Rural Partnership: An Approach to Achieve Development and Poverty Reduction (Case Study: Saravan Dehestan of Rasht County)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 8، دوره 6، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 19، بهمن 2017، صفحه 217-234   

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v6i3.62285

نویسندگان

Majid Yasouri^{* 1}؛ Nader Ofoghi¹؛ Seyyedeh Fatemeh Emami²

¹University of Guilan

²University of Tehran

چکیده

Extended abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between rural partnership and poverty condition with regard to different social, economic and political aspects in the rural district of Saravan, located in Rasht in Gilan province. Predictor variables in this sturdy include partnership, which has different social, political and physical service aspects, attitude towards partnership, and the approach to partnership while the criterion variable is poverty from social, economic and political aspects. This research is an applied-developmental one, and the study method is documentary and analytical. In order to gather data, a questionnaire was used. In an analytical method, each desired component is introduced according to the proposed theory. Accordingly, each component with multi-reagents identify the degree of partnership and its role in rural development; then, components of poverty in political, economic and social aspects and the relationship between the two variables of partnership and poverty is investigated using multiple regression model in SPSS software. The statistical population of the study is all rural households in Saravan. 370 samples were chosen using Morgan table. The results indicate that there is a relationship between the issue of poverty in different dimensions and levels of partnership. It means that as each unit increases in partnership, 649.0, 756.0, and 728.0 units reduce in social, economic, and political dimensions of poverty, respectively. In other words, by increasing each of the partnership indexes, the partnership approach and attitude towards partnership in social, political and economic dimensions of poverty is reduced.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Partnership is multi-lateral and vague concept as conceptual development is; thus, there can be different commentaries about this issue. But generally, we can define partnership as a process of involving people in determining their fate and being responsible for it. Partnership refers to a group of attitudes, methods, and behaviors that enable people to check and discuss the fact of life and their life conditions. This helps them to plan and know what to do and to evaluate and observe its results. Saravan village, located in Sangar in Rasht, has seven villages. This study aims to check the development level of this area using Morris Model. It has been done using 20 indexes and a questionnaire which was distributed among rural families in this rural district. Its relationship with development will be checked. In fact, based on the aims of the study, the following hypothesis is presented:
H: There is a relationship between partnership and development in Saravan Villages.
The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between rural partnership and poverty condition with regard to different social, economic and political aspects in the rural district of Saravan, located in city of Rasht in Gilan province. Predictor variables in this sturdy include partnership that has different social, political and physical aspects, attitude towards partnership, and the approach to partnership while the criterion variable is poverty from social, economic and political aspects. This research is an applied-developmental one and the study method is documentary and analytical. In order to gather data, a questionnaire was used. In an analytical method, each desired component is introduced according to the proposed theory.
3. METHODOLOGY
This study is an applied-developmental one and the method used is documentary and analytical. In order to gather data a questionnaire was used. The households living in rural areas of Saravan constitute the units for analysis in this research. Hence, our sample includes all of rural households of Saravan. According to 2011 census, there are seven villages and 4283 households in this region. To analyze the data, the SPSS Software was used, to determine the number of headmen in each household, the Morgan Table was used that eventually, at first, 351 questionnaires, and then in order to get better results 370 questionnaires were used to determine the number of headmen
4. DISCUSSION
The results showed that the stability, effectiveness, and coverage of participatory projects targeting rural poverty is more than a top-down project and that projects aimed at reducing rural poverty gradually get away from the firm's non-cooperative; even if in appearance or in early steps go faster than collaborative projects. Show and take steps to develop the area. Political and economic life in rural poverty reduction stems and approved the screw.
5. CONCLUSION
In fact, with increased participation of villagers in the district can be of educational facilities and proper extension, good schools, good teachers, good health care for rural health. Projects could also participate in the waste separation at home to improve your village and be diligent environmental health. Also, with increasing political participation in villages of the district poverty reduction stems. In fact, this poverty to factors such as increased security due to the police station, a high level of security, lack of conflict with neighbors, would like to participate in elections and participate in determining their own destiny, and so it comes down.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Rural partnership؛ Poverty؛ Saravan Dehestan؛ Gilan province؛ Multiple regression

مراجع

1. Agwu, A. E. (2005). Rural People's Attitude towards Participation in Development Projects-A Study of NGWO Community in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Rural Development-Hyderabad, 24(2), 271. ‏

2. Allen, P. (2004). Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. USA: Penn State Press. ‏

3. Azkia, M. (1377/1998). Introduction to sociology rural development. Tehran: information press (In Persian).

4. Azkia, M., & Ghafari, G. (1384/2005). Sociology of development. Tehran: Kayhan press. [In Persian]

5. Boshagh, M., Taghdisi, A., & Taghvai, M. (2015). A model to explain poverty in rural areas (Case study: Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province). Journal of Research and Rural Planning, 4(3), 115-126. [In Persian]

6. Chambers, J., & Blackburn, W. (1996). The scope for effective local participation in the economic development and planning of rural areas and regions. Washington, U.S.A.

