Rurality and Different Perspectives of Population Change in the Remote Rural Area (Case Study: Shirvan County)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 3، دوره 6، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 19، بهمن 2017، صفحه 35-57   

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v6i3.58752

نویسنده

Reza Khosrobeigi bozchalouie^*

Hakim Sabzevari University

چکیده

Extended abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Remote and inaccessible rural unlike the rural adjacent to large cities which benefit from the effects of population density and suburbanize, traditionally have to rely on their own internal resources and they do not have any opportunity for attracting urban population. At the same time, some of villages are at a higher level due to the presence of natural capacities and the availability of open space for leisure and recreation without any stressful factors, and therefore are interested for diversity of outlooks, relaxation and meditation. Similarly, under different circumstances, different perspectives of demographic changes can be found, along with stagnation, dynamism can be observed. In fact, the experiences of life and rurality are significantly different between individuals and society (however, if we have similar and homogeneous situations spatially). This is rooted in a set of cultural and social characteristics that bring residential preferences and expectations and, consequently, demographic movements. The purpose of this study is to illustrate the plurality and diversity of remote rural areas (micro level) in relation to immigration motives and demographic movements based on different routine lives of local residents and various moral and cultural discourses in societies, and control the preferences of individuals in choosing the location.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
With the expansion of communications and information technology, we see not only tourists, but also permanent residents of urban areas in remote rural which has led to new jobs and, consequently, population growth. However, in some places, as well as in the past, there is a continuing decline in population and movements to the benefit of urban areas. Accordingly, focusing on rural discourses and representations is highlighted in recent rural studies as part of the cultural turn and portrays the importance of rural redevelopment, the movement from produce space and consumption space for audiences. Although all the studies have been directed alongside the "cultural turn", there is a clear difference in the applied methods: to prevent the imposition of different guidelines and conflicting claims of the concepts of Frows rurality (1998), three major discourse streams with themes agricultural-rural, benefit-driven and hedonism have been identified. In addition, in recent years, Lopez-i- Glate (2009) has identified four major groups of rurality discourses such as environmentalism, entrepreneurship, agriculture, and endogenous development, which are the source of many research on demographic dynamics in rural areas.
3. METHODOLOGY
The analytical strategy in this research is a socio-cultural background and a qualitative methodology, and, most of all, in this paper, “case study based grounded theory", multiple representations of rurality in relation to population movements and residential decisions. This technique contributes to combining and creating an equivalence between the complex dimensions of research namely, the knowledge of the researcher and how to communicate with local residents, events and events in the area, systematic observations (cultural dynamics), and semi-structured interviews on the (moral) status of the residents.
Extracting the ethical and cultural discourses related to different prospect of demographic changes in the present research is carried out through the principles embodied in the Q methodology: The general objective of this method is to study the "personal perspectives, concepts and beliefs" of the people.
4. DISCUSSION
The mentality obtained by the Q methodology acknowledges that despite the spatial and geographical similarities of rural settlements in the Shirvan County, two different social and ethical discourses have been formed in Sarhad/ Ghooshkhaneh and the central part, and on this basis, there are differences in the prospects of the population. The mentality identified at Sarhad/ Ghooshkhaneh are more aligned with traditional and historical identities. There is a great demand for maintaining economic and social structures, namely grazing livestock in the rangeland at first, and second, farming by local residents. In contrast, the public policy of the country's economic development has limited the use of rangelands due to limited environmental sensitivities and attempts to transform the herd and sheep economy into livestock production, both industrially and lividly. On the other hand, the agricultural sector should be transformed from the secondary activity to main economic pillar of the region and in some cases it will provide most of the financial needs of the rural household. These imposed identities are a controversial area, and in the light of our social economic disparities, we experienced the increasing withdrawal of labor in Sarhad/ Ghooshkhaneh for the benefit of other economic sectors, especially urban ones. On the other hand, the expansion of the agricultural sector is not accompanied by the general popularity of local people and is limited to women's households. It should be said that the continuous decline of the population is not entirely focused on the subject of identified mentality, and other realities in everyday life can manipulate villagers' decisions to stay or not.
5. CONCLUSION
In the conclusion, the macro-rural development patterns are emerged from local micro practices. The rural is merely an integral part of a community that is linked to a set of cultural, social, and moral characteristics before being examined by agricultural and productive activities or entrepreneurial initiatives. It is predicted that rural settlements are based on the principles of past developmental patterns of the emerging and new demands of local residents (due to extensive changes), as well as the destructive effects of local micro practices are in executive initiatives. So that, improving the quality of rural life became a complex problem, and development prospects are not accepted locally, and people are alien to them. On the other hand, the rural community has turned to conservatism and use motivational mechanisms, while does not deceive the plans of the construction companies and pursues their own cultural and moral interests.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Remote rural؛ population changes؛ comparative comparison؛ moral and cultural discourse؛ Shirvan

مراجع

1. Berry, B. J. (1976). The counter urbanization process: urban America since 1970 (Vol. 11, pp. 17-30). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

2. Biddulph, R. (2015). Limits to mass tourism’s effects in rural peripheries. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 98-112. ‏

3. Champion, A. G. (1989). Counter urbanization: the changing pace and nature of population de concentration. ‏

4. Chi, G., & Marcouiller, D. W. (2013). In-migration to remote rural regions: The relative impacts of natural amenities and land develop ability. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 22-31.

