سنجش آثار تنوع‌ فعالیت‌های اقتصادی بر سطح رفاه جامعه روستایی (مورد: بخش مرکزی شهرستان کرمان)

فصلنامه علمی برنامه ریزی منطقه ای

مقاله 4، دوره 10، شماره 37، اردیبهشت 1399، صفحه 47-62   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

مریم شمسی¹؛ محمدامین خراسانی^{* 2}؛ سید حسن مطیعی لنگرودی³

¹کارشناس ارشد جغرافیا و برنامهد ریزی روستایی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

²استادیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

³استاد گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت: 18 دی 1397،  تاریخ بازنگری: 12 تیر 1398،  تاریخ پذیرش: 26 مهر 1398 

چکیده

        روستاها عمدتا دارای اقتصاد تک‌محصولی هستند که این امر سبب عقب‌ماندگی از توسعه و پیشرفت می‌شود. لذا باید به دنبال روش‌هایی بود که بتوان اقتصاد روستاها را با ایجاد تنوع‌بخشی در فعالیت‌های اقتصادی خانوارهای روستایی پویا و توانمند کرد. روستاهای کشور به علت اتکای شدید بر کشاورزی و درآمدهای حاصل از آن و نداشتن منابع اشتغالی و درآمدی غیر از کشاورزی، دارای اقتصاد ضعیف و آسیب­پذیری هستند. پژوهش حاضر به شیوه توصیفی-تحلیلی به بررسی اثرات تنوع‌ فعالیت‌های اقتصادی بر رفاه زیستی خانوارهای روستایی در بخش مرکزی شهرستان کرمان پرداخته است. جامعه آماری پژوهش، 8956 خانوار روستایی ساکن در 11روستای بخش مرکزی شهرستان کرمان بودند که به صورت نمونه گیری خوشه ای انتخاب شده و مورد سنجش واقع شدند. از این تعداد، 384 خانوار از طریق نمونه‌گیری کوکران انتخاب شدند که جهت اطمینان از صحت داده­ها به 412 خانوار رسید. داده‌های جمع‌آوری شده نیز از طریق نرم‌افزار SPSS  و از طریق آزمون T تک نمونه، رگرسیون و T مستقل مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که همبستگی بالایی بین تنوع­ اقتصادی و رفاه زیستی وجود دارد و خانوارهای دارای تنوع در فعالیت‌های اقتصادی سطح بالاتری از رفاه زیستی را نسبت به خانوارهای فاقد تنوع تجربه می‌کنند. همچنین براساس آزمون T تک نمونه‌ای، میانگین ابعاد تنوع اقتصادی (تعدد فعالیت‌های اقتصادی، امنیت و رضایت شغلی و درآمدی، زمینه سرمایه‌گذاری) در روستاهای مورد مطالعه در سطح ضعیف  بوده و میانگین ابعاد رفاه در مورد متغیرهای(اشتغال و درآمد، فراغت، مشارکت، آموزش‌وپرورش، بهداشت و توان اقتصادی) در سطح نسبتاً نامطلوب و متغیرهای(سلامت، مسکن، دسترسی و رضایت از زندگی) در سطح مطلوب بوده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

فعالیت‌های اقتصادی؛ رفاه؛ خانوارهای روستایی؛ شهرستان کرمان

عنوان مقاله [English]

The effects of diversification into economic activities on the welfare of the rural community case study: the central district of Kerman county

نویسندگان [English]

Maryam Shamsi¹؛ mohamad amin khorasani²؛ Seyed Hassan Motiee Langroodi³

¹M.A inGeography and Rural Planning / University of Tehran

²Assistanr Professor of Geograhy and Rural Planning,Department of Human Geography, University of Tehran.

³Assistanr Professor of Geograhy and Rural Planning,Department of Human Geography, University of Tehran

چکیده [English]

