Document Type : Research Paper
Associate Prof. in Geography and Rural Planning, university of Isfahan, Isfahan. iran.
Associate Prof. in Geography and Rural Planning, university of Isfahan. Isfahan. iran
Ph.D. Candidate. in Geography and Rural Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
ph.d. candidate. in geography and riral planning university of Isfahan. iran.
Quality of life as a multidimensional construction includes psychological, economic well-being, social and physical aspects; and today can considered as progress and development indicators of the of a society; There is general consensus among researchers, policy-makers, and development planners on what the need to study quality of life. Given the socio-economic development and improvement of living standards, quality of life is very important, so can used as a powerful tool to check community development planning process.
In a general sense, development means raising the material and spiritual level of human society and creating the right conditions for a healthy life for all members of society. According to this , development includes economic, social, political and cultural aspects, which include quantitative and qualitative changes, and at the same time, internally and externally, it is considered as a relative concept (Mir Lotfi et al., 2017: 167 in). In recent decades, recognizing, measuring and improving the quality of life has been one of the main goals of researchers, planners, and governments (Rezvani and Mansoorian, 2008: 2). Therefore, despite conceptual and operational pluralism, quality of life is generally a multi-concept (C. Gleury, 2007: 41), which becomes important with socio-economic development and the improvement of living standards, so it can be considered as a powerful tool to monitor community development planning (Khorasani et al., 2014: 66). Since these days, quality of life is one of the main issues in optimizing the living environment of human beings and development, so it is necessary to study the level of quality of life indicators in order to identify the deficiencies in different villages, and provide an imagination of the level of welfare, and provide a suitable model for future planning to achieve rural development in the consider area.
The statistical population of the cross - sectional study includes all rural households living in Jazinak district of Zahak city with 5223 households. After the pre-test, questionnaire and variance calculation of the main variables through Cochran's relationship, by replacing this value in Cochran's formula, the sample size estimated 357 people. In order to further generalize, 360 questionnaires were randomly selected and completed in 17 villages in Jazinak district and for analysis, multivariate decision weighting models such as Shannon and saw entropy have been used. In order to effectively analyze the data, SPSS software and analysis of variance and correlation of Spearman were used to evaluate the quality of life.
Discussion and results
Leveling results using SAW and entropy models showed that the indicators of quality of education and employment and income with weights 0.189 and 0.113, had the highest rate respectively. And environmental quality and leisure quality indicators with a weight of 0.009 and 0.023, have the lowest level of quality of life indicators among the villages respectively. Also, Jazinak, Eastern Nadam and Safdar Mirbeik villages with the final score of 0.586, 0.581, 0.576 have the highest score, respectively, and Qala-e-Naw, As Ghazi and Lechvi villages with the final score of 0.494 and 0.494, and 0.491 have lowest ranking in terms of quality of life indicators.
To investigate the relationship between the level of rural life quality indicators and the development of the studied villages; Due to the abnormality of the statistical distribution, Spearman's nonparametric correlation coefficient was used, which shows the correlation between the two sequential variables. The results showed that the correlation between the quality of life and the development of the villages of Jazink district was equal to 386 and the significant level (sig) was calculated as 0.000% and this was significant at the level of 0.05. Therefore, at the level of 99% confidence, it can be said that there is a significant relationship between the level of rural quality of life indicators and the development of villages in Jazink district. As the quality of life increases, the rate of rural development increases too, and conversely, as the level of quality of life of the villages decreases, the rate of development of the them decreases.For comparative comparison of sample villages in terms of quality of life dimensions, statistical analysis of variance test has been used, as shown in Table (9), considering that the significance (sig) in all dimensions is equal to 0.000% and this is significant at the level of 0.05. Therefore, the assumption of H., i.e. the assumption of equality of quality of life in the studied villages has been rejected and the opposite assumption (h1), i.e. the difference in the level of quality of life in the studied villages has been confirmed.
The results of the variance analysis test show that there is a significantly significant difference between the dimensions (economic, social, physical and environmental) of quality of life in the studied villages. The results of the Spearman test also show that there is a significantly significant relationship between the level of quality of life of villagers and the development of villages in Jazinak district, and the level of quality of life of villagers plays an effective role in rural development. Also indicators of health and safety quality and infrastructure quality including: (access to health centers, health center, clinic, bathroom, etc.), having a proper diet (weekly consumption of protein in the diet, weekly consumption of fruit), accessing to stations and police in times of emergency, security in the village, unity and solidarity, participation of individuals (cooperation with councils and village councils in matters related to the village, financial assistance, etc.), desire to survive, (access to public transport, access to the shopping centers of basic goods, access to the distribution point) with a weight of 0.049 and 0.8080, respectively, have the desired limit. This confirms the results of the study of Ilanlu and Zebidi on sustainable development and quality of life index.