پديد آورندگان :
باراني پسيان، وحيد نويسنده Barani Pesyan , vahid , نظريان ، اصغر نويسنده استاد جغرافيا و برنامه‌ريزي شهري، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي، واحد علوم تحقيقات تهران Nazarian, Asghar , مهدوي ، مسعود نويسنده استاد جغرافيا و برنامه‌ريزي روستايي، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامي، واحد علوم تحقيقات تهران Mahdavi, Masoud
چكيده لاتين :
Human ambition has always been an important factor in a desirable quality of life. At first, the desire to improve their physical condition, such as income, education, health and housing is limited, but the wide range of variables considered are qualitative and subjective. Low living standards in rural areas and the rural exodus to the cities have caused several problems of social, economic and environmental in rural areas and in cities. In fact, migration from rural to urban areas in many developing countries has become one of the factors of development.
Quality of life in rural areas depend on many factors, including employment, income, access to services like education and health, environmental, safety and strong communities. Although the quality of life in urban areas and the related challenges associated with prosperity and a better life is very different in the rural areas. The term quality of life of the general environment in which people live include pollution and the quality of housing and also some of its characteristics, such as health and access points. Quality of life may be a personʹs enjoyment of the show, they are not just the things he has to, but all the options that he may have a choice of. In other words, the freedom of independent living and failure to achieve success and knowledge of the real opportunities is compared with others. Individualʹs perception of quality of life is evaluated in the context of culture and value systems in society and in relation to goals, expectations, standards, and individual.
Methodology
This study was based on quantitative approach. Research methods, field survey methods, and some tools are used for gathering data. In this paper, the nature and description, and the type of variables to measure differences between means are prioritized. The purpose of this research is to be implemented in terms of being practical.
Results
The research component of the 7-fold aspects of quality of life is used to evaluate the variables. The social dimension of quality of life are assessed with 11 items and has three components of health and safety training, respectively, with a mean of 60.18 and 37.17 above average and leisure 6.32 with lower than average. Average total social dimension (42.29) is lower than average (33), and the social dimension of quality of life appropriate conditions are favorable. The physical dimensions of quality of life are assessed with the two components and 9 indicators. For this dimension, both components of the infrastructure and residential environments, respectively, with an average of 22.17 and 10.45 are above and below the average. In the mean body (27.67), slightly higher than average (27), the body has a high quality of life in moderate conditions. The environmental quality of life has been tested in 5 statements, environmental quality, value is 16.08 above average (15), so the quality of life and environmental conditions are favorable. The economic dimension of quality of life is measured by a buoy and 5 components, the quality of employment and income, 12.39 lower than average. Thus, the economy is bad in terms of quality of life.
The highest and lowest average assessment components are related to education (18.60) and leisure (6.32), respectively. The average quality of life questionnaire is obtained with 98.48. Single-sample t test indicated that there are significant differences (P < 0.05) in the mean average of each questionnaire.
In other words, the quality of life of rural households is higher than average. From the test results, the following assumptions can be made: Households by age and education are not interacting namely the statistical interaction between age and education levels of the independent variable on the variable quality of life. The impact is not significant (sig= 0.99, f= 0.73). Age and household jobs also are not interacting namely the statistical interaction between age and job level as the independent variable Khanvarha impact on quality of life variables are not significant.(Sig= 0.56, f= 0.995). Education and Career Households are also interacting with the statistical interaction between the educational and career households and the impact of the independent variable on the variable quality of life is significant(sig= 0.004, f= 5).
Conclusion
Immigration reform in the rural community of large cities began after the revolution, despite the positive action of Jahad Sazandegi, Bonyade Maskan and so on. Improving the overall quality of life in the areas of physical, environmental, education, health, leisure, employment and income can be very effective in keeping the rural population. Following suggestions in this regard are:
- Create job opportunities in the area of providing low-interest loans to applicants, a small manufacturing, service, etc.
- Providing opportunities for recreation, sports and culture, such as public libraries, sports halls to fill the vacuum, lack of leisure.
- In order to improve the quality of housing units and retrofitting these units provide low-interest loans to applicants.
