Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 40, Issue 1 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(1): 23-30 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/11/21 | Accepted: 2024/12/28 | Published: 2025/01/15
Received: 2024/11/21 | Accepted: 2024/12/28 | Published: 2025/01/15
How to cite this article
Mahdavi Heris M, Shariatpanahi M, Daniali T, Armaghan S, Sistanipour A. Role of Economic Factors on Evolution of Rural Housing. GeoRes 2025; 40 (1) :23-30
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1667-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1667-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) (76 Views)
Background
Housing in rural areas serves a purpose beyond mere shelter; it reflects the culture, livelihood, and social structure of the community. Climatic, economic, and traditional factors have significantly influenced its formation. Over time, with socio-economic changes, the functional role of housing in supporting rural livelihoods has diminished, and its characteristics have increasingly aligned with urban models.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have addressed various aspects of the role and transformation of housing within rural contexts. Sargazi and Tayebinia (2022) emphasized the influence of environmental factors and development policies on the formation of rural housing. Eslami et al. (2019) examined the role of local materials and traditional technologies in preserving the architectural identity of villages. Ahmad et al. (2014) characterized rural housing as a multifunctional space for both residence and household livelihoods. Khaledinia et al. (2014) highlighted the functional and economic features of livelihood-oriented rural housing. Singh (2019) analyzed the structural changes and the declining livelihood function of rural dwellings. Badri and Mousavi (2010) categorized the various residential, economic, logistical, and cultural functions of rural housing. Researchers such as Mohammadi Yeganeh et al. (2017) and Nazari et al. (2021) pointed to the impact of economic linkages between rural and urban areas and the resulting changes in settlement patterns. Additionally, Anabestani et al. (2012) and Saeedi and Ahmadi (2012) focus on socio-economic transformations and their influence on the physical structure of rural areas. These studies provide a crucial theoretical foundation for contemporary investigations into the physical transformation of rural housing.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to examine the economic factors influencing the physical transformation of housing in the rural areas of Tehran.
Research Type
This study was descriptive-analytical in nature.
Research Society, Place, and Time
The statistical population of this study consisted of the residents of Rudbar-e Qasran rural district in 2024. The research was conducted in ten selected villages from this district, including Niknamdeh, Abnik, Aminabad, Eqal, Garmabdar, Bagh-e Gol, Rudak, Kalugan, and Bayr.
Sampling Method and Number
The total population was 30,152 individuals, and the sample consisted of 401 participants, selected using Cochran’s formula and a cluster sampling method.
Used Devices & Materials
The primary data collection instrument in this study was a researcher-designed questionnaire comprising 20 questions, developed based on relevant economic indicators. The questionnaire consisted of two sections (demographic information and economic indicators) and was structured using a five-point Likert scale. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software, version 25. To assess the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Additionally, supplementary tools included expert feedback in the field of rural economics for content validation, and a pilot test was conducted on a sample of 75 participants.
Findings by Text
Multiple economic and social indicators had a statistically significant impact on the structural transformation of rural housing. Indicators such as women's employment (r=0.672, p=0.002), the development of rural infrastructure and services (r=0.668, p=0.001), and productive activities (r=0.482, p=0.002) showed the highest correlation and influence on housing changes (Table 1). Although indicators like vehicle ownership (r=0.151, p=0.05) and land ownership patterns (r=0.316, p=0.04) had lower coefficients, they remained statistically significant.
In terms of satisfaction, the weighted mean for satisfaction with housing location (4.05) and structural layout (1.92) indicated a moderate to high level of resident satisfaction, which was confirmed by the Chi-square test (p=0.001) (Table 2). The structural equation model revealed that household income sources (β=0.42), non-agricultural income (β=0.38), and productive activities (β=0.36) had the most direct influence on financial empowerment and, consequently, on housing transformation (Table 3).
Table 1. The effect of economic factors on the structural transformation of rural housing
Table 2. Assessment of housing satisfaction in rural areas
Table 3. Structural equation model results for economic indicators affecting rural housing changes in Shemiranat
Finally, using the VIKOR model for prioritizing the villages, Zayegan village ranked first with the highest score in the Q index, while Kolougan and Rudak ranked at the bottom. These results indicate the uneven distribution of the impact of economic indicators across the villages (Table 4).