7. Chambers, R. (1376/1997). Rural development and prioritizing the poor (1st ed., M. Azkia, Trans.). Tehran: University press.

8. Chambers, R. (1387/2008). Rural development, priority to the rural poor (M. Azkia, Trans.). Tehran: Tehran University Press. [In Persian]

9. Faugeras, P., Hoummada, A., & Klapisch, R. (Eds.). (2006). Sharing Knowledge across the Mediterranean Area: Towards a Partnership for Sustainable Management of Resources and the Prevention of Catastrophes (Vol. 12). Amsterdam, Netherland: IOS Press. ‏

10. Finan, F., Sadoulet, E., & De Janvry, A. (2005). Measuring the poverty reduction potential of land in rural Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 77(1), 27-51.

11. Gharei Araei, B. (1393/2014). The role of participatory planning in rural poverty reduction (A qualitative case study: Lzvr village. Journal of Rural Researches, 5(2), 467-488. [In Persian]

12. Hasanzadeh, M., Kohansal, M. R., & Ghorbani, M. (1390). Factors Affecting the Participation of Villagers in Rural Development Groups (Case Study: International Pollution Program in South Khorasan Province). Journal of Village and development, (14), 73-91. [In Persian]

13. Huntsinger, L., & Fortman, L.P. (1990). California’s privately owned oak woodlands: Owners, use and management. Journal of Range Management, 43(2), 147-152.

14. Lea, D.A., & Chauanri, D.P. (1983). The nature, problems and approaches to rural development, rural development and the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15. Lin, J. Y., & Liu, P. (2008). Economic development strategy, openness and rural poverty: a framework and china’s experiences. In Globalization and the Poor in Asia (pp. 135-168). Palgrave Macmillan UK. ‏

16. Lowe, P. (2005). Participation in Rural Development, Center for Rural Economy. Loxamborg: Official Publications of the Eropien.

17. Lowe, P., Ray, C., Ward, N., Wood, D., & Woodward, R. (1999). Participation in rural development. Dublin, European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions.

18. Mohamadi, M. (1380/2001). Geographic factors affecting rural youth participation in development planning: A case study of Kerman County. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, Iran. [In Persian]

19. Mohseni Tabrizi, A. (1377/1998). Investigate ways people's participation in sustainable agricultural development. Tehran: Jihad Ministry deputy promote public participation. [In Persian]

20. Motiee Langradoui, S. H., & Sakhaei, F. (1388/2009). Popular participation and rural development in the district Solgui of Nahavand County. Journal of Human Geography Research, 41(70), 111-126. [In Persian]

21. Nadcarm, N., & Franklin, D. (2003). Whats up?. The newsletter of the international canopy network, 9(2), 1.

22. Papoli Yazdi, M., & Ebrahimi, M. (1381/2002). Theories of Rural Development. Tehran: SAMT publications. [In Persian]

23. Raise Dana, F. (1384/2005). Index measurement and dynamics of poverty in Iran. Journal of Social Welfare, 4(17), 85-134. [In Persian]

24. Razavi, S.H. (1377/1998). Rural, poverty, development (Volume I: Concepts, Approaches and Indicators the Rural Research and Evaluation Center). Tehran: Dynasty of Village and Development press. [In Persian]

25. Rezvani, M. (1390/2011). Rural development planning in Iran (4th ed.). Tehran: Ghomes publication. [In Persian]

26. Seraylou, S., Mehrjerdi, M., & Khaledi, K. (1390/2011). The impact of agricultural research spending on rural poverty Iran. Journal of Rural Development, 14(2), 53-71. [In Persian]

27. Sheykh hasani, Q., & Mehman doust, F. (1389/2010). The role of social and economic participation of villagers in rural development projects (Case Study: Nisa Rural district). Journal of Geography of the Land, 7 (28), 124-109. [In Persian]

28. Taleb, M., Mirzayi, M., & Naderi, A. (1391/2012). Assess the role of participation in rural development schemes (Case study: integration schemes in rural areas). Journal of rural development, 4(1), 1-18. [In Persian]

29. Tavakoli, J. (1383/2004). Rural poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries. Journal of rural and Development, 2(1), 65-70. [In Persian]

30. Wang, X., Yu, Z., Cinderby, S., & Forrester, J. (2008). Enhancing participation: experiences of participatory geographic information systems in Shanxi province, China. Applied Geography, 28(2), 96-109. ‏

31. Warf, B. (Ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of human geography. USA: Sage press.

32. Yavar, B. (1380/2001). Participatory urban planning and public participation in the Iranian city of facts, goals, strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]