۶). Current policies are lar-gely punitive, condemning millions of rural livelihoods to illegality(Macqueen & Korhaliller, ۲۰۱۱). As a result, the majority of tradein charcoal is informal (Wood & Garside, ۲۰۱۴).The informality of charcoal markets is believed to be the key con-straint to their sustainable management (FAO, ۲۰۰۷); building for-mal institutions is therefore considered the best way to improvesector sustainability (Schure, Ingram, Sakho-Jimbira, Levang, &Wiersum, ۲۰۱۳). However, current formal approaches to governthe charcoal sector in SSA, by and large, do not benefit rural produc-ers(Schure,Ingram,Arts,Levang,&Mvula-Mampasi,۲۰۱۵).Sustain-able urban woodfuel sectors will be difficult to conceive andimplement unless rural stakeholders receive tangible benefits (vander Plas& Abdel-Hamid,۲۰۰۵), yetruralstakeholdersarerarely rep-resented in formal decision-making structures (Laird, Wynberg, &McLain,۲۰۱۰). Formalisationprocessescreate opportunitiesforcor-ruption (Tsing, ۲۰۰۵; Zulu, ۲۰۱۰), and stricter rules drive stakehold-ers to more environmentally destructive practices outside the newsystem (Putzel, Kelly, Cerutti, & Artati, ۲۰۱۵; Speigel, ۲۰۱۲), leadingto leakage. Under formal systems, rural producers are frequentlyexploited by organised ‘urban elites’ with access to power and cap-ital needed to acquire licenses and transport (Ribot, ۱۹۹۸). InMozambique for example, only ۸% of the monetary benefits fromlicensed charcoal production remain in local communities, due tobureaucratic barriers in obtaining licenses and weak institutionalcapacity for resource governance (Baumert et al., ۲۰۱۶). Poor regu-lation, corruption, high competition, low farm gate prices andrestrictive policies perpetuate this situation across much of SSA(Ndegwa, Anhuf, Nehren, Ghilardi, & Iiyama, ۲۰۱۶).As urban populations grow, so too do their charcoal markets.Charcoal value chains transform to become more complex and typ-ically longer as remaining forest resources are found at increasingdistances from urban demand centres (Ahrends et al., ۲۰۱۰). As aresult, the evolving composition of the charcoal value chain affectsthe distribution of benefits and profit margins amongst actors(Iiyamaetal.,۲۰۱۷),leadingtounequalbenefitdistributionsfavour-ing urban stakeholders (Agbugba & Obi, ۲۰۱۳; Baumert et al., ۲۰۱۶;Ribot, ۱۹۹۸). Furthermore, it becomes increasingly difficult to enactnew laws when there are vested interests(Kweka et al., ۲۰۱۵). How-ever, dueto the lack of vested interest from ‘urban elites’in the char-coal markets of smaller urban areas (Smith, Eigenbrod, Kafumbata,Hudson, & Schreckenberg, ۲۰۱۵),۱these areas may provide opportu-nities to introduce best-practice production methods and moreequitable governance approaches. Small cities are therefore at thefrontier of charcoal sector formalisation, but despite their growingprominence across SSA, their charcoal markets and stakeholdersremain understudied (Jones, Ryan, & Fisher, ۲۰۱۶; Smith et al.,۲۰۱۵). In general, there is limited systematic investigation into theheterogeneity of charcoal producers and implications for ruraldevelopment (Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶), despite growing evidence thatproducers are heterogeneous with respect to their motivations,demographics, market access, production scales and wellbeing out-comes (Ainembabazi, Shively, & Angelsen, ۲۰۱۳; Jones et al., ۲۰۱۶;Kambewa, Mataya, Sichinga, & Johnson, ۲۰۰۷; Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶;Schure et al., ۲۰۱۳; Smith, Hudson, & Schreckenberg, ۲۰۱۷; Vollmeret al., ۲۰۱۷). Nuanced understandings of charcoal participation andlivelihood outcomes can aid better policy development (Smith et al.,۲۰۱۷), yet the lack of information about rural producers underminesattempts to successfully move towards sustainable production sys-tems that do not further marginalise them (Schure et al., ۲۰۱۳).This study contributes to the growing body of work whichexplores the potential of charcoal production to contribute to ruraldevelopment in