Surveying and ranking the deprivation in the Northern provinces of Iran

Subject Areas : Regional Planning

mehdi pendar ¹ , Mohammad Pouryegan ² , sajad bahrami ³ , Farzam Pourasghar Sangachin ⁴

1 - Assistant Professor, Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran
2 - Expert, Affair of Planning, Supervision and spatial planning, Budget and Plan Organization, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Expert, Affair of Planning, Supervision and spatial planning, Budget and Plan Organization, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Head of Environment, Budget and Plan Organization, Tehran

Received: 2019-03-16 Accepted : 2019-10-18 Published : 2020-07-22

Keywords: Northern Provinces, Multiple Deprivation, Rural District, shrinkage estimation,

Abstract :

          Balance regional development is one of the key subjects in spatial planning and sustainable development and emphasizes on equal life conditions, economic and social components for all people in country. Regarding to the country zoning towards national spatial planning study and to make appropriate decision in right time for equal regional development, planners at first must examine and analyze the status of different regions in terms of developmental level and deprivation. Considering the cultural and social similarities and the relatively similar climatic conditions in north provinces of the country, in this study, the provinces of Mazandaran, Gilan and Golestan have been studied. In this research, shrinkage estimation was used to refine indices, the main components analysis method was used to determine the weight of the indices and the exponential distribution function in order to combine the rankings in different categories. The geographical level in this study is rural district (Dehestan) and 21 of the most important economic and infrastructure and social services indices have been used. The deprivation rate in this study has been categorized in five categories: most deprivation, deprivation, moderate deprivation, low deprivation and marginal deprivation. In this study, 301 rural districts (Dehestan) were surveyed and the indice of each district was calculated using the multiple indices of deprivation. The results show that out of a total of 301 districts, around 120 extreme deprived and deprived district were identified, accounting for about 40% of the rural districts. About 15% had a moderate deprivation, and about 45% of rural districts were identified as low deprivation area to marginal deprivation. Based on these analyzes, most districts with very high deprivation (40%) were identified in Golestan province. Extended Abstract Introduction:           Making policies unregard to regional equilibrium and integrated development of regions in Iran has led to limited developed poles and many underdeveloped areas in other words deprived areas in the past (Salehi and Pour Asghar Sangachin, 2009, p. 15). Multiple deprivation indices require measuring dimensions or deprivation indices separately, such as deprivation of employment, deprivation of education, deprivation of facilities and so on which are then combined into separate indices of appropriate weight (Townsend, 1988, p. 131). The issue of deprivation and imbalance has been the subject of controversy of policy makers and planners in the country since decades. Measurements have been taken to identify deprived areas and then policies to eliminate deprivation and development in deprived areas. Therefore, it is inevitable to formulate and adjust programs tailored to the conditions of each land of area, in overall, and the northern provinces in particular to reduce regional disparities, identifying and understanding the differences between regions. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the deprivation in the rural areas of the country in a case study of the three northern provinces named Mazandaran, Golestan and Guilan using index of multiple deprivation. Methodology:         To increase the accuracy of ranking and identifying deprived areas, the country's smallest political subdivision, the countryside, has been used as the basis for ranking and comparison. According to the studied components, the research environment is a descriptive-analytical approach. To do this, the indices of development and deprivation were gotten from Plan and Budget organizations of Guilan, Mazandaran and Golestan provinces. After collecting the indices and components related to deprivation, they were classified into 21 major economic and infrastructural and social groups by studying the resources and theoretical framework of the issue and refining the data. After data collection, a conceptual framework for the work flow was designed and needed process on data were computed using a shrinkage estimation to increase data reliability at the local level. Also, Factor analysis (FA) was used based on dependencies of the indices to determine the weights of the indices. Finally, after determining the indices and their dimensions and applying the necessary statistical techniques, the quantitative value of the multiple deprivation index was computed and Ranked, which is actually the score of each small subdivision. Results and discussion:          For indices combination into categories (to find the appropriate weight of each index), factor analysis was used that is based on interdependence between indices. Factor analysis has two widely used methods, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the Maximum Similarity Method. The principal component analysis assumes that the data are accurate and reliable, but in the maximum likelihood method this assumption is not needed. Therefore, the maximal similarity method for extracting weights has been prioritized as a factor analysis method. Comparative comparisons of provinces show that the most deprived subdivisions are in Golestan and after that in Guilan and finally in Mazandaran. By comparing the number of subdivisions with minor deprivation with highly deprived in provinces, it can be seen that the difference between these two groups in Golestan is more than 41% in Gilan 19% and 9%in Mazandaran. Also, according to this chart, the share of subdivisions with a poor deprivation in the Guilan is 38%, which is higher than Mazandaran and Golestan provinces with 16% and 6% respectively. In other words, the share of poor deprived subdivision of Guilan is higher than other provinces. Conclusion:           In this study, 21 indices from 301 subdivisions were evaluated and the indice of each subdivision was computed using Index of Multiple Deprivation. Based on these computation, about 120 more deprived and deprived subdistricts, out of the total 301 were identified, accounting about 40% of the aforementioned. About 15 percent of them had moderate deprivation and about 45% of the subdivision with low deprivation to minor deprivation were identified. According to these analyses, the most heavily deprived subdistricts (40%) were identified in Golestan province and Gilan and Mazandaran provinces were ranked 35% and 16% respectively. One of the most important findings of this study is that although there have been numerous deprivation measures in the country in general and the northern provinces in particular over the past years, deprivation continues to be observed in different provinces. The indices identified in this study were collected and analyzed according to the requirements of these provinces, which can be used as a basis for decision making and prioritization in the allocation of resources by regional institutions. The multiple deprivation index method, given its capabilities, can provide a relatively illustrative picture of deprivation status in different regions.

