پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,094,917 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,200,759 |
ارزیابی سطوح توسعه یافتگی با استفاده از تکنیک های تصمیم گیری چندمعیاره در بخش های استان گیلان | ||
| پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی | ||
| مقاله 297، دوره 52، شماره 1، فروردین 1399، صفحه 75-87 اصل مقاله (893.54 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2018.233904.1007465 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نصراله مولائی هشجین* 1؛ مریم علینقی پور2 | ||
| 1استاد گروه جغرافیا، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران | ||
| 2دانش آموخته دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| امروزه، تعیین و شناسایی سطوح توسعهیافتگی اصلی مهم در تدوین سیاستها و برنامههای توسعه محسوب میشود و نتایج آن بهعنوان راهنمایی سودمند توسط سیاستگذاران و برنامهریزان در جهت شناسایی محرومترین و توسعهیافتهترین مناطق استفاده میگردد. در راستای این مهم، ارزیابی سطوح توسعهیافتگی بخشهای استان گیلان لازم و ضروری بهنظر میرسد. روش تحقیق توصیفی- تحلیلی و جامعة آماری همة بخشهای استان گیلان (43 بخش) است که براساس 298 متغیر و 93 شاخص در پنج گروه شاخص ترکیبی (محیطی- اکولوژیک، اجتماعی- فرهنگی، اقتصادی، نهادی، و کالبدی) رتبهبندی شدهاند. شاخصهای موردمطالعه با استفاده از آخرین دادههای موجود سرشماری نفوس و مسکن سال 1390 استان گیلان جمعآوری، با روش تقسیم بر میانگین استاندارد، با بهرهگیری از مدل مؤلفة اصلی هموزن، و سپس با استفاده از روشهای تاکسنومی عددی، تحلیل خوشهای، تحلیل سلسلهمراتبی، تاپسیس، موریس، و تحلیل شبکه رتبهبندی شدهاند و با تحلیل نتایج بخشهای استان در پنج گروه توسعهیافتگی بالا (10 بخش)، توسعهیافتگی متوسط (7 بخش)، گذار به توسعهیافتگی (8 بخش)، محروم (9 بخش)، و محرومیت شدید (9 بخش) سطحبندی شدهاند و جایگاه هر یک از بخشها در سطوح توسعه با بهرهگیری از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی مشخص شده است. درنهایت، با مقایسة سطوح توسعهیافتگی در سالهای 1385 و 1390 نشان داده شده است در طی این دورة پنجساله از تعداد بخشهای موجود در سطوح محرومیت شدید و محروم کاسته و به تعداد بخشهای موجود در سطح بالای توسعهیافتگی افزوده شده است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| استان گیلان توسعة روستایی؛ سطوح توسعهیافتگی؛ تکنیکهای تصمیمگیری چندمعیاره | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| On thEvaluation of Development Levels by Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques in the Parts of Guilan Province | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Nasrollah Molaey Hashjin1؛ maryam alinaghipour2 | ||
| 1Professor | ||
| 2teacher | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: Lack of attention to the rural areas, inattention to the capabilities of rural areas are of the main problems in achieving rural development.According to the fact todays sustainable development is considered as a development dominant approach, addressing this issue is of great importance in development studies. Meanwhile, the important issue of evaluation and classification of the sustainable rural development will enable us to deal with the studied territory's planning and management by having sufficient knowledge about it. Whereas determination and identification of the development levels has been located as a main and significant element in the formulation of appropriate policies and programs in rural development in this syudy the evaluation of the development levels in the parts of Gilan province seems to be necessary. Methodology: This study is an applied,and a descriptive and analytical research in objective and also in nature and methodology point of view, respectively.In collecting the required information, the library method was used and population consist of all parts of Gilan province (43 parts). The statistics of 2011 (the obtained data from the General Population and Housing Census) were used as variables and then, the variables were converted to indexes.These indexes were classified in 5 groups (Environmental-Ecological, Socio-Cultural, Economical, Characteristic and Physical) appropriate to the aspects of the development. Since the number of indexes is different for different groups, a compound index was prepared for each group and then, these compound indexes were entered in analysis because only by this way, each group had equal voting rights.The indexes were entered into the SPSS software and the negative index were turned to the positive ones,firstly.So that,the indexes would have the same value.Alongside determining the degree of development, 298 variables and 93 indexes were collected. The methods of Numerical Taxonomy, Cluster Analysis, Analytic Hierarchy, Topsis, Morris and Network Analysis were used to determine the parts' ranking.First, in each of the development parts and finally,in the form of compound indexes, ranking and