عنوان مقاله [English]
The importance of rural life and development as a driving force and productive of any country and a factor in the direction of national development, deprivation and economic growth is not hidden from anyone and the interrelationships between urban and rural areas in developing countries are qualitatively different from urban and Rural areas are in developed countries, so better and coordinated distribution of activities in rural-urban relations in accordance with environmental characteristics and data, continuous settlement of the population, prevention of misplaced spatial populations, application of necessary measures in geographical stabilization of migrant population, Reducing environmental differences and differences and correcting and improving undesirable places by examining and analyzing the criteria of sustainable rural development in the planning of rural-urban relations from the perspective of rural residents can lead to sustainable population balance in rural areas. Therefore, in this study, using SPSS software and statistical analysis of data in two descriptive and analytical groups, the results were obtained based on the cluster analysis method of 44.1 % of the sample villages in three sustainable dimensions, 26.5 % semi - stable and 29.4 % are unstable and according to ANOVA test, rural-urban relations are stronger in sustainable villages. Based on numerical taxonomy test, changes in economic instabilities (economic viability of agricultural activities, improving the quantity and quality of products, improving the marketing situation, paying attention to international demand, planting local cultivars) with DL, 0.043, 079, respectively. 0, 0.214, 0.278, 0.616 is in the first place from the perspective of rural residents.
Today, in addition to traditional and historical relations, interactional relations have also linked rural arenas to urban centers (Saeedi et al, 2018: 30). Urban-rural links cause relations and urban-rural streams to form (Sheng, 2002:3). Therefore, studying urban-rural links and the relations between cities and villages is an important issue in urban and rural planning (Rostamalizadeh et al, 2016: 2). Understanding in-equalities and unbalances in different geographic zones is a requisite to move in this direction; to know the current situation in each part of planning process, including the country, province, city, county and district; and then to find out the differences and variances and current policies in order to remove and decrease the inequalities in each part of the complex (Masoudi et al, 2019: 246). So, though different in structure, nature and function, cities and villages are the constituents of an integrated spatial system (Pourmohammadi et al, 2017: 6). Because of socio-economic transformations and technology, especially in transportation and communicational ways, economic relations between cities and villages are now broad and varied (Clayton et al, 2005: 18). Urban-rural interactions can eventually be classified as:
1. Spatial interactions (like individuals, commodity, money, information and waste material streams);
2. Sectoral interaction (rural activities common in cities, like urban agriculture or activities which are mostly common as urban activities but are also present in villages, like industry and services) (Tacoli, 2003: 3).
Meanwhile, population growth, urbanism and diminishing returns in small units of micro agriculture show that the rural-urban interaction and link have a great and extensive role in local economy and their living (Long, et al, 2009: 454). However, recent worldwide evolutions have created new reasons for people to remain in the villages that can be classified in different ways, for example, based on economic, socio-cultural, ecological and physical dimensions (Firooznia, 2017: 60). Sustainable development approach is an ideal approach in development (Connelly, 2007:259), and a controversial (Breau, 2015:144) and multi-dimensional (Kitchen & Marsden, 2009:235) concept in rural population sustainability. Therefore, today, it is the key point to remember when making a decision on development, the major feature of which is permanence and accordance with human criteria (Vilshair, 2007:301). If sustainable development satisfies today's generation, without threatening the future generation's power and ability to meet their needs (Duran, et al., 2015:807), then rural sustainable development can emphasize multi-dimensional improvement of rural living by encouraging the activities which are in accordance with the capabilities and bottleneck of the environment (Safaee Pour et al, 2018: 682).
Based on the aforementioned issues, the present study aims to investigate urban-rural relations and the sustainability of Iran's population. Because of Iran's vast area and unique features of each city, these links have been selected randomly in four cities (Shiraz, Busheher, Astara and Chabahar). The researchers tried to use sustainable rural development in effective district planning in urban-rural relations as an independent variable; the strategies of population sustainability are considered as dependent variables, using which the researchers try to study the improvement of different levels in sustainability.
This study is a descriptive-analytic study, the statistical population of which is chosen using Cochran formula and sharing in a given ration; sample villages are also chosen randomly:
1. Sistan and Baluchestan province (Chabahr city): 23 villages were identified with approximation in estimation of society parameter being 0.11.
2. Fars province (Shiraz city): 18 villages were identified with approximation in estimation of society parameter being 0.15.
3. Gilan province (Astara city): 5 villages were identified with approximation in estimation of society parameter being 0.13.
4. Bushehr province (Bushehr city): 4 villages were identified with approximation in estimation of society parameter being 0.16.
Eventually, Cochran formula, with a confidence coefficient of 95%, and approximation of 0.051 in estimation of society parameter, were used to identify the volume of sample families. 376 sample families were selected among 50 villages.
SPSS software was used to analyze the data in three methods of cluster analysis (WARD), ANOVA test and taxonomy technique.