5. Cloke, P. (2003). Knowing ruralities. Country visions, 1-13.

6. Cloke, P. (2006). Conceptualizing rurality. Handbook of rural studies, 18-28. ‏

7. Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., & Widdowfield, R. (2001). Homelessness and rurality: exploring connections in local spaces of rural England. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(4), 438-453.

8. Frouws, J. (1998). The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 54-68.

9. Green, G. P., Deller, S. C., & Marcouiller, D. W. (Eds.). (2005). Amenities and rural development: theory, methods and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. ‏

10. Halfacree, K. (2007). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. Handbook of rural studies, 44-62. ‏

11. Halfacree, K. H. (1993). Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(1), 23-37.

12. Halfacree, K. H. (1995). Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1), 1-20.

13. Isserman, A. M., Feser, E., & Warren, D. E. (2009). Why some rural places prosper and others do not? International Regional Science Review, 32(3), 300-342.

14. Jones, O. (1995). Lay discourses of the rural: developments and implications for rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1), 35-49.

15. Lawrence, M. (1997). Heartlands or neglected geographies? Liminality, power, and the hyperreal rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 13(1), 1-17.

16. Leibert, T., & Wiest, K. (2016). The interplay of gender and migration in Europe's remote and economically weak rural regions: Introduction to a special issue. Journal of Rural Studies, (43), 261-266. ‏

17. Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics Taylor & Francis. Inc. Bristol, PA Google Scholar. ‏

18. Marsden, T. (2003). The condition of rural sustainability. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum. ‏

19. Massey, D. B., & Jess, P. M. (1995). A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization. ‏

20. Meijering, L., van Hoven, B., & Huigen, P. (2007). Constructing ruralities: The case of the Hobbitstee, Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(3), 357-366.

21. Mormont, M. (1990). Who is rural? or, how to be rural: towards a sociology of the rural. Rural Restructuring. Global processes and their responses., 21-44. ‏

22. Murdoch, J. (2003). Co-constructing the CHAPTER15 countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. Country Visions, 263. ‏

23. Nelson, P. B. (2001). Rural restructuring in the American West: Land use, family and class discourses. Journal of rural studies, 17(4), 395-407.

24. Newby, H. (1980). Green and pleasant land? Social change in rural England. Penguin Books Ltd.

25. Paniagua, A. (2014). Rurality, identity and morality in remote rural areas in northern Spain. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 49-58.

26. Phillips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 123-140.

27. Phillips, M., Fish, R., & Agg, J. (2001). Putting together ruralities: towards a symbolic analysis of rurality in the British mass media. Journal of Rural Studies, 17(1), 1-27.

28. Rye, J. F. (2006). Rural youths’ images of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 409-421.

29. Saugeres, L. (2002). The cultural representation of the farming landscape: masculinity, power and nature. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 373-384.

30. Silva, D. S., Figueiredo, E., Eusebio, C., & Carneiro, M. J. (2016). The countryside is worth a thousand words–Portuguese representations on rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 77-88.

31. Smith, D. P. (2002). Extending the temporal and spatial limits of gentrification: a research agenda for population geographers. International Journal of Population Geography, 8(6), 385-394.

32. Stockdale, A., Findlay, A., & Short, D. (2000). The repopulation of rural Scotland: opportunity and threat. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 243-257.

33. Svendsen, G. L. H. (2004). The right to development: construction of a non-agriculturalist discourse of rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 79-94.

34. Van Dam, F., Heins, S., & Elbersen, B. S. (2002). Lay discourses of the rural and stated and revealed preferences for rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural idyll in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 461-476.

35. Verheij, R. A. (1996). Explaining urban-rural variations in health: a review of interactions between individual and environment. Social Science & Medicine, 42(6), 923-935.

36. Wilbur, A. (2014). Back-to-the-house? Gender, domesticity and (dis) empowerment among back-to-the-land migrants in Northern Italy. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 1-10.

37. Woods, M. (2005). Contesting rurality: Politics in the British countryside. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

38. Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 849-858.