         One of the important strategies for development is diversification into economic activities. Since the village is at the core of the formation of human societies, the issue of the stability of the rural economy is very important. Villages usually have a single-product economy, which causes the villages to retreat from development. So, we should look at ways in which rural economies could be transformed into a dynamic and powerful economy by diversifying the economic activities of rural households. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of diversification into economic activities on the welfare of rural households in the study area. To identify the variables of diversifying the economic activity (independent variable of the research) through theoretical foundations and research background as well as through the interview and guidance of the professors in this field. The statistical population of this study was 8956 rural households living in 11 villages in the district part of Kerman County. Out of these, 384 households were selected through Cochran sampling and 412 households were normalized to normalize the data. Data were collected through a researcher questionnaire. The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by experts and its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (.963). Data were analyzed by SPSS software using T-test single sample, regression and independent T-test. In the analysis, the villages of the study area were compared in terms of economic diversity and welfare. The results obtained from the hypothesis confirm the effect of the diversification into economic activities on the welfare of rural households. In fact, the results indicate that there is a significant difference between the households with and without the diversity of economic activities in terms of welfare. In other words, households with a variety of economic activities experience a higher level of welfare than non-diverse families.
Extended Abstract
Introduction:
     In the economic structure of the rural areas of different countries, agriculture is a vital source of livelihood (Taherkhani, 2000, p. 21). The most important characteristic of such a structure is the lack of diversity in economic contexts and job opportunities, especially for the growing rural labor force, which is partly due to the type of village attitudes and government policies and internal factors of the village. Such economic and occupational structure in rural areas raises specific issues, such as less flexibility in the face of short-term climate fluctuations, crop price fluctuations at harvest, etc. (Javan, 2011, p. 19). Diversifying the economy of rural settlements in developing countries has improved non-agricultural job opportunities in rural areas and has a significant impact on the well-being of rural households. Today, the development of non-agricultural sectors and the diversification of activities in rural areas are the essential solution for rural development in many communities (Mohammadi Yegane, 2014, pp. 56-57). In recent years, the discussion of diversification and economic specialization has been particularly prominent in rural, urban, and regional economics. Economic diversity is defined as the existence of a large number of different types of economic activity, such as tourism, agriculture, services in one area, or the numerous economic activities of an area that are distributed among a number of classes of industries ( Farahmand & Abootalebi, 2012, p 57). Kerman as the central city of the province consists of six districts, the largest of which is the central part. Proximity to the provincial and city center can have important effects on the diversification of economic activities in the villages, and in this study we seek to examine the relationship between economic diversification in these villages and household welfare. As one of the largest provinces in the country and one of areas most likely to be affected by the widespread drought crisis in the country, it desperately needs to diversify into a rural economy and cannot rely solely on long-term activities. Provide agriculture, employment and welfare to the rural population. Migration from villages, districts and small towns and areas vulnerable to climate change to large cities has increased. Among these are the migration and evacuation of parts of the eastern and southeastern provinces of the country. This situation reduces the rate of economic growth in these areas (Climatology Research Institute, 2017, p. 20).

Methodology:
      The present study uses descriptive-analytical method and quantitative and field research to investigate the effects of diversification on economic activities on welfare level of rural community in central part of Kerman city. Required information, field research and public libraries - It has been updated. The statistical population of this study consisted of 60 rural settlements of more than 20 households in the central part of Kerman city based on cluster sampling of 11 villages (Bagher Abadrig, Saadatabad, Allahabad, Rabat, Dehlolo, Simak, Abdulabad, Darby). Asiab, Saeedi, Sharafabad, Hossein Abadfarsangi) selected. Using Cochran sampling method out of 8956 households, the sample size is 384 households. In order to normalize and control the effect of missing data, the total number of questionnaires increased to 412. A researcher-made questionnaire based on previous research and teachers' comments designed in three sections. The first part covered the individual characteristics of the respondents such as: age, sex, education, main household head job, household subordinate job, etc. The second part included questions on economic diversity indicators and the third part on questions on welfare indicators. In order to assess the effects of diversification on economic activity, three indicators examined, which are described in Table 2. The validity of the questionnaire measured by the views of 10 Rural Development and Planning Professors in Tehran universities and its reliability measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which is based on correlation matrix of the items and measures the coefficient of the whole spectrum. . The results of analysis of 30 pre-test questionnaires showed Cronbach's alpha (0.963) indicating high level of reliability. In order to statistical analysis of the research findings extracted and classified. Data collected from questionnaire analyzed using one sample T test, two independent samples T test in SPSS software. . But the central part of the east of Kerman city is between 56 degrees 15 minutes to 57 degrees 33 minutes east longitude and 30 degrees 1 minute to 30 degrees 43 minutes north latitude. The area of this section was 644/4460 sq. Km. Figure 1 shows the location of the villages under study.

Findings and Discussion:
      To evaluate the level of well-being, the indices considered. One sample T-test used to measure these indices. The welfare status of the households in the study villages is poor. In fact, rural households in the study area suffer from low levels of well-being. Stepwise regression used to explain the effect of each of the independent variables of the research (economic diversification) on the dependent variable (welfare). According to the results, there was a high correlation between "security and job satisfaction and income" (R = 0.802), "multiplicity of economic activities" (R = 0.445), "investment context" (0.428). R =) and there is prosperity. Independent T-test used to compare the level of livelihood among households with and without diversity in economic activities. It shows that the mean of the two groups are significantly different.
 