SSA (Arnold, Köhlin, & Persson, ۲۰۰۶; Guild &Shackleton, ۲۰۱۸; Khundi, Jagger, Shively, & Sserunkuuma, ۲۰۱۱;Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶; Schure et al., ۲۰۱۳; Syampungani, Tigabu,Matakala, Handavu, & Oden, ۲۰۱۷; Vollmer et al., ۲۰۱۷; Zorrilla-Miras et al., ۲۰۱۸; Zulu & Richardson, ۲۰۱۳). Here, we assesshow urban energy transitions affect opportunities for rural incomegenerating, by comparing rural charcoal producers supplying twodifferentially sized urban charcoal markets: Maputo, the capitalcity of Mozambique, and Marrupa a much smaller urban area,and the principal town of Marrupa District, in Niassa Province,Mozambique. We examine differences in producers’ productionscales, dependence on charcoal production as an income generat-ing activity (in relation to their overall household income), andproducers’ demographic characteristics. We end with a discussionof the implications for rural livelihoods and sector formalisation asurban demand for charcoal grows.۲. Methods۲.۱. Study areasLike many other countries in SSA, charcoal is the main domesticurban energy in Mozambique (Brouwer & Falcão, ۲۰۰۴; Cuvilas,Jirjis, & Lucas, ۲۰۱۰). It is an important source of income generationfor about ۵% of Mozambique’s population and annual turnover isestimated at ۲۵۰–۳۰۰ million USD (van der Plas et al., ۲۰۱۲).Whilst a variety of laws apply to charcoal production in Mozam-bique, its governance mostly falls under the remit of the ForestryDepartment (van der Plas et al., ۲۰۱۲). The Forest Law (۱۹۹۹, andsubsequent revisions in ۲۰۰۲ and ۲۰۱۲) defines two types of pro-duction license: Concession licenses, which can demarcate largerareas, are available to non-Mozambican nationals and are procedu-rally complex, in some circumstances requiring signing off at min-isterial level. Simple licenses are only available to Mozambicannationals and require a less rigorous evidence-based managementplan than the concession license (van der Plas et al., ۲۰۱۲). Licenseapplication is patchy (German & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, ۲۰۱۲;Salomão & Matose, ۲۰۰۷; Sitoe, Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Ribeiro,Guedes, & Givá, ۲۰۱۴) and consequently, informally producedcharcoal is thought to account for ۸۰–۹۵% of annual consumption(Cuvilas et al., ۲۰۱۰; Del Gatto, ۲۰۰۳). When licensed, charcoal isprimarily produced under the simple license.۲۱Due to a combination of low market prices, shorter value chains with lessopportunity for value addition, nearby access to resources and high competition withrural stakeholders.۲Charcoal production can be conducted under the larger concession licenses, butthis is very rare and tends to be a side business of timber production. Under suchcircumstances special dispensation is given for charcoal production (Government ofMozambique, ۱۹۹۹).۲۳۸H.E. Smith et al./World Development ۱۱۳ (۲۰۱۹) ۲۳۷–۲۴۵ The first of our two study areas focusses on six villages producingcharcoal for Maputo city (Fig. ۱), the capital of Mozambique, with aprojected urban population of ۱.۲ million in ۲۰۱۸ (InstitutoNacional de Estatística, ۲۰۱۰). Maputo city is home to the largestnumbers of charcoal consumers in Mozambique; Mabalane District,Gaza Province, is currently the main rural supply area (Luz et al.,۲۰۱۵). In Mabalane, charcoal production is dominated by non-local (mostly urban) large-scale operators and wholesalers, whotypically employ migrant producers and retain >۹۰% of profits(Baumert et al., ۲۰۱۶). A high proportion of local rural householdsalso engage in charcoal production (>۶۵%), but benefits from char-coal production do not equate to improvements in their wellbeing(Vollmer et al., ۲۰۱۷), even though the environmental impacts ofunsustainable production practices remain localised (Woollenet al., ۲۰۱۶; Zorrilla-Miras et al., ۲۰۱۸). Our second rural supply areaexaminescharcoalproducersfromeight villagesproducingcharcoalfor Marrupa (Fig. ۱), the principal town of Marrupa District, NiassaProvince, in Northern Mozambique, with an urban population of۶۳,۰۷۸ (Ministerio da Administração Estatal, ۲۰۱۴). Here, charcoalproduction is one of multiple income diversification strategies forrural households with access to urban charcoal markets, alongsidesmall-scale shifting subsistence cultivation.