<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The national ecolabel of tourist accommodation establishments and rural tourism enterprises of Latvia – the ‘Green Certificate’ (hereinafter the ‘Green Certificate’) celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2019. Its creation in 1999 was initiated by the Latvian Rural Tourism Association ‘Baltic Country Holidays’, and it is currently one of the oldest European ecolabels still in operation. One of the most significant tourism and rural tourism resources in Latvia is the natural and cultural heritage, which is the basis for the development of rural tourism products. In this process, ecosystem services used in tourism products play a major role. One of the goals of the ‘Green Certificate’ is environment, nature and local society friendly and sustainable farming, which means both a careful use of natural resources and their inclusion in the tourism product development process. The aim of this study was to find out which ecosystem services were used and the ways they were used by rural tourism companies to create the nature protection, social and economic added value. According to the respondents, 1/3 of the revenue of the ‘Green Certificate’ companies is generated by the use of the ecosystem services. It is an argument for further research on the possibilities of the ecosystem services to be used more effectively in future in developing new rural tourism products.</abstract>

Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies

Latvian Ecolabel Green Certificate – an Example of Sustainable Rural Tourism in the Use of Ecosystem Services

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Climate change is an inevitable global challenge of the 21st century. For developing countries like Ethiopia, it intensifies existing challenges towards ensuring sustainable development. Adopting the protection motivation theory, this study examined factors affecting the practice of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies among farmers. The study employed a mixed research approach to assess the subjective understanding of farmers about climate change threats and identify factors determining their responses to climate change effects. Qualitative data were collected using focus group discussions and interviews. Quantitative information was gathered using semi-structured survey from 296 randomly selected farmers. Qualitative data was dominantly analyzed using content analysis, while descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to analyze quantitative data. Almost all respondents (97%) perceived that climate change was occurring and threatening their wellbeing. Dwindling precipitation, increasing temperature and occurrence of human and animal disease were perceived to represent climate change effects. From nationally initiated strategies, farmers were found to largely practice soil and water conservation, which they perceived as less costly and compatible to local knowledge. The result of binary logistic regression revealed that perceived severity of climate change, perceived susceptibility to climate change threat, perceived own ability to respond, response efficacy, and cost of practices predicted farmers’ motivation to practice climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. Thus, building a resilient system should go beyond sensitizing climate response mechanisms. Policies should focus on human capital development and economic empowerment which would enable farmers to pursue context-specific adaptation and mitigation strategies, thereby maintaining a sustainable livelihood.</abstract>

Determinants of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation strategies: An Application of Protection Motivation Theory

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Three treatments were tested with four replications at RCBD, namely cassava monoculture, corn twice under cassava intercropping, and corn with corn monoculture where the second corn was planted 5 days after harvested. Planting distance of cassava in monoculture was 100x100 cm, and in intercropping was 200x50 cm, by which corn was planted in 50x30 cm, 1 seed per hole. All plots received dairy cattle manure 5 t ha-1. Fertilizer applied for cassava was Urea 100 kg ha−1, Ponska 200 kg ha−1 and KCl 100 kg ha−1 split into two applications two weeks after cassava planting, then when first of corn was harvested. Corn fertilization was Ponska 150 kg ha−1 + Urea 100 kg ha−1 every 3 months and split into two applications: 1 week and 4 weeks after corn was planted. Cassava and twice corn fertilization was Urea 300 kg ha−1 + Phonska 400 kg ha−1 + KCl 100 kg ha−1. Results showed that cassava monoculture can be improved by inserting of twice corn in between rows. Under sole cropping cassava, the B/C ratio was the highest 1.61, however with incorporating twice of corn the B/C ratio was 1.58. Intercropping cassava and twice of corn resulted in the Land Equivalent Ratio 2.146. By intercropping cassava with corn twice at the end of dry season, there was an opportunity to find corn biomass for dairy cattle. Under intercropping, cassava was able to produce 21.5 t ha−1 of fresh roots, while first and second of corn produced fresh biomass of 34 t ha−1 and 28 t ha−1 respectively.</abstract>

Intercropping Twice of Corn with Cassava to Supply the Feed of Biomass in Eastern Mount Kawi of Malang Indonesia

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 50 (2023): Issue 345 (December 2023)

Volume 49 (2023): Issue 344 (August 2023)

Volume 48 (2022): Issue 343 (December 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 342 (August 2022)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 341 (December 2021)

Volume 45 (2021): Issue 340 (August 2021)

Volume 44 (2020): Issue 339 (December 2020)

Volume 43 (2020): Issue 338 (August 2020)

Volume 42 (2019): Issue 337 (December 2019) Rural Sustainability Research

Volume 41 (2019): Issue 336 (August 2019)

Volume 40 (2018): Issue 335 (December 2018)

Volume 39 (2018): Issue 334 (August 2018)

Volume 38 (2017): Issue 333 (November 2017)

Volume 37 (2017): Issue 332 (July 2017)

Volume 36 (2016): Issue 331 (December 2016)

Volume 35 (2016): Issue 330 (June 2016)

Volume 34 (2015): Issue 329 (December 2015) Rural Sustainability Research

Volume 33 (2015): Issue 1 (July 2015)

Volume 32 (2014): Issue 1 (December 2014)

Volume 31 (2014): Issue 1 (July 2014)

Volume 30 (2013): Issue 1 (December 2013)

Volume 29 (2013): Issue 1 (January 2013)

Volume 28 (2013): Issue 1 (February 2013)

Volume 27 (2012): Issue 1 (January 2012)

Rural Sustainability Research

 The scientific journal Rural Sustainable Research (ONLINE ISSN 2256-0939) of Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies is a peer-reviewed journal intended for the publication of wide-spectrum original research articles and reviews on topical problems of sustainable rural development. The subject matter of the journal reflects the wide range of research covering the following topics:    Sustainable Crop Production Systems;  Soil and Plant Sciences  Plant Breeding and Genetics  Plant Pathology and Protection  Forestry  Animal and Veterinary Sciences  Food Processing  Agricultural Machinery and Husbandry  Biomass and Renewable Energy  Energetic and Automation  Engineering Technologies  Material Sciences  Transport, Motor Vehicles and Fuels  Engineering Economics and Education  Sustainable Social Development  Economics, Management and Marketing  Information Technologies    All manuscripts are screened on their linguistic quality. The scientific journal Rural Sustainable Research is open access, double-blind peer-reviewed. It does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.  Scientific journal Rural Sustainable Research copyrights belong to Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies.  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

Volume 42 (2019): Issue 337 (December 2019) - Rural Sustainability Research

Volume 42 (2019): Issue 337 (December 2019)

Rural Sustainability Research

Volume 42 (2019): Issue 337 (December 2019)

Rural Sustainability Research

Latvian Ecolabel Green Certificate – an Example of Sustainable Rural Tourism in the Use of Ecosystem Services

Determinants of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation strategies: An Application of Protection Motivation Theory

Intercropping Twice of Corn with Cassava to Supply the Feed of Biomass in Eastern Mount Kawi of Malang Indonesia

Wyszukiwanie

Wszystkie tomy i zeszyty w tym czasopiśmie