obtained results were analyzed.The techniques used in this research were the family members of Multiple Criteria Decision Making techniques. In this study, using the rank of each part while aware of the status of the part in development classification, and identifying the most deprived and the most developed sections, the homogeneity parts of the same floor was discussed and then, the results obtained in the form of a map were shown.In the next step,comparing the development level of years 2006 and 2011 was done by applying Topsis technique. Result and Discussion: The results showed that 10 parts out of the total of 43 parts (Central Shaft, Central Lahajan,Central Fooman,Central Some'ehSara,Rasht's Khoshkbijar,Rasht's Sangar, Rasht's Khomam, Central Bandar-e Anzali,and Central AstanehAshrafieh),7 parts (Rudboneh in Lahajan, Central Langerud, Tolam in Some'ehSara, Central Roodsar, Rasht's Lasht-eNesha, Kiashahr in AstanehAshrafieh, Rasht's Koochesfahan),8 parts(Central Rezvanshahr, Central Amlash,Rankohi in Amlash,Ahmadsargurab in Shaft,Komale in Langerud,MirzaKuchikKhan in Some'ehSara, Rahmatabad and blocks in Rudbar,Central Talesh),9 parts (Shanderman in Masal, Central Siahkal, Deylaman in Siahkal, Otaghour in Langerud, Kalachay in Roodsar, Rahim Abad in Roodsar, Amarlou in Rudbar, Asalem in Talesh, and Lavandevil in Astara),and 9 parts (Central Masal, Parehsar in Rezvanshahr, Sardarjangal in Fooman, Chaboksar in Roodsar, Khorgam in Rudbar, Central Rudbar, Havigh in Talesh, Karganrood in Talesh, Central Astara)are respectively in the high development, moderate development ,transition to development, deprived, and severe deprivation levels. Also, by comparing the development levels in years 2006 and 2011, we can find that in 2006, of the total of 43 parts, 7, 9, 4, 13, and 10 parts and in year 2011, out of the total of 43 parts,12, 6, 11, 11, and 3 parts were in high level of development, medium level of development, transition to development level, deprived level, and severe deprivation level, correspondingly. It means that the number of parts in levels of severe deprivation and deprived has been lessened and the number of parts in the upper level of development has been enlarged. conclusion: To allocate funds and resources among different areas, it is necessary to identify the status of the area in relevant parts and to rank the utilization levels of the benefits of development. Sparsely populated rural areas in the country are not capable to attract suitable investment, services, and technology, for all-round and stable development.So,it is indispensable to create a hierarchical service giving to be able to dispatch equipment, facilities and services properly, by ranking and classification of a system.There are different methods in ranking the different aspects of which does not necessarily entail the same answers. But, it is possible to select methods and then, by combining the results, to attain unit ranking and next, an appropriate classification. Finding an efficient method to measure the development and then, services giving in areas because of the large number of villages in each area, population distribution, diversity of rural area and their distribution in the area, the position of their relationship, rural especial properties, lack of budgets and civil credits, shortage of specialist staff, rural administrative management system and paying less attention to rural settlements is a difficult affairand there is a hope that accordance with the results of this study, the right decision could be taken for giving services to the villages and parts which will improve the welfare of the villagers, activate the rural economy, raise the rural incomes and employment level. Planning and implementation of rural development projectsin parts, prioritizing areas of deprived and severe deprivation in the medium term development program, use a particular strategy to expand the welfare and civil services and upgrading the production capacities and employment in rural areas to maintain the population and preventing the migration are of proposals that are useful in the studied area. Keywords: Developmental levels, rural development, multi-criteria decision-making techniques, Guilan province | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| "Evaluation", "Development Levels", "Rural Development", "Multi Criteria Decision Making Techniques ", "Guilan Province" | ||
| مراجع | ||
