ارائۀ راهکارهای علمی و عملی منابع درآمدی پایدار برای دهیاری‌های استان گیلان (مطالعۀ موردی: دهیاری گیلاکجان)

Introduction
Rural Administration as an executive arm of councils is of important institutions in Iran which are constantly facing difficulties providing finance for their commitments based on institutions. These difficulties chakllahnge their abilities in providing services to rural societies since the capacity of rural economy is lilmited in making income and the average incomeof rural families is in low level. On the other hand, to make new income sources based on environmental richness, there necessarily be prerequisites and socio-ecnomic readiness. Materialization of this lies in providing financial resources for implementoing the potentials. Therefore, reducing the gap in income, the Rural Administration needs to adopt new policies to solve problems facing therural societies. In addition to the knwledgeof all dimensions of these problems, these policies should aim at recognizing new fund-raisng sources regarding the hidden opportunities present in villages and presenting sustainable strategies for thesetblishment of an income system based on rural capabilities. It is quite clear that the more the income needed for executing the plans are internal and are based on internal capacities, the more opportunities the villages will have to successd in reaching their goals. If we generalize this framework to lower levels in villages, we can reason that local sovereignties like Rural Administration can have effective roles in the management system of the country and help the fedral government in achieving its goal for national development. Thus, the budget for Rural Administration should be increased so that their financial potentials can be promoted. However, the search for the sources to fulfill this goal is not feasible without precise investigation for recognizing and operationalizing them.
Aiming at presenting scientific and practical strategies to make sustainable finance sources for Rural Administration in Guilan Province, here Gilakejan rural, the present study tries to answer the following questions:
1. Which strategies are available outside and inside Gilakejan for increasing income?
2. Regarding economic, social, enviormantal and leagal indexes to what extent can the recognized sources be reliable and operationalized?
Methodology
The present study is applied one based on descriptive-analytic method. The introduction of a constant and reliable income basis requires different scales to measure the degree of validity and priority of suggested income sources. Accordingly, studying various standards in each ground of earning income and because of existing statistical limitations especially in incomes, Delphi method and the Analytical Hierarchy Process are used for compiling thepackage of priorities of earning income.. Thus, modeling of research question has been done on the basis of recognizing new income sources that are based on economic, social, environmenta, and existing potentials in Gilakejan village in the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The needed data for the study have been collected through questionnaire of couple comparison from a group of village experts related to the subject of thestudy. Then, the data were analyzed using Expert Choice software and new income sources are suggested on the basis of their rank.




Results and discussion
The presentstudy has been conducted to find and untroduce sustainable sources of income and to increase the income of Rural Administration in Gilakejan village.after the linbrary research was done, field studies, interview with experts and local elites, a list of suggested sources of income andcriteria for theirevaluation were provided. Next, using Delphi method, omitting and modifying the income sources suggested and the criterion scales, 11 issues (modification ofsupport plan, establishment of camping, raisng flowers and plants, establishment od a beach market, issuing of formal exchange ofdocumentts from Rural Administration getting mony over water pipe, electricity, and telephone, establishment of fridg, recieving money for insuring lands and infirtle lands, doing second plantand fish planting) were suggested to increase the income of Rural Administration Among the criterion measurement scales and the income choices, 5 criteria were left. The group members of AHP conducted scales couple of five criteria extracted through Delphi method. The normalized matrix and the priority of criteria are presented in table 7. After the estimation of the weight of the criteria and choices in comparison with goal and critera respectively, the final weight of each choice can be gained. Since the weight of criteria indicate their importance in determining the goal and the weight of each choice shows its share in related criterion, the ultimate weight of each choice is reached from the sum of multiplication of each criterion in related choice. By estimating the average weight of each choice reached by multiplication of numbers in numbers of choices, Table 8, the ultimate weight of income choices can be reached.
Conclusion
After modeling the research problem and making questionnaire, coupoled comparisons, decision-making group, the importance of each choice and criterion was designated in ration to each other. Finally, after the data were collected, the priority of suggested income choices was determined. Accordingly, the support plan (0.0716), estblishmant of camping (0.0491), raising flower and plant (0.0487) were ranked from first to third for income source respectively. Fish planting (0.0351), second planting (0.0344), establishing beach market (0.0317) and exchanging oficil documents in Rural Administration (0.0270) were also ranked from fourth to seventh. Receiving money from infertile land (0.0259) with eight priority, receiving money for water piping, electricity, and telephone (0.0230), with nineth priority, recieiving mony for insurance of social security, land and properties (0.0201) with tenth priority, making frige (0.0126) with eleventh priority. Also, the criteria based on which the income choices are prioritized are ranked on the basis of their degree of significance: income being high (0.2361), income being internal and based on environmental potentials (0.2195), income being costant (0.1954), income needing low investment (0.1771), income being legeally supported (0.1719). As explained earlier, to achieve the ultimate priority of choices comparative Matris was gained by merging couple comparisons of individuals with eachother, and to determine the prority of each criterion or choice the normalized matris of each matris group is measured. Then, by determining the average of each matris mentioned, the priority of each criterion in ratio to goal and of choices in ratio to criteria can be reached.