Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 39, Issue 3 (2024)
GeoRes 2024, 39(3): 339-345 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/08/7 | Accepted: 2024/09/22 | Published: 2024/09/30
Received: 2024/08/7 | Accepted: 2024/09/22 | Published: 2024/09/30
How to cite this article
Mahdavi Heris M, Shariatpanahi M, Daniali T, Armaghan S, Sistanipour A. Influential Factors in the Formation of the Physical Structure of Villages in Shemiranat County. GeoRes 2024; 39 (3) :339-345
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1642-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1642-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Geography, Yadegar-e-eImam Khomeini (RAH), Shahre Rey Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (11 Views)
Background
Rural settlements have undergone spatial and physical transformations under the influence of natural and human factors, historical developments, and the impacts of urbanization and globalization. Understanding these transformations is essential for the planning and sustainable development of rural areas.
Previous Studies
In previous studies, rural settlements have been regarded as reflections of the interaction between humans and the natural environment. Hamerow (2012) and Yang et al. (2016) have explored the spatial distribution and evolution of settlement patterns as historical-geographical adaptations of humans to their surroundings. Research by Long et al. (2009), Yang et al. (2015), Xi et al. (2015), and Janečková Molnárová et al. (2017) has also examined the processes, effects, and transformative mechanisms of rural settlements within the framework of human-environment relations. On a broader scale, Woods (2007) and Schwarz (2015) have emphasized the impact of globalization and urbanization on the reconstruction of the physical and social spaces of rural areas. Furthermore, Zhou et al. (2013) and Ren et al. (2019) have addressed issues such as the optimization of spatial layout, infrastructure, and the integration of rural-urban spaces in the physical reconstruction of villages. In the context of Iran, Javanshiri et al. (2020) have investigated the rapid expansion of urban patterns in rural areas and its impact on spatial and physical transformations.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the physical formation process of rural settlements in Shemiranat County.
Research Type
This study was of a descriptive-survey type.
Research Society, Place and Time
This study was conducted in 2024 in Shemiranat County, Tehran Province, and included two stages of sampling. In the first stage, 7 villages were selected from a total of 78 villages for the study. The statistical population consisted of two groups: rural planning experts and 2,399 residents of the selected villages.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling process in this study was carried out in two stages:
In the first stage, among the 78 villages of Shemiranat County, Rudbar Qasran Rural District was selected using cluster sampling. Then, 7 villages (Niknam Deh, Ab nik, Aminabad, Igel, Garmabdar, Bagh Gol, and Bayar) were chosen as the sample for the study.
In the second stage, to distribute the questionnaire among residents, Cochran’s formula was used to determine the sample size. From the population of 2,399 people in these 7 villages, 318 individuals were selected as the sample. Additionally, 22 rural planning experts were chosen using simple random sampling, and 17 specialists were purposively selected to assess the questionnaire’s validity.
Used Devices & Materials
The main data collection tool in this study was a researcher-made questionnaire designed through a multi-stage process. Initially, by analyzing study plans of the Shemiranat region and reviewing prior research, 8 indices and 50 sub-indices were extracted. After removing duplicates and recoding, these indices formed the basis for designing the questionnaire. The final questionnaire included 45 closed-ended questions based on a 4-point Likert scale. To confirm its validity, 17 experts (selected through purposive sampling) reviewed it, resulting in the removal of 5 questions. The reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and confirmed at 97%. For data analysis, SPSS software was used along with Shannon entropy methods and paired t-tests.
Findings by Text
In this study, among the 22 experts who participated in the questionnaire, 51.6% were male and 48.4% female. Sixty percent of them were over 40 years old, and 42% held education levels higher than a master's degree. The research examined five main indices including physical-environmental, economic, socio-cultural, political-administrative, and environmental factors, with a total of 45 sub-indices.
Among the economic indices, access to financial resources, infrastructure development, and housing construction quality were considered the most important factors influencing the physical formation of villages from the perspectives of both experts and residents. Conversely, historical buildings and cultural elements were identified as the least significant factors (Table 1).
Table 1. Ranking of indicators and sub-indicators from the perspectives of experts and residents of the studied villages
Statistical analysis using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the variables followed a normal distribution. Independent t-test results comparing the views of experts and residents indicated that despite minor differences in social and cultural indices, no significant overall difference was observed between the two groups’ opinions (Table 2). Statistically, there was no significant difference in social (Sig = 0.89) and cultural (Sig = 0.77) indices, although slight ranking differences existed. Environmental and economic indices, particularly climate, water and soil resources, and waste and sewage systems, were also highly important in shaping the physical structure of villages.