۲.۲. Data collectionData were collected from villages where charcoal productionoccurs in Mabalane District (n = ۶) between May-October ۲۰۱۴and in Marrupa District (n = ۸) between May-August ۲۰۱۵, bothperiods were during the agricultural off-season. We conductedsemi-structured group interviews with key informants to deter-mine prevalent income generating activities in each village. Wesubsequently conducted participatory wealth rankings with keyinformants to categorise households (defined as those eating ‘fromthe same pot’) into four wealth groups (very poor, poor, medium,rich), which were used to select participants for a household sur-vey, using a stratified random sampling approach (Chambers,۱۹۹۴; Laws, Harper, Jones, & Marcus, ۲۰۱۳); ۲۲۰ and ۵۴۷ house-holds were sampled in Mabalane and Marrupa respectively. Datacollected during the household survey included demographic char-acteristics (e.g. household size, headedness, education level), assetsowned (e.g. livestock, bicycle), housing materials used (e.g. brick,grass) and gross household income generated in the previous fourweeks and for agricultural income, since the last harvest. Seasonal-ity may influence rural producers’ access to markets, resources andalso their engagement in production (Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶; Smithet al., ۲۰۱۷; Zulu & Richardson, ۲۰۱۳), thus a caveat of the data pre-sented in this paper is the production timescale investigated (onemonth). Longitudinal studies would overcome issues associatedwith recalled data (Nemarundwe & Richards, ۲۰۰۲), and help bet-ter understand seasonal patterns of producer participation.۳۲.۳. Data processing and analysis۲.۳.۱. Producer classificationsFollowing the method used byNdegwa et al., (۲۰۱۶), producerswere classified using hierarchical cluster analysis. Eight clusteringvariables were used: the total household income in MZN and thepercentage contribution to the total income of seven commonlyavailable income portfolios in both sites (formal employment,charcoal production, casual labour, commercial crop income, busi-nesses, livestock, other environmental products and remittances),reported by the respondents. Gross income was calculated, as netincomes are subject to uncertainties (Iiyama, Kariuki, Kristjanson,Kaitibie, & Maitima, ۲۰۰۸). We conducted clustering computationsusing Ward’s method and plotted the line of best cut into the den-drogram at the point with the largest changes in fusion levels(Everitt et al., ۲۰۱۱ as cited inNdegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶) (SeeS۱forthe classification dendrogram). Non-parametric statistical analyses(Kruskall-Wallis H, Mann-Whitney U) were conducted to comparedifferences between producer groups and sites. Unless otherwiseindicated, means ± standard errors (SE) are given.۳. Results۳.۱. Classification of producer groupsHierarchical cluster analysis resulted in three groups of charcoalproducers, distinguished by the numbers of bags they produced inFig. ۱.Mabalane and Marrupa Districts and locations of sampled villages involved in charcoal production.۳Seasonal production data for the study areas are limited, however seasonal datafrom Malawi (Smith et al., ۲۰۱۷) suggest that production levels increase after themaize harvest (typically around April/May), partly due to lower conflicting labourrequirements. The seasonal bias of this research may therefore indicate highproduction levels, compared to annual averages. Additionally, the seasonal biasmeans that the research cannot demonstrate how households behave duringparticular times of stress, for example due to seasonal food shortages in the pre-harvest period.H.E. Smith et al./World Development ۱۱۳ (۲۰۱۹) ۲۳۷–۲۴۵۲۳۹ the four weeks prior to data collection (Table ۱). Discriminant anal-ysis confirmed that ۸۶% of producer households were correctlyclassified. The prevalence of producers and producer groups dif-fered between sites; most households (۷۹%) produced charcoal inMabalane, whereas most households in Marrupa did not (۸۷%).No households produced at a large-scale in Marrupa (Table ۱).Across both sites, producer households were highly dependenton charcoal income, as it contributed between ۳۸% and ۹۵% ofthe total gross household income (Table ۱). The proportion of char-coal income relevant to the total household income was greateramongst households with smaller production scales in both Mar-rupa (Mann-whitney U = ۵۱۰.۵, p ۳ ha). Large-scale producer household heads were older(۴۸ ± ۲.۶ years) and almost all were male (۹۴%). Compared to allother groups, more large-scale producing households were listedas ‘rich’ (۳۶%) and fewest (۱۲%) listed as ‘very poor’ in the wealthranking (Fig. ۲b). In contrast, small-scale producer householdheads were nearly a decade younger (۳۹ ± ۱.۶ years) and almosta quarter (۲۴%) were female. They reported lower levels of assetownership (including livestock and land), and over half (۵۳%) ofthe household heads had received no education (Fig. ۲c). Few smalland medium-scale households had used improved roofing materi-als, which were classified as being made from either metal, plasticor tiles (as opposed to grass, for example). Furthermore, we foundno difference in the residency status of non-producer and produc-ing households (considered permanent residents if householdershad always lived in the village). However, of the non permanent-residents, the non-producing households had been present in thevillage for the shortest of time (۸.۱۴ ± ۱.۸ years). In Marrupa, thecharacteristics of non-producer and producer groups were consis-tently more homogenous. However, non-producers owned morelivestock and most medium-scale producers owned high-valueassets (Fig. ۲a). More medium-scale producing households werelisted as ‘rich’ (۱۷%) and fewer (۸%) listed as very poor (Fig. ۲b)and we found no differences in the residency status of non-producing and producing households (Table ۱). Information fromvillage-level surveys reported a higher diversity of income generat-ing activities other than charcoal in Marrupa, and rates of partici-pation in varying activities differed between sites, withproportionally fewer households engaging in activities other thancharcoal in Mabalane (seeS۲for information on alternative incomegenerating activities in both sites).۴. DiscussionOur findings confirm the heterogeneity of rural charcoal pro-ducers (Kambewa et al., ۲۰۰۷; Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶), and provideevidence to suggest that the size of the urban market affects boththe type of rural producer and their scales of production. The stron-ger the demand for charcoal, the larger the incentive to increaseproduction (Belcher, Ruíz-Pérez, & Achdiawan, ۲۰۰۵), which maybe why we only found large-scale rural producers operating inMabalane, where selling prices were higher. However, whilst thesehouseholds are ‘large-scale’ in comparison to other rural house-holds, in contrast to the non-local (mostly urban) operators andwholesalers, they still produce at small-scales. Large-scale produc-tion typically means producing more than ۱۰۰ bags per month(Kambewa et al., ۲۰۰۷), so despite the heterogeneity of producingscales found in this study, almost all the producers were operatingTable ۱Classification of sampled households, scales of production and income generation.Non-producing householdsProducing householdsSmall-scaleMedium-scaleLarge-scalePercentage (n) of households sampled in each producer classificationMabalane (n = ۲۲۰)۲۱ (۴۷)۳۳ (۷۲)۳۱ (۶۸)۱۵ (۳۳)Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)۸۷ (۴ ۷ ۸)۱۰ (۵۷)۲ (۱۲)۰Mean ± SE number of bags of charcoal produced in the previous ۴ weeksMabalane (n = ۲۲۰)–۱۵.۳ ± ۰.۸۶۴۰.۳ ± ۲.۵۱۰۴.۶ ± ۱۲.۵Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)–۱۱.۴ ± ۱.۴۴۶.