Conclusion:
       Most people have moderate to low incomes and have been in service jobs due to agricultural problems. However, due to its proximity to Kerman, the potential of service and industrial jobs in these villages is greater than that of agriculture and livestock. Almost all people who have a job are dissatisfied with their salary, job and welfare status. From a welfare point of view, people were generally satisfied with their nutrition and drinking water, housing and access and transportation facilities, but were not sufficiently satisfied with the status of leisure, education and health facilities in their villages.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Economic Activities, Welfare, Rural Households, Central District of Kerman

مراجع

1. Abdshahi, A (2006) Investigating the Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Technology and Off Farm Work by Farmers, Master's Degree, Agricultural Economics, Shiraz University.
2. Asayesh, H & Ghanbari, N (2006), Introduction to Iranian Rural Economics, Islamic Azad University Kermanshah Branch Press.
3. Ashley, C. and Maxwell, S. (2001). Rethinking Rural Development, Development Policy Review, Volume 19, Issue 4, PP. 395–425.
4. Azizi, P. Lotfi, H & Pishro, H (2009), Information and communication technology and its impact on rural economy of Iran, Amayeh Journal, Vol 2, No. 6, pp 34-64.
5. Babatunde and Qaim, (2010) R.O. Babatunde, M. Qaim, Impact of off-farm income on food security and nutrition in Nigeria, Food Policy, 35 (4) (2010), pp. 303-311.
6. Bezu S. Bezu, C.B. Barrett, S.T. Holden, 2012, Does the nonfarm economy offer pathways for upward mobility? Evidence from a panel data study in Ethiopia, World Dev., 40 (8) (2012), pp. 1634-1646
7. Block and Webb, 2001, S. Block, P. Webb, The dynamics of livelihood diversification in post-famine Ethiopia, Food Policy, 26 (4) (2001), pp. 333-350
8. Byrd, E.T., Bosley, H. E., & Dronberger, M. G. (2009). Comparisons of stakeholder perceptions of tourism impacts in rural Eastern North Carolina. Tourism Management, 30(5), 693-703.
9. Cheraghi, M. Mohammadi Yeganeh, B. Mousavi Zare, S (2018) Investigating the role of non-agricultural activities in food security of rural households: Dastan Fazl Neyshabur, Quarterly Journal of Rural Development Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 66-51.
10. Climatology Research Institute (2017) Disclosure, Evaluation of the Impacts and Perspectives of Climate Change in Iran during the 21st Century, Meteorological Organization of Iran.
11. Davis, J.)2006( .Rural Non-farm Livelihoods in Transition Economies: Emerging Issues and Policies, Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics (eJADE), Agricultural and Development Economics Division (ESA) FAO, Vol. 3, No. 2.
12. Eftekhari, A.R & Moosavi, S.M & Poortaheri, M & Farajzade, M (2014) Analysis of the role of livelihood diversity to rural household resilience in drought condition: case study of the drought exposed areas of Isfahan province, Journal of Rural Research, Article 8, Volume 5, Issue 3, Autumn 2014, Page 639-662.
13. Einali, J (2014), Evaluation of the role of tourism in second homes in diversification into rural economy (Case study: Vali-e-Asar Hesar district in Awaj County), Journal of Rural Planning and Research, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 97-107.
14. Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford university press.
15. Farahmand, Shokoufeh and Mina Abootalebi (2012), the Impact of Diversity and Economic Specialization on Provincial Employment Growth in Iran, Economic Research, Vol 47, No 3, pp. 45-63.
16. Fathihnia, E (2014) The Effect of Rural-Urban Connections on the Rural Economy Diversification with Emphasis on Wooden Industries Case Study: Jokar District, Malayer County, Hamedan Province, Master's Degree in Geography and Rural Planning, University of Tehran, Guidance By: Dr. Mohammad Reza Rezvani. 
17. Ghasemi, M & Javan, J (2014), Explaining the Relationship between Economic Activities and Sustainable Rural Development (Case Study: Mashhad County), Journal of Rural Research, Vol 5, No 2, pp 237-262.
18. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T.(2010). The Rural Non-farm Economy: Prospects for Growth and Poverty Reduction. World Development, 38 (10): 1429–1441.
19. Heidari Sarban, V (2014), Measuring and prioritizing rural areas in terms of social welfare levels (Case study: Parsabad County), Journal of Spatial Planning (Geography), Vol 4, No 3, pp. 61 -76.