Table 2. Ranking of indicators and sub-indicators from the perspective of experts and residents of the studied villages
Overall, the findings suggest that economic and environmental factors had the greatest impact on the physical formation of villages, while cultural and some social factors held lower priority.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study, in emphasizing the role of economic factors in the physical formation of villages, are consistent with the results of studies by Mehdinezhad et al. (2019) and Rahmani et al. (2019), which have shown that economic improvement leads to changes in spatial organization and increased construction. Similarly, in line with the research by Khakpour & Sanati Eshghi (2014), this study also considers social interactions, cultural practices, and their alignment with climatic conditions as influential in the coherence of physical structures.
However, in contrast to some studies that consider culture the dominant factor in shaping the rural fabric (such as Ghorbani & Heidarnattaj, 2017), this study have found the cultural indicator to be of lower importance. From a policy perspective, the present findings are similar to those of Javanshiri et al. (2019) and Sojasi Qeydari & Esfaram (2018), emphasizing that infrastructure development and government programs, when not aligned with local contexts, can pose a threat to physical identity. Furthermore, the role of local institutions, similar to the conclusions of Alalhesabi (2011) has been confirmed as significant in the coherence and coordinated physical development of villages.
Suggestions
Development policies, with all their positive and negative dimensions, can profoundly affect the physical structure of rural areas. Depending on how these policies are implemented and the level of local community participation, such changes can either lead to balanced and sustainable development or give rise to new challenges. It is recommended that similar studies be conducted in other regions to enhance the generalizability of the findings.
Conclusion
Access to financial resources, infrastructure development, and housing construction quality were identified by both expert and resident groups as having the greatest influence on the formation of rural physical structures. Economic and environmental indicators have the most significant impact on rural spatial development, with financial accessibility, infrastructure expansion, climate conditions, and water and soil resources emerging as key factors. Overall, indicators related to historical buildings and cultural elements within the cultural category were considered the least important.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author's dissertation. There is no conflict of interest regarding the writing and publication of this article.
Authors’ Contributions: Mahdavi Heris M (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist/ Statistical Analyst (20%); Shariatpanahi M (Second author), Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst (20%); Daniali T (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Armaghan S (Fourth Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Sistanipour A (Fifth Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Rural settlements have undergone spatial and physical transformations under the influence of natural and human factors, historical developments, and the impacts of urbanization and globalization. Understanding these transformations is essential for the planning and sustainable development of rural areas.
Previous Studies
In previous studies, rural settlements have been regarded as reflections of the interaction between humans and the natural environment. Hamerow (2012) and Yang et al. (2016) have explored the spatial distribution and evolution of settlement patterns as historical-geographical adaptations of humans to their surroundings. Research by Long et al. (2009), Yang et al. (2015), Xi et al. (2015), and Janečková Molnárová et al. (2017) has also examined the processes, effects, and transformative mechanisms of rural settlements within the framework of human-environment relations. On a broader scale, Woods (2007) and Schwarz (2015) have emphasized the impact of globalization and urbanization on the reconstruction of the physical and social spaces of rural areas. Furthermore, Zhou et al. (2013) and Ren et al. (2019) have addressed issues such as the optimization of spatial layout, infrastructure, and the integration of rural-urban spaces in the physical reconstruction of villages. In the context of Iran, Javanshiri et al. (2020) have investigated the rapid expansion of urban patterns in rural areas and its impact on spatial and physical transformations.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the physical formation process of rural settlements in Shemiranat County.
Research Type
This study was of a descriptive-survey type.
Research Society, Place and Time
This study was conducted in 2024 in Shemiranat County, Tehran Province, and included two stages of sampling. In the first stage, 7 villages were selected from a total of 78 villages for the study. The statistical population consisted of two groups: rural planning experts and 2,399 residents of the selected villages.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling process in this study was carried out in two stages:
In the first stage, among the 78 villages of Shemiranat County, Rudbar Qasran Rural District was selected using cluster sampling. Then, 7 villages (Niknam Deh, Ab nik, Aminabad, Igel, Garmabdar, Bagh Gol, and Bayar) were chosen as the sample for the study.