۸ ± ۱۰.۷–Mean proportion (%) ± SE of charcoal income to total household incomeMabalane (n = ۲۲۰)۰۹۵.۰۴ ± ۱.۳۴۷۶.۳۵ ± ۳.۵۴۶۱.۷۹ ± ۶.۷۶Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)۰۶۶.۶۱ ± ۴.۲۲۳۸.۳۳ ± ۱۰.۴۸–Mean gross household income (MZN) ± SE generate from charcoal production in the four weeks prior to data collectionMabalane (n = ۲۲۰)–۴,۱۰۳.۵ ± ۲۳۰.۱۱۱,۱۱۸ ± ۶۴۲.۹۲۹,۳۰۰ ± ۳۵۶۷.۰Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)–۱,۰۴۶.۴ ± ۱۳۹.۱۴,۸۸۳.۳ ± ۱۲۳۴.۷–Mean gross household income (MZN) ± SE generate from other (non-charcoal) incomeMabalane (n = ۲۲۰)۸۸۹۷.۱ ± ۲۱۷۸.۴۲۲۲.۹ ± ۶۷.۷۳۹۸۴.۱ ± ۶۹۴.۳۲۹۵۴۰.۵ ± ۸۵۰۷.۹Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)۶۶۲۷.۸ ± ۴۵۴.۰۶۹۵ ± ۱۲۴.۶۹۴۴۲.۷ ± ۲۱۳۳.۱–۴Bagsof charcoal were sold in ۵۰ kg maize sacks. Whilst we did not collected dataon the weight of each bag, estimates suggest that these bags typically weigh between۳۳ and ۳۸ kg (FAO Openshaw ۱۹۸۳;Kambewa et al., ۲۰۰۷), depending on the speciesof tree and water content.۵The conversion rate ranged from $۱ USD = ۳۱.۳MZN at the start of data collection(۱st May ۲۰۱۴), to $۱ USD = ۴۴.۳MZN at the end of data collection (۱st December۲۰۱۵) (XE, nd).۲۴۰H.E. Smith et al./World Development ۱۱۳ (۲۰۱۹) ۲۳۷–۲۴۵ at small-scales. A study byBaumert et al. (۲۰۱۶)found that inMabalane district, non-local operators produced on average almostseven times the amount۶produced by a rural household each year.Wealthier households are better situated to take advantage of newmarket opportunities, as they have better access to land, capital,labour, skills and connections (Belcher et al., ۲۰۰۵). We found thatlarge-scale rural producers were best-off in most senses, generatedhigher gross incomes and owned higher value assets (including landand livestock). However, whilst our data do not allow for causalanalysis, it is probable that most ‘large-scale’ producing householdshad the assets to enable them to produce at higher levels. Absolutecharcoal incomes were highest for large-scale producers in Mabal-ane, supporting evidence that charcoal production is not principallythe domain of the poorest of the poor (Mwampamba et al., ۲۰۱۳).Larger-scale producers may further invest charcoal income intodiverse income generating opportunities, leading to wealth accumu-lation, thus improving household resilience (Marschke & Berkes,۲۰۰۶; Ndegwa et al., ۲۰۱۶). However, to determine any causalitybetween asset accumulation and charcoal production, longitudinalanalysis of livelihood trajectories would be required.In contrast, households may become trapped in producing char-coal, whereby they produce at levels that cannot provide morethan their subsistence requirements (Delacote, ۲۰۰۹). Small-scaleproducers may struggle to invest capital back into production,either because they simply do not generate enough income,because there are greater demands on their income, or becausethere are few incentives or opportunities to invest, for exampledue to insecure property rights (Angelsen & Wunder, ۲۰۰۳).Small-scale producers in Mabalane generated subsistence incomes,which were highly dependent on derived charcoal income (con-tributing >۹۵% of household incomes), suggesting that thesehouseholds may be trapped in menial production scales, with lim-ited opportunity to diversify income sources. Under these circum-stances, small-scale rural charcoal production may be detrimentalto rural households in the long-term, as higher returns encourage amovement away from diversified (and more resilient) livelihoods(Arnold & Perez, ۲۰۰۱; Chidumayo & Gumbo, ۲۰۱۳). To be resilient,rural production systems such as charcoal production require low-risk options that provide short-term returns on investment; theserequirements are essential for both managing risk and ensuringsustainability (Vanlauwe et al., ۲۰۱۴). However, current charcoalproduction systems are far from resilient as many rural producersare highly vulnerable to risks associated with environmentaldegradation attributed to unsustainable production