The Spatial-Local Effects of Return Migration in Miyandoab County

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 4، دوره 5، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 13، تیر 2016، صفحه 83-98   

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v5i1.43612

نویسندگان

Hasan Afrakhteh¹؛ Reza Manafiazar^{* 1}؛ Mohammad Valaei²

¹Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

²Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran

چکیده

Extended Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
The process of most migrations in underdeveloped countries is from village to city. The reverse of this process, i.e. migration from city to village, is called reverse migration. The reverse migration is an important phenomenon, and in the national scale, the linear motion of migration from urban settlements to rural ones is due to some reasons like the birthplace and initial settlement of immigrants. However, return migration is a process which is related to the birthplace and initial living place of the person, who then immigrated to cities and settled there and after that returned to village. Accordingly, in return migration, the birth place and living place of rural people along with socioeconomic reasons make them migrate to cities and spend a long-life time there, and then, return to their country land. The phenomenon of return migration in Iran is one of the subjects to which little attention has been paid. However, those who have returned to villages can accelerate the development of rural areas with technical skills and financial capitals. This study aims to evaluate the spatial–local and socioeconomic effects of return migration on rural areas of Miyandoab County.
2. METHODOLOGY
The present study is a kind of applied-developmental qualitative research and its method is analytic-descriptive and intensive. Among the different types of qualitative methods, the Grounded theory has been selected. The participants are from Miyandoab county in Southeast of West Azarbaijan. The participants of this study are 126 householders who have come back to their country lands in the past fifteen years. In order to determine the sample size, the researchers made use of purposive sampling using sequential-theoretical method. The field data were obtained through sub-structured interviews with returned immigrants. With 22 interviews reached to theoretical saturation. The data analysis has been done using Strauss Al and Corbin JM methods along with data gathering. In this method, the obtained qualitative data from interviews were analyzed manually in three phases, namely, open coding, axial coding and selective coding.
3. DISCUSSION
At the time of migration, the average age of respondents was 31.4, and at the time of returning, it was 55.2. The returnees had almost higher levels of lands than beneficiaries of the county. The average land of beneficiaries of this county is 4.15 hectares. While, the average land of returned immigrants is 23.7 hectares. Therefore, returned immigrants are those who have significant area of lands (personal or hereditary). The return mechanism followed four indices including economic, social, psychological, and developmental indices. Having evaluated costs and socioeconomic benefits, the immigrants made their decisions to return. Therefore, these two indexes, i.e., cost and benefit outcome, are important return factors. Generally, the economic aspects have more impact on people's motivation in returning to villages while the developmental, psychological and social aspects are in next positions. On the other hand, return migrations (urban- rural) are because of the effects of pull factors in rural areas rather than push factors in urban areas.
One of the results of immigrants' returnees is the return of financial and human capitals to villages. The immigrants have brought back their financial capitals or part of them to the villages and invested in different parts of economy. The triggering of industrial livestock and fattening cattle, the development of under pressure irrigation or mechanization of cultivation and harvest stages of grain products are some instances of the returned immigrants' investments in agriculture. The industry sector has also attracted some parts of returnees' capital including workshop industries, building doors, windows and welding, industrial mill, cheese and bakery industry. The establishment of cooperative company of agricultural distribution, and the appliances' repairing centers are also among investment cases of returned immigrants in service sectors of sample villages.
4. CONCLUSION
Return migration as a human action in geographical space occurs because of two main types of factors. High costs of living, lack of housing, high rent, unemployment, and cultural problems of destination cities are among a series of factors called Repulsiveness factors. On the other hand, the delivery of infrastructure services, the development of physical layout of village, acquisition and revival of agricultural land are among the other type of factors named the attractions of original place. However, the effect of economic factors in making people return to village was much more. Therefore, the findings of this study are in harmony with push-pull theory of Everett S. Lee and Lary Shastad's theory. The fact that returnees did not disconnect themselves to village people and have had significant land areas acted as a system of desired data in Mabogunje theory in immigration returning phenomenon. Return migration shows the capital trend from city to village. The trend of human and financial capitals in rural areas indicates the geographical reforming in the studied area. The return of human capitals, skills, experiences, and economic capitals in the form of return migration has a kind of cyclone flow of capital in space area having a flow from village to city and then to village.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Miyandoab county؛ return migration؛ spatial infrastructure؛ urban–rural migration

مراجع

1. Adib Haj Bagheri, M. (1385/2006). The research method of grounded theory, Techniques of theorizing in Health and Human Sciences. Tehran: Human Press. [In Persian]

2. Afrakhteh, H., & Hajipour, M. (1392/2013). The development of possession system of rural lands, causes and consequences, (Case study: Neghab and Masome Abad villages in Khosef County). Quarterly of Rural Development Economy, 2(3), 1-21. [In Persian]

3. Amar, T. (1385/2006). the study and analysis of second houses' development in rural areas of Khorgam district in Rodbar county. Geographical Outlook Quarterly, 1(1), 65-78. [In Persian]

4. Dumont, J. C., & Spielvogel, G. (2008). Return migration: A new perspective. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Migration Outlook, Annual Report. ‏

5. Dustmann, C., & Yoram, W. (2007). Return migration: Theory and empirical evidence center for research and analysis of migration. London: University College of London.

6. Dustmann, C., Itzhak, F., & Yoram, W. (2011). Return migration, human capital accumulation and the brain drain. Journal of Development Economics, 95(1), 58–67.