Table 4. Final ranking of studied villages based on economic indicators influencing housing transformation
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with the results of researchers such as Azimi et al. (2022) and Mahdinezhad et al. (2018), emphasizing the critical role of economic factors in the physical transformation of rural housing. Similarly, Mahdinezhad et al. (2018) have pointed out that economic changes lead to significant transformations in the structure, materials, and spatial organization of rural housing, which sometimes do not align with the local economy or culture. Moreover, the study by Mohammadi Yeganeh et al. (2017) highlights the incompatibilities caused by structural transformations that do not align with the cultural-economic fabric of villages. In this regard, the findings of Javanshiri et al. (2020) suggest that access to financial resources and appropriate economic planning can enhance residents' satisfaction. In terms of spatial aspects, the studies by Huang et al. (2009) and Hong et al. (2021) have shown that rural-urban flows, such as migration and technology transfer, are influential factors in the transformation of rural settlements, though Zehi Shahbakhsh & Ghanbari (2020) have warned about the negative effects of these flows in the absence of proper planning. Finally, Shucksmith (2018) and Gkartzios et al. (2022) emphasize the necessity of comprehensive planning to manage urban-rural linkages effectively.
Suggestions
Economic development, along with sound policy-making and coordinated planning, can contribute to improving the physical and social conditions of rural areas. Therefore, attention to spatial flows and rural-urban linkages, as well as optimizing the use of economic resources, are proposed as key strategies for driving positive transformations in rural housing.
Conclusion
Economic factors, the development of rural infrastructure and services, and governmental policies have the greatest impact on changes in the structure of rural housing. Each of these indicators significantly influences structural transformations in rural residential areas. Although the indicators of "vehicle ownership" and "land ownership patterns" had a lesser impact, their influence remained noteworthy and acceptable..
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Permission: No ethical approval code were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author's dissertation. The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the writing or publication of this article.
Author Contributions: Mahdavi Heris M (First Author): Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (20%); Shariatpanahi MV (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 (Fifth Author): Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None declared by the authors.
Housing in rural areas serves a purpose beyond mere shelter; it reflects the culture, livelihood, and social structure of the community. Climatic, economic, and traditional factors have significantly influenced its formation. Over time, with socio-economic changes, the functional role of housing in supporting rural livelihoods has diminished, and its characteristics have increasingly aligned with urban models.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have addressed various aspects of the role and transformation of housing within rural contexts. Sargazi and Tayebinia (2022) emphasized the influence of environmental factors and development policies on the formation of rural housing. Eslami et al. (2019) examined the role of local materials and traditional technologies in preserving the architectural identity of villages. Ahmad et al. (2014) characterized rural housing as a multifunctional space for both residence and household livelihoods. Khaledinia et al. (2014) highlighted the functional and economic features of livelihood-oriented rural housing. Singh (2019) analyzed the structural changes and the declining livelihood function of rural dwellings. Badri and Mousavi (2010) categorized the various residential, economic, logistical, and cultural functions of rural housing. Researchers such as Mohammadi Yeganeh et al. (2017) and Nazari et al. (2021) pointed to the impact of economic linkages between rural and urban areas and the resulting changes in settlement patterns. Additionally, Anabestani et al. (2012) and Saeedi and Ahmadi (2012) focus on socio-economic transformations and their influence on the physical structure of rural areas. These studies provide a crucial theoretical foundation for contemporary investigations into the physical transformation of rural housing.
Aim(s)
The aim of this study was to examine the economic factors influencing the physical transformation of housing in the rural areas of Tehran.
Research Type
This study was descriptive-analytical in nature.
Research Society, Place, and Time
The statistical population of this study consisted of the residents of Rudbar-e Qasran rural district in 2024. The research was conducted in ten selected villages from this district, including Niknamdeh, Abnik, Aminabad, Eqal, Garmabdar, Bagh-e Gol, Rudak, Kalugan, and Bayr.
Sampling Method and Number
The total population was 30,152 individuals, and the sample consisted of 401 participants, selected using Cochran’s formula and a cluster sampling method.