Results and Discussion
Based on the two mentioned hypothesis and the analyses done during the study, the following results were identified:
Hypothesis one: It seems that the features affecting urban-rural relations, including physical and temporal distance between villages and cities, service improvement and rural financing, can improve the population sustainability in villages of these cities (Shiraz, Bushehr, Astara and Chabahar). To investigate this hypothesis, cluster analysis (WARD) was used; 44% of sample villages were sustainable in three dimensions, 26.5% were semi-sustainable and 29.4% were unsustainable. Sustainable villages included: Bid Zard-e Sofla, Tafihan, Dodej, Tarbor-e Jafari, Qalat, Eslam Abad, Barmshour Olya, Gachi, Korouni, Soltan Abad, Shapour Jan, Kaftarak, Baharestan, Regeti, Ali Heybatan Bazar, Sayani, Karani, Patti, Achu bazar and Khanehaye Chaharshanbe (Shirdel); with regards to rural-urban relations, these villages were in a better situation than the others. In economic dimension, 14.7% of villages were sustainable, 55.9% were semi-sustainable and 29.4% were unsustainable. Kalestan, Eslam Abad, Qadir town, Barmshour Olya and Baharestan, Banou, Sayani, Karani, Patti, Achu bazar, Balle Sar, Khanehaye Chaharshanbe (Shirdel), Vashnam-e Dari, Dambdaf-e Moradi, Vashnam-e Haji Ramezan, and Gowmazi Sanjar were in a more sustainable economic situation. In socio-cultural dimension, 14.7% of villages were sustainable, 61.8% were semi-sustainable and 23.5% were unsustainable. Eslam abad, Mah Firouzan, Qaleh-ye Chah Kutah, Askar Abad, Darband, Ali Heybatan Bazar, Sayani, Kayani, Patti, Balle Sar and Voshnam-e Dari were in sustainable situations. In environmental dimension, 52.9% of villages were sustainable, 26.5% were semi-sustainable and 20.6% were unsustainable. The sustainable group included Bid Zard-e Sofla, Dodej, Tarbor-e Jafari, Qalat, Eslam Abad, Kadanj, Barmshour Olya, Gachi, Korouni, sultan Abad, Qaleh-ye Chah Kutah, Tal Siah, Baharestan, Askar Abad, Dej Dadkhah, Zirdej, Nadekan-e Gurmi, Regeti, Banarou Haji Shekar, Ali Heybatan Bazar, Sayani, Karani, Patti, Balle Sar and Voshnam-e Dari. Finally, the results of comparing the average rural-urban relation, using ANOVA test, show that more sustainable villages actually have stronger rural-urban relations. In fact, we can say that urban-rural relations can improve population sustainability and this hypothesis was proved.
Hypothesis two: it seems that sustainable rural development criteria in planning urban-rural relation changes economic, social and environmental unsustainability. To investigate this hypothesis, rural sustainable development criteria were ranked in urban-rural relations based on rural districts inhabitants. Using numerical taxonomy, the results are as follow: economic unsustainability changes (economic efficiency of agricultural activities, products quality and quantity improvement, marketing improvement, focusing on international demands, planting and harvesting local items) are on the first rank with DL order of 0.043, 0.079, 0.278, and 0.616. Social unsustainability changes (reduction of urban-rural immigration rate, improvement of income, economy, nutrition, health, housing, youth employment, availability of welfare amenities and entertainment facilities, and crime reduction) are on the second rank with DL order of 0.105, 0.144, 0.236, and 0.867. Environmental unsustainability changes (applying combinational methods to fight the pest, illnesses, and weeds, variety in agricultural activities, sustainability of activities like warehousing and storing) are on the third rank with DL order of 0.532, 0.790, 0.753, and 0.871.
Balancing population sustainability by rural sustainable development can be done using three major criteria in rural sustainable development, which are economic index, social index and environmental index:
Non-transfer of additional agricultural income from villages to cities,
Growth in consumable goods supply and services from cities to villages,
Building industrial towns and higher education institutes to train efficient and skillful labor force,
Growth in physical and human investment with rural living patterns.
Cities can function as a center to spread and promote the development achievements and they can be used as poles of development and growth,
Distribution of developmental services and facilities in all villages leads to unsustainable movement of human force from villages to cities,
Focusing on private sector for urban-village employment in urban development planning and government supporting this sector,
Reinforcement of relations and links between rural and urban societies, relations of small cities and sphere of influence,
Improvement in housing construction pattern by guiding rural inhabitants to build resistant and hygienic houses,
Providing the structure for urban-rural link can facilitate the transfer of urban income, investment in villages, and utilization of capabilities, facilities and God-given natural resources,
Filling the gap between industry and agriculture,
Modification of planting pattern based on relative advantages of districts and abilities of soil and water,
Executing some programs to adjust the earth, like draining, levelling and integrating the lands,
Marketing for agricultural products by reinforcing cooperative methods.