21. Al-Hassan, Ramatu M. (2007). Regional disparities in Ghana: policy options and public invetment implications, University of Ghana, Xinshen Diao, International Food Policy Research Institute. 22. Asayesh, H. (1992). Human Development and its prospects in Islamic countries, Geographical Research Quarterly, 24: 80-7. 23. Asgharizadeh, E. and ZabihiJamkhaneh, M. (2013). Evaluate and ranking the development of rural areas using Multiple Criteria Decision Making (A Case Study in Sari city), Journal of Rural Planning, 3: 4-27. 24. Azadi,Y. and Beikmohammadi, H. (2012). Analysis and Classification of Developmental Levels of Rural Areas in Ilam Province, Scientific Journal of Spatial planning, 2(2): 41-62. 25. Bokani, R.; Makari, A. and Bahrami, S. (2012). Assess the level of social development of rural settlements using AHP model, study area rural areas of Akhtrabad Mallard city, border towns and Security Conference, Challenges and Approaches, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, posters. 26. Faraji, H.A.; Rezaee, H. and Gholami, A. (2015). Leveling rural settlements with emphasis on social capital components, Regional Planning Quarterly, 5(18): 101-116. 27. Kalantari, Kh. (2010). Spatial and land use planning, Second Edition, Tehran: Saba Cultural Publications. 28. KosroBegay, R.; Anabestani, A.A. and Taghiloo, A.A. (2011). Stable ranking of rural development with the use of multi criteria decision making in agreement planning pc (case study: Komijan city), Human Geography Quarterly, 2: 103-123. 29. Mahdavi, M. and Berenjkar, A. (2013). Ranking rural city of Bandar Anzali according to land use changing using AHP hierarchy process model, Regional Planning Journal, 3(12): 49-60. 30. Mokhtarihesari, A.; Zareidastgerdi, Z. and Shabanalighomi, H. (2006). Water shortage in Iran paves the way for creating a new paradigm in exploitation of water resources systems, The first National Conference on Irrigation and Drainage network management, posters. 31. Molaei Hashtjin, N.A. (2015). Lessons about land use planning and environmental quality of rural areas project management, Department of Geography and Rural Planning, Islamic Azad University of Rasht. 32. Mousavi, Mirnajaf and Bagherikashkouli, A. (2012). Ranking and locating economic activity to provide rural development strategy based on network analysis (case study Bahabad city), Geography Quarterly, 32: 217-238. 33. Nemati, M.; Tahmasbi, S. and Gharghani, M. (2016). Measuring the amount of development and its effective factors in rural areas, Regional Planning Quarterly, 6(23): 45-58. 34. Patel, A. (2010). Rural Development Projects and program, A journal on rural development, 58(3): 1-52. 35. Rahmanifazli, A.R.; Darvishi, H.A.; Bigham, M. and Biranvandzade, M. (2012). Ranking of West Azerbaijan province rural settlements with the use of TOPSIS technique, The first national conference on agricultural sustainable development and a healthy environment, enterprise seminar tomorrow's environment Hamedan, pp.1-7. 36. Roknodineftekhari, A.R and Aghayarihir, M. (2007). Stable ranking of rural development (Case Study Hire Section), Geographic Journal, 61: 31-44. 37. Said, A. (2009). Ranking of country, Tehran: Published by rural civil assistance- housing foundation and the Islamic Revolution. 38. Shakur, A. and Shamsuddini, A. (2012). The role of urban centers in creating balance and development of rural areas (Case Study: masiri town and surrounding rural), Geographical landscape Quarterly, 7(21): 63-77. 39. Shamsdini, A. and Rahimi, A.R. (2014). Ranking of rural settlements in mamasani using the techniques of organizing spaces, Regional Planning Journal, 14: 87-102. 40. Shankar, R. and Shah, A. (2013). Bridging the Economic Divide within Countries: A Scorecard on the Performance of Regional Income Disparities, World Development, 31: 1421-1441. 41. Sharama, B. (2004). Regional disparities in agricultural labour Productivity in the Brahmaputra Valley, Department of Geography, Gauhati University, Assam, India. 42. Taghdisi, A.; Jamini, D.; Jamshidi, A.R. and Arianpour, A. (2012). Spatial Analysis and Leveling of Rural Areas of Uranistan Region Based on Employment Indicators, Journal of Space Planning (Geography), 3(2): 157-180. 43. Ulrich, R. (2003). Effects of intraregional disparities on regional development in China: inequality decomposition and panel data analysis, Nagoya- University, Nagoya/Japan. 44. United nation economics and social council (ECOSOC) (2004). An Integrated Approach to Rural Development, Dialogues at the Economic and Social Council, United nation publication. 45. Wei, Yehua Dennis (2015). Spatiality of regional inequality, Applied Geography, 61: 1-10.
47. Zarabi, A. and Tabrizi, N. (2011). Determination of the Development Level of Mazandaran Provinces - Factor Analysis Approach, Amayesh Journal, 12: 63-78. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 689 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 383 |
||