Used Devices & Materials
The primary data collection instrument in this study was a researcher-designed questionnaire comprising 20 questions, developed based on relevant economic indicators. The questionnaire consisted of two sections (demographic information and economic indicators) and was structured using a five-point Likert scale. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software, version 25. To assess the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Additionally, supplementary tools included expert feedback in the field of rural economics for content validation, and a pilot test was conducted on a sample of 75 participants.
Findings by Text
Multiple economic and social indicators had a statistically significant impact on the structural transformation of rural housing. Indicators such as women's employment (r=0.672, p=0.002), the development of rural infrastructure and services (r=0.668, p=0.001), and productive activities (r=0.482, p=0.002) showed the highest correlation and influence on housing changes (Table 1). Although indicators like vehicle ownership (r=0.151, p=0.05) and land ownership patterns (r=0.316, p=0.04) had lower coefficients, they remained statistically significant.
In terms of satisfaction, the weighted mean for satisfaction with housing location (4.05) and structural layout (1.92) indicated a moderate to high level of resident satisfaction, which was confirmed by the Chi-square test (p=0.001) (Table 2). The structural equation model revealed that household income sources (β=0.42), non-agricultural income (β=0.38), and productive activities (β=0.36) had the most direct influence on financial empowerment and, consequently, on housing transformation (Table 3).
Table 1. The effect of economic factors on the structural transformation of rural housing
Table 2. Assessment of housing satisfaction in rural areas
Table 3. Structural equation model results for economic indicators affecting rural housing changes in Shemiranat
Finally, using the VIKOR model for prioritizing the villages, Zayegan village ranked first with the highest score in the Q index, while Kolougan and Rudak ranked at the bottom. These results indicate the uneven distribution of the impact of economic indicators across the villages (Table 4).
Table 4. Final ranking of studied villages based on economic indicators influencing housing transformation
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with the results of researchers such as Azimi et al. (2022) and Mahdinezhad et al. (2018), emphasizing the critical role of economic factors in the physical transformation of rural housing. Similarly, Mahdinezhad et al. (2018) have pointed out that economic changes lead to significant transformations in the structure, materials, and spatial organization of rural housing, which sometimes do not align with the local economy or culture. Moreover, the study by Mohammadi Yeganeh et al. (2017) highlights the incompatibilities caused by structural transformations that do not align with the cultural-economic fabric of villages. In this regard, the findings of Javanshiri et al. (2020) suggest that access to financial resources and appropriate economic planning can enhance residents' satisfaction. In terms of spatial aspects, the studies by Huang et al. (2009) and Hong et al. (2021) have shown that rural-urban flows, such as migration and technology transfer, are influential factors in the transformation of rural settlements, though Zehi Shahbakhsh & Ghanbari (2020) have warned about the negative effects of these flows in the absence of proper planning. Finally, Shucksmith (2018) and Gkartzios et al. (2022) emphasize the necessity of comprehensive planning to manage urban-rural linkages effectively.
Suggestions
Economic development, along with sound policy-making and coordinated planning, can contribute to improving the physical and social conditions of rural areas. Therefore, attention to spatial flows and rural-urban linkages, as well as optimizing the use of economic resources, are proposed as key strategies for driving positive transformations in rural housing.
Conclusion
Economic factors, the development of rural infrastructure and services, and governmental policies have the greatest impact on changes in the structure of rural housing. Each of these indicators significantly influences structural transformations in rural residential areas. Although the indicators of "vehicle ownership" and "land ownership patterns" had a lesser impact, their influence remained noteworthy and acceptable..
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Permission: No ethical approval code were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author's dissertation. The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the writing or publication of this article.