practices(Lattimore, Smith, Titus, Stupak, & Egnell, ۲۰۰۹; Woollen et al.,۲۰۱۶), associated punitive enforcements (Smith et al., ۲۰۱۷), andas our findings suggest, menial production levels, where house-holds supplying large urban markets are unable to diversify theirincome strategies. In contrast, small-scale producers in Marrupahad higher levels of alternative income sources, highlighting lowerdependency in general. Unlike the small-scale producers in Mabal-ane, small-scale producers in Marrupa seemed not to be trapped inmenial production. Our findings therefore suggest that the exis-tence of households trapped in low production may be a conse-quence of larger urban markets, which typically have moreinequitable value chains (Agbugba & Obi, ۲۰۱۳; Ribot, ۱۹۹۸),rather than an intrinsic and inevitable outcome for all rural char-coal producers.Dependence on charcoal production can be both out of choice(i.e. because profit margins are good and markets are stable), orTable ۲Demographic characteristics of non-producing and producer households.Mabalane (n = ۲۲۰)Marrupa (n = ۵۴۷)Non producinghouseholds(n = ۴۷)Producing householdsTestNon producinghouseholds(n = ۴۷۸)Producing householdsTestSmall-scale(n = ۷۲)Medium-scale(n = ۶۸)Large-scale(n = ۳۳)Small-scale(n = ۵۷)Medium-scale(n = ۱۲)Female headedhousehold % (n)۳۲ (۱۵)۲۴ (۱۷)۱۲ (۸)۶ (۲)H(۳) = ۱۱.۹۷۹, p > ۰.۰۱۲۰(۹۳)۱۶(۹)(۰)H(۲) = ۳.۲۵۱۷, p = ۰.۱۹Age of household head۴۴ ± ۳۳۹ ± ۱.۶۴۲ ± ۱.۹۴۸ ± ۲.۶H(۳) = ۷.۵۲۴۷, p = ۰.۰۶۴۳ ± ۰.۸۳۶ ± ۱.۸۴۱ ± ۳.۸H(۲) = ۴.۸۵۶۵, p = ۰.۰۹Household size۵.۶ ± ۰.۶۵.۶ ± ۰.۴۶ ± ۰.۵۸.۶ ± ۰.۸H(۳) = ۱۳.۸۹۷, p ۹۵% of household incomes. In contrast, producers supplying the smaller market had more diversified incomes, and were thus less dependent on charcoal income. Larger-scale producers were generally wealthier; their absolute incomes were higher and they were proportionally the least dependent on charcoal income. Further findings suggest that rural charcoal production was not necessarily the domain of the poorest of the poor and the existence of producers trapped in small-scale production may be a consequence of larger urban markets, rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the sector. Predicted growth of smaller urban areas and associated higher demand for charcoal will provide substantial opportunities for rural income generation, most likely leading to shifts in producers and production scales. Rather than transferring existing formal approaches, which marginalise rural stakeholders, small urban areas provide opportunities to develop equitable production systems, with potential to deliver sustainable energy and rural development. The heterogeneity of rural producers calls for better-targeted interventions that incorporate the importance of charcoal production for rural livelihoods. ناشر Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت) Journal: World Development - Volume ۱۱۳, January ۲۰۱۹, Pages ۲۳۷-۲۴۵ نویسندگان Harriet Elizabeth Smith,Daniel Jones,Frank Vollmer,Sophia Baumert,Casey M. Ryan,Emily Woollen,Sá N. Lisboa,Mariana Carvalho,Janet A. Fisher,Ana C. Luz,Isla M. Grundy,Genevieve Patenaude,


توضیحات برای عکس ثبت نشده
توضیحات برای عکس ثبت نشده
توضیحات برای عکس ثبت نشده

معمولا طراحی سایت و استایل کلی وب‌سایت با صفحه هات Landing Page متفاوت است، صفحه لندینگ پیج به صورت جدا از صفحات اصلی یک ‌سایت طراحی می‌شود، لندینگ پیج صفحه‌ای منحصر به فرد و خارج از چارچوب کلی وب سایت است. به همین علت طرح کلی سایت در آنها لحاظ نمی‌گردد.توجه داشته باشید که در حوزه بازاریابی درونگرا دلیل منطقی برای این موضوع ذکر شده وجود دارد؛ طرح اصلی سایت در صفحات فرود آورده نمی‌شود تا در عمل مخاطب محدود گردد.

در طراحی و ساخت Landing Page، توجه به این نکته بسیار مهم است که مخاطب، ما را دنبال نمی‌کند؛ بلکه پیام ما، جذابیت صفحه فرود و یا نیاز خود را احساس می‌کند و سپس ما را دنبال می‌کند و بدون شک وقتی بازدیدکننده را به یک صفحه لندینگ پیج هدایت می‌کنیم،برای مخاطب به نمایش بگذاریم.وقتی بنر تبلیغات شما در سایت‌ها قرار می‌گیرد و بازدیدکننده روی آن کلیک می‌کند، بازدیدکننده بدون اینکه در گوگل جستجویی انجام دهد وارد صفحه موردنظر شما می‌شود.