In the second stage, to distribute the questionnaire among residents, Cochran’s formula was used to determine the sample size. From the population of 2,399 people in these 7 villages, 318 individuals were selected as the sample. Additionally, 22 rural planning experts were chosen using simple random sampling, and 17 specialists were purposively selected to assess the questionnaire’s validity.
Used Devices & Materials
The main data collection tool in this study was a researcher-made questionnaire designed through a multi-stage process. Initially, by analyzing study plans of the Shemiranat region and reviewing prior research, 8 indices and 50 sub-indices were extracted. After removing duplicates and recoding, these indices formed the basis for designing the questionnaire. The final questionnaire included 45 closed-ended questions based on a 4-point Likert scale. To confirm its validity, 17 experts (selected through purposive sampling) reviewed it, resulting in the removal of 5 questions. The reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and confirmed at 97%. For data analysis, SPSS software was used along with Shannon entropy methods and paired t-tests.
Findings by Text
In this study, among the 22 experts who participated in the questionnaire, 51.6% were male and 48.4% female. Sixty percent of them were over 40 years old, and 42% held education levels higher than a master's degree. The research examined five main indices including physical-environmental, economic, socio-cultural, political-administrative, and environmental factors, with a total of 45 sub-indices.
Among the economic indices, access to financial resources, infrastructure development, and housing construction quality were considered the most important factors influencing the physical formation of villages from the perspectives of both experts and residents. Conversely, historical buildings and cultural elements were identified as the least significant factors (Table 1).
Table 1. Ranking of indicators and sub-indicators from the perspectives of experts and residents of the studied villages
Statistical analysis using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the variables followed a normal distribution. Independent t-test results comparing the views of experts and residents indicated that despite minor differences in social and cultural indices, no significant overall difference was observed between the two groups’ opinions (Table 2). Statistically, there was no significant difference in social (Sig = 0.89) and cultural (Sig = 0.77) indices, although slight ranking differences existed. Environmental and economic indices, particularly climate, water and soil resources, and waste and sewage systems, were also highly important in shaping the physical structure of villages.
Table 2. Ranking of indicators and sub-indicators from the perspective of experts and residents of the studied villages
Overall, the findings suggest that economic and environmental factors had the greatest impact on the physical formation of villages, while cultural and some social factors held lower priority.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study, in emphasizing the role of economic factors in the physical formation of villages, are consistent with the results of studies by Mehdinezhad et al. (2019) and Rahmani et al. (2019), which have shown that economic improvement leads to changes in spatial organization and increased construction. Similarly, in line with the research by Khakpour & Sanati Eshghi (2014), this study also considers social interactions, cultural practices, and their alignment with climatic conditions as influential in the coherence of physical structures.
However, in contrast to some studies that consider culture the dominant factor in shaping the rural fabric (such as Ghorbani & Heidarnattaj, 2017), this study have found the cultural indicator to be of lower importance. From a policy perspective, the present findings are similar to those of Javanshiri et al. (2019) and Sojasi Qeydari & Esfaram (2018), emphasizing that infrastructure development and government programs, when not aligned with local contexts, can pose a threat to physical identity. Furthermore, the role of local institutions, similar to the conclusions of Alalhesabi (2011) has been confirmed as significant in the coherence and coordinated physical development of villages.
Suggestions
Development policies, with all their positive and negative dimensions, can profoundly affect the physical structure of rural areas. Depending on how these policies are implemented and the level of local community participation, such changes can either lead to balanced and sustainable development or give rise to new challenges. It is recommended that similar studies be conducted in other regions to enhance the generalizability of the findings.
Conclusion
Access to financial resources, infrastructure development, and housing construction quality were identified by both expert and resident groups as having the greatest influence on the formation of rural physical structures. Economic and environmental indicators have the most significant impact on rural spatial development, with financial accessibility, infrastructure expansion, climate conditions, and water and soil resources emerging as key factors. Overall, indicators related to historical buildings and cultural elements within the cultural category were considered the least important.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author's dissertation. There is no conflict of interest regarding the writing and publication of this article.