20. Hoang et al., 2014, T.X. Hoang, C.S. Pham, M.A. UlubaşoğluNon-farm activity, household expenditure, and poverty reduction in rural Vietnam: 2002–2008, World Dev., 64 (2014), pp. 554-568.
21. Jahangiri, A (2017) Investigating the Impact of Economic Diversity on Sustainable Economic Development in Villages, Looking at the Central District of Shahin Shahr and Meyma, Journal of Spatial Locational Studies, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 103-88.
22. Javan, J. Alavizadeh, S and Kermani, M (2011), the Role of Various Economic Activities in Sustainable Rural Development Case Study: Semirom County, Journal of the Iranian Geographic Society, New Year, Year 9, Issue 29, Pages 17-43.
23. Karimzadeh, H. Valaei, M & Manafi Azar, R (2014), the Role of Variation of Activities in the Sustainability of Rural Economy. Case Study: Marhemat Abad Miani, Miandoab County, Journal of Space Geography, Vol 6, No 20, 129-144.
24. Kola, E., Laçi, S., & Laçi, E. (2012). Economic diversification of rural areas in Albania- The case of Kallmet Commune. 3th International Scientific Symposium, Belgrad, November 15-17,575-581.
25. Liu, D. Golding, G. Gong, Farmers' coping response to the low flows in the lower Yellow River: a case study of temporal dimensions of vulnerability, Glob. Environ. Change, 18 (4) (2008), pp. 543-553.
26. Mahdavi, M (2008), an Introduction to Rural Geography of Iran, Samt Publication.
27. Midmore. P., Whittaker. J. (2000). "Survey economics for sustainable rural systems", Ecological Economics 35, pp 173–189.
28. Musakhani, G (1999), Analysis of Social Welfare in Iran and its Effectiveness from Income Inequality, Master's Thesis, Department of Economics, Shiraz University.
29. Naseri, A & Basakha, M & Hassanzadeh, M & Masaeli, A (2009), Investigating the Impact of Different Government Expenditures on Non-Agricultural Employment and Poverty in Rural Areas of Iran, Economic Research, Vol 9, No 4, pp 41-64.  
30. Olale,  E & Henson, H (2013) The impact of income diversification among fishing communities in Western Kenya, Food Policy, Vol 43, pp 90-99.
31. Page, M., & Beshiri, R. (2003). Rural economic diversification- A community and regional approach. Rural and Small-Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 4(7), 1-7.
32. Ranjan, S., 2006. Occupational diversification and access to rural employment: revisiting the non-farm employment Debate. Labor and Development 11–12, 102–131.
33. Reardon et al., 2000, T. Reardon, J.E. Taylor, K. Stamoulis, P. Lanjouw, A. Balisacan Effects of non-farm employment on rural income inequality in developing countries: an investment perspective J. Agric. Econ., 51 (2) (2000), pp. 266-288.
34. Sadeghi Cham Changi, S. Sahdi, A & Sidayi, S (2016), Impact of Economic Variability on Rural Sustainability (Case Study: Rural Areas of Shahrekord), Journal of Rural Planning and Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 25-37.
35. Taherkhani, M (2000), Industrialization of villages, Ministry of Jihad-e-Sazandegi Press, First edition, Tehran.
36. Tayebnia, S & Baradaran S (2014), An Investigation of the Factors Affecting the Differentiation of Economic Activities in the Maritime Villages of Marivan, Kurdistan Law Enforcement Quarterly, Vol 5, No. 19, pp. 41-66.
37. Winters, P., Davis, B., & Carletto, G. (2009). Assets, Activities and Rural Income Generation: Evidence from a Multicountry Analysis, Volume 37, Issue 9, PP. 1435–1452.
38. World Bank (2003) Rural Financial ServicesImplementing The Bank’s Strategy To Reach The Rural Poor, Agriculture & Rural Development Department.
39. World Bank.(2007). Rural Non-Farm Economy, Retrieved from: http://go.worldbank.org/19NI77.
40. Yasoori, M & Javan, F (2015), Analysis of the Rural Diversification Restrictions Case Study: Eshkevar Oliya, Rural Spatial and Rural Development Quarterly, Vol 4, No 3, pp. 19-37.
41. Yasoori, M (2007), Introduction to rural economy with emphasis on agriculture sector, Astan Quds Razavi Publication, Mashhad.
42. Zamora, O. M. (2011). Development instruments for the cross-border cooperation in Ukraine. Poland, Warsawa: Warsaw University of Life Sciences Press.
43. Zhu, N., & Liu, X. (2008). The impact of remittances on rural poverty and inequality in China". Policy Research Working Paper No 4637, the World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department.