7. Gasemi, M., Javan, J., & Saberi, Z. (1393/2014). The analysis of reverse migration formation factors in rural areas of Binalood County. Geographical Studies of Dry Areas, 4(16), 15-37. [In Persian]

8. Gavidel, S., Razagi, H., & Seyed Alipour, S.Kh. (1386/2007). The study of process and migration reasons to Tehran Metropolis with emphasis on Firouzkooh County. Economy Science Magazine, 1(10), 165-194. [In Persian]

9. Gordon, F, Jong., Marilou, C. and Legazpi, B (1994). Occupational status of rural outmigration and return migrants. Journal of Rural Sociology, 59(4), 693- 707.

10. HajiHosseini, H. (1385/2006). Revolution in migration theories. Rahbord Journal, 41(1), 35-46. [In Persian]

11. Kalarak, J.E. (1379/2000). Principles of Population Geography (M. Mahdavi, Trans.) (4st ed.). Tehran: Gomes Press. [In Persian]

12. Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural-urban migration. Geographical Analysis, 2(1), 1-18.

13. Mambani, E., & Gasemi Ardahayi, A. (1390/2011). The influential factors on the tendency of university professors' migration of Ahvaz to out of province. Sociology of Social Issues of Iran, 2(4), 109-125. [In Persian]

14. Manafi Azar, R. (1390/2011). The analysis of Acceptance Process and the implementation of under pressure irrigation systems and its effect on the rural development of Miyandoab County. Unpublished master’s thesis, Payamnoor University of Gonbade-e- Kavoos, Gonbade-e- Kavoos, Iran. [In Persian]

15. Manafi Azar, R., Abdollahi, A., Alizadeh, T., Valayi, M., & Gasemi Ardahayi, A. (1393/2014). Return Migration and its consequences on the rural areas, (Case study: Barough District of Miyandoab County). Planning Studies of Human Settlements, 8(24), 12.23. [In Persian]

16. Motiee Langaroudi, S.H., Gadiri Masom, M., Rezvani, M.R., Nazari, A., & Sahneh, B. (1390/2011). The impact ofimmigrants 'return to villages in the improvement of residents' livelihood (Case study: Ag Gala County). Human Geography Researches, 43(78), 67-83

17. OECD. (2007). International migration outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing.

18. Okali, D.U.U., Okpara, E., & Olawoye, J. (2001). The case of Aba and its region, southeastern Nigeria (No. 4), IIED.‏

19. Planck, M. (2006). Internal migration and household living conditions in Ethiopia Blessing Uchenna Mbera: institute for demographic research. Journal of Demographic Research, 14(1), 509-540.

20. Rabani, V., Taheri, Z., & Rosta, Z. (1390/2011). The study of reasons of reverse migration's motivations and its effect on social-economic development (Case study: the immigrants of Tankabon and Ramsar). Urban Planning and Research Magazine, 2(5), 83-108. [In Persian]

21. Raghfar, H., & Gasemi Ardahayi, A. (1388/2009). The migration causes and demographic –economic characteristics of immigrants between cities: the comparative study of Iranian immigrants from city to village and from village to city during 1996-2006. Quarterly of Iran Demography Forum, 4(8), 39-61. [In Persian]

22. Ranjbar, H., Haghdoost, A.A., Salsali, M., Khoshdel, A., Soleimani, M.A., & Bahrami. N. (1391/2012). Sampling in Qualitative Researches, guidance for start. Scientific Research Magazine, the Medical Science University of Islamic Republic Iran Army, 10(3), 238-250. [In Persian]

23. Sajjadi, Jh., & Kaviyani, A. Z. (1389/2010). The effect of Spatial Inequality in Social Anomalies, (Case study: Abdanan city). The Collection of Selected Papers of National Conferences of Migration, Principle and Security, second volume (pp. 243-259), Applied Research Office of Police Commander of Khorasan Razavi, Mashhad, Iran. [In Persian]

24. Statistical Center of Iran (1390/2011). The certification of Prosperity of the Country, Miyandoab county in 2011. Tehran: Statistical Center of Iran. [In Persian]

25. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1994). Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.

26. Taher Khani, M. (1381/2002). The Recognition of Effective Factors in urban-rural migrations with emphasis on the migration of rural youth of Gazvin province. Quarterly of Humanities Teacher, 6(25), 41-60. [In Persian]

27. United Nations Statistics Division. (1998). Recommendations on statistics of international migration (Rev. 1). New York: United Nations.

28. Wang, W. W. (2004). Urban-rural return labor migration in China: A case study of Sichuan and Anhui provinces. Retrieved from http://www.iir.ucla.edu/research/grad_conf/2004/wang.pdf

29. Zaheri, M. (1390/2011). The analysis of spatial interactional effects of Tabriz Metropolis and perimeter dormitory villages with emphasis on reverse migration and its influential factors. Geographical Researches, 26(102), 169-188. [In Persian]

30. Zaiceva, A., & Zimmermann, K. F. (2012). Returning home at times of trouble? Return migration of EU enlargement migrants during the crisis, Institute for the study of labor, Bonn. Retrieved 2013, Dec, from http://IZA.org/dp7111.pdf 

31. Zanjani, H. A. (1378/1999). Demographic analysis. (2st ed.). Tehran: Semat Press. [In Persian]

32. Zanjani, H. A. (1380/2001). Migration. Tehran: Semat Press. [In Persian]