Authors’ Contributions: Mahdavi Heris M (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist/ Statistical Analyst (20%); Shariatpanahi M (Second author), Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst (20%); Daniali T (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Armaghan S (Fourth Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Sistanipour A (Fifth Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Ahmadian R, Mohammadi Makerani H, Mousavi S (2008). Features of the shape of the fabric of rural Iran. ABADI. (59):16-23. [Persian] [Link]
2. Alalhesabi M (2011). Participatory rural planning empirical study on the role of villagers in planning rural development. Housing & Rural Environment. 30(134):35-48. [Persian] [Link]
3. Gaisin IT, Gaisin RI, Biktimirov NM (2015). The factors affecting pattern of rural settlement of the republic of Tatarstan. Asian Social Science. 11(11):228-232. [Link] [DOI:10.5539/ass.v11n11p228]
4. Ghorbani F, Heidarnattag V (2017). Investigating the role of climatic factors in the formation of rural texture and housing in a temperate and humid climate (case example of Diva Babol village). Proceedings of the Research Conference Architecture and Urbanism Islamic History of Iran. Shiraz: Civilica. [Persian] [Link]
5. Hamerow H (2012). Rural settlements and society in Anglo-Saxon England. London: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203253.001.0001]
6. Janečková Molnárová K, Skřivanová Z, Kalivoda O (2017). Rural identity and landscape aesthetics in exurbia: Some issues to resolve from a Central European perspective. Moravian Geographical Reports. 25(1):2-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/mgr-2017-0001]
7. Javanshiri M, Anabestani A, Sojasi Gheidari H (2020). Investigating the factors affecting the physical-spatial changes in rural settlements of Mashhad urban complex. Geography & Urban Space Development. 6(2):17-47. [Persian] [Link]
8. Khakpour M, Eshghi Sanati H (2014). An investigation of the effect of social and cultural factors on the skeletal texture of Gilan provinces villages. Housing and Rural Environment. 33(148):3-20. [Persian] [Link]
9. Long HL, Liu YS, Wu X, Dong G (2009). Spatio-temporal dynamic patterns of farmland and rural settlements in Su-Xi-Chang region: Implications for building a new countryside in coastal China. Land Use Policy. 26(2):322-333. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.001]
10. Mehdinezhad J, Sharghi A, Asadpour F (2019). The effects of economic factors on the physical structure of sustainable rural housing. Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Architecture and Sustainable Cities. Tehran: Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. [Persian] [Link]
11. Rahmani B, Shafie Sabet N, Mazarzehi Y (2019). The role of spatial flows in the economic developments of rural settlements, case: Peripheral villages of Zahedan city. Journal of Space Economy & Rural Development. 8(29):33-50. [Persian] [Link]
12. Ren Y, Qian X, Xuanfang X, Yanchun C (2019). Rural settlement spatial patterns and effects: Road traffic accessibility and geographic factors in Guangdong Province, China. Journal of Geographical Sciences. 29(2):213-230. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11442-019-1593-2]
13. Schwarz K (2015). Censer fragmentation and life history: Rural domestic settlement enchainment and accumulation activities and the classic-postclassic transition of the Petén Lakes region, Guatemala. Geophysical Research Letters. 33(1):89-90. [Link]
14. Sojasi Qeydari H, Esfaram Y (2018). Analysis local management role in reducing the physical vulnerability approach to good governance (case study: Bahmaei Sarahdi Garbi rural district). Rural Development Strategies. 4(3):405-426. [Persian] [Link]
15. Tian G, Qiao Z, Gao X (2014). Rural settlement land dynamic modes and policy implications in Beijing metropolitan region, China. Habitat International. 44:237-246. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.010]
16. Woods M (2007). Engaging the global countryside: Globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Progress in Human Geography. 31(4):485-507. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0309132507079503]
17. Xi J, Wang X, Kong Q, Zhang N (2015). Spatial morphology evolution of rural settlements induced by tourism. Journal of Geographical Sciences. 25(4):497-511. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11442-015-1182-y]
18. Yang R, Liu Y, Long H, Qiao L (2015). Spatio-temporal characteristics of rural settlements and land use in the Bohai Rim of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences. 25(5):559-572. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11442-015-1187-6]
19. Yang R, Xu Q, Long H (2016). Spatial distribution characteristics and optimized reconstruction analysis of China's rural settlements during the process of rapid urbanization. Journal of Rural Studies. 47(B):413-424. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.05.013]
20. Zhou G, He Y, Tang C, Yu T, Xiao G, Zhong T (2013). Dynamic mechanism and present situation of rural settlements evolution in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences. 23(3):513-524. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11442-013-1025-7]
21. Zhu J, Xu W, Xiao Y, Shi J, Hu X, Yan B (2023). Temporal and spatial patterns of traditional village distribution evolution in Xiangxi, China: Identifying multidimensional influential factors and conservation significance. Heritage Science. 11(1):261. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s40494-023-01110-3]