برای همین صفحه فرود به صفحه هدف نیز مشهور است. بازدیدکننده وقتی برای اولین بار توسط بنری وارد سایت شما می‌شود هیچ دید خاصی نسبت به سایت و صفحه شما ندارد برای همین صفحات فرود هم می‌تواند فرصتی باشد و هم نقطه ضعفی در سایت، پس باید در ساخت صفحه فرود نهایت دقت را داشت تا به خوبی طراحی شود و بتوان با خوب جلوه دادن سایت به اهداف مورد نظر رسید چرا که دروازه افزایش بازدید و محصولات سایت هستند.


صفحه فرود Click Through

صفحه فرود Click Throughبه این منظور مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد که وقتی کاربری کلیک کرد، به صفحه‌ای دیگر ارجاع داده شود، هدف از این نوع صفحات صرفا متقاعد کردن بازدید‌کننده و کلیک کردن آن بر روی لینکی خاص و سپس هدایت آن به صفحه ای دیگر است و اصولا برای افزایش نرخ تبدیل کاربر به مشتری استفاده می‌شود. صفحه فرود Click Through را می‌توان برای توصیف یک محصول با ارائه جزئیات کافی طراحی کرد. بنابراین به عنوان یک متقاعد کننده برای بازدید کنندگان عمل کرده و آن ها را به تصمیم گیری برای خرید نزدیک‌تر می‌کند.
صفحه فرود Lead Generation برای دریافت اطلاعاتی مانند نام و آدرس ایمیل بازدیدکنندگان مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. تنها هدف در طراحی این نوع صفحات فرود، جمع آوری اطلاعات از بازدیدکنندگان است و آنها اطلاعات خود را در فرم موجود در لندینگ پیج وارد می‌کنند. بنابراین، صفحات Lead Generation اغلب اوقات، یک فرم همراه با شرح خدمات و آنچه که شما در ازای ارسال اطلاعات شخصی بازدیدکنندگان حاضرید به صورت رایگان به کاربر بدهید را داراست. مانند کتاب الکترونیکی رایگان و یا شرکت در یک وبینار آموزشی رایگان در مقابل دریافت اطلاعات بازدیدکننده.


توضیحات برای عکس ثبت نشده

دکمه فراخوان یا Call To Action چیست

صفحه فرود Lead Generation برای دریافت اطلاعاتی مانند نام و آدرس ایمیل بازدیدکنندگان مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. تنها هدف در طراحی این نوع صفحات فرود، جمع آوری اطلاعات از بازدیدکنندگان است و آنها اطلاعات خود را در فرم موجود در لندینگ پیج وارد می‌کنند. بنابراین، صفحات Lead Generation اغلب اوقات، یک فرم همراه با شرح خدمات و آنچه که شما در ازای ارسال اطلاعات شخصی بازدیدکنندگان حاضرید به صورت رایگان به کاربر بدهید را داراست. مانند کتاب الکترونیکی رایگان و یا شرکت در یک وبینار آموزشی رایگان در مقابل دریافت اطلاعات بازدیدکننده. دکمه فراخوان یا به اختصار CTA اصولا در ساخت صفحات فرود بسیار مورد توجه گرفته می‌شود و از اهمیت بسیاری برخوردار است و از اهداف صفحات فرود کلیک خوردن این دکمه است، پس باید در طراحی و نحوه چیدمان و مکان آن دقت لازم را به‌کار برد ولی در درجه اول لازم است زمینه کلیک خوردن دکمه CTA را فراهم کنیم. منظور این است که کیفیت محتوا، استایل صفحه و نحوه چیدمان دیگر المان‌ها در صفحه فرود کمک بسیاری به بالا رفتن میزان کلیک CTA می‌کند. دکمه فراخوان یا CTA می‌تواند برای درخواست عضویت در خبرنامه، برای درخواست دانلود فایل و یا پر کردن یک فرم مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

تمامی حقوق این سایت متعلق به فروشگاه نفیس می باشد.