Author Contributions: Mahdavi Heris M (First Author): Introduction Writer/Methodologist/Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (20%); Shariatpanahi MV (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 (Fifth Author): Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%)
Funding: None declared by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Ahmad A, Ghani ZG, Bello MU, Kasim R, Martin D (2014). A theoretical perspective on rural housing development and the problems associated with housing developers in Nigeria: Evidence from Dass Metropolis. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. 4(16):56-60. [Link]
2. Anabestani A, Shayan H, Bonyaddasht A (2012). The role of credit on housing pattern changes in rural areas (case study: Bahmaee county). Spatial Planning. 1(3):63-80. [Persian] [Link]
3. Azimi N, Divandari J, Moradi Nasab H, Sheikh Taheri H (2022). Physical and functional developments of the yard in rural housing; Case study: Villages of Garmsar central plain. Housing and Rural Environment. 41(178):3-18. [Persian] [Link]
4. Badri A, Mousavi S (2010). An analysis of the trend of changes in some characteristics of rural housing in Iran. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Islamic World Geographers. Zahedan: CIVILICA. [Persian] [Link]
5. Choguill CL (2007). The search for policies to support sustainable housing. Habitat International. 31(1):143-149. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.12.001]
6. Darvishi Y, Seadeghiha M, Vahdani Charzekhon H (2023). Relationship between physical and demographic changes in the rural periphery of Kalaleh. Rural Development Strategies. 10(1):73-93. [Persian] [Link]
7. Eslami L, Mohammadi Yeganeh B, Cheraghi M (2019). Analysis of economic factors affecting the developments in livelihood-based housing in rural areas (case study: Mojezat County, Zanjan Township). Journal of Housing and Rural Environment. 38(166):35-48. [Persian] [Link]
8. Ghanbri A (2011). An analysis of rural housing inequalities in counties of East Azerbaijan province in year 2008. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment. 30(136):33-50. [Persian] [Link]
9. Gkartzios M, Gallent N, Scott M (2022). A capitals framework for rural areas: 'Place-planning' the global countryside. Habitat International.27:102625. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102625]
10. Hong MY, HE YF, SONG HF (2021). Spatio-temporal coupling relationship and spatial effect between rural land transfers and farmers' income in China. Journal of Natural Resources. 36(12):3084-3098. [Link] [DOI:10.31497/zrzyxb.20211206]
11. Huang B, Zhang L, Wu B (2009). Spatiotemporal analysis of rural-urban land conversion. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 23(3):379-398. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13658810802119685]
12. Javanshiri M, Anabestani A, Sojasi Ghadiri 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]
13. Khaledinia M (2014). Assessing the role of credits in changing the housing pattern in rural areas of Paveh county [dissertation]. Zanjan: Zanjan University. [Persian] [Link]
14. Mahdinezhad J, Sharghi A, Asadpour F (2018). 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: CIVILICA. [Persian] [Link]
15. Mohammadi Yeganeh B, Cheraghi M, Jamshidi MK, Emami M (2017). Analysis of economic indicators affecting function transformation of rural housing (case study: Ghanibeigloo county, Zanjan township). Journal of Housing and Rural Environment. 39(160):35-44. [Persian] [Link]
16. Nazari A, Rostami S, Taleshi M, Khoran M (2021). The role of government policies in strengthening urban-rural links and its impact on structural-functional developments in rural housing in Marivan Township. Physical Social Planning. 8(1):29-50. [Persian] [Link]
17. Saeedi A, Ahmadi M (2012). Urbanization and structural-functional transformation of rural houses (case: A village around the city of Zanjan). Geography. 9(31):1-32. [Persian] [Link]
18. Saidi A, Rahmani Fazli A, Ahmadi M (2014). Annexation of rural settlements to Zanjan City case study: Sayan and Gawazang Villages. Housing and Rural Environment. 33(145):3-16. [Persian] [Link]
19. Sargazi H, Tayebinia SH (2022). Evaluation of the impacts of improvement credits on rural housing pattern change (case study: Dust Mohammad district in Hirmand County). Village and Development. 25(1):1-30. [Persian] [Link]
20. Seidaee E, Ghasemian Z (2012). Evaluation of rural house changing process (case study Georgi town). Special Planning. 2(1):87-106. [Persian] [Link]
21. Shucksmith M (2018). Re-imagining the rural: From rural idyll to good countryside. Journal of Rural Studies.59:163-172. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.07.019]
22. Singh C. Migration as a driver of changing household structures: Implications for local livelihoods and adaptation. Migration and Development. 2019;8(3):301-319. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/21632324.2019.1589073]
23. Zehi Shahbakhsh J, Ghanbari S (2020). Urban sprawl and physical-spatial changes in suburban settlements of Zahedan. Journal of Urban Peripheral Development. 2(1):85-104. [Persian] [Link]