References:

1. Ebrahimzadeh, I & Mousavi, M.N (2016): methods and techniques for territorial spatial arrangement, SAMT.


2. Asayesh, H (1999): Structural-physical index of rural development in relation to spatial planning. Journal of Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution, No. 87, pp: 4- 15.


3. Fars Provincial Government, Office of Deprived Areas (1996): Development Output in Deprived Areas, Shiraz, Fars Provincial Government Publications.


4. Akbari, Y., Imani Jajrami, H., & Rostamalizadeh, V (2016): Analysis of Land use Barriers in Iran, Science and Technology Policy Letters, 6(3) pp: 5-13.


5. 5.       Amartya Sen (2002): Development as Freedom: by Raghfar, Hossein, Tehran, Kavir Publications.


6. Barakat foundation, Research and Development Committee (2017): Atlas of deprived areas of the country with the classification and zoning of deprived areas of the country and the relative advantages of these areas, Tehran.


7. Papoli Yazdi, M.H (2004): Social Justice and Development (Applying Ideology to Land Planning), Geographical Researches, 19 (74), pp: 1-29.


8. 8.    Parnian, h., Ziyari, K., Mirehie, M., & Modiri, M (2018): Development Strategies of Border Regions with Spatial Planning Approach- Case Study: Urmia–Salmas Zone. Scientific - Research Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR), 26 (104), Pp: 173-184.


9. Pourasghar Sangachin, F., Salehi, E., & Dinarvandi, M (2013): Measurement of the Development Level of Iran's Provinces with Factor Analysis Approach, Town and Country Planning, 4 (7), pp: 5-26


10. Pourtaheri, M., Mohammadi, N., & Eftekhari, A (2014): The evaluation and assessment of deprivation level in rural areas Case: central part of Javanrood. Space Economy and Rural Development, 3 (9), pp: 17-40.


11. Tofigh, F (1993): Factor Analysis and Regional Indicators. Abadi Quarterly, no. 10.


12. Khanifar, H (2010): The concept of land preparation and its usages in Iran. Town and Country Planning (JTCP), 2 (2), pp: 5-26.


13. Planning and Budget Organization, Office of Coordination of Regional area, (1988): Concise reports of identify of Country Deprived Areas, the second phase of the sixth round, Tehran: Planning and Budget Organization Publications.


14. Planning and Budget Organization, Office of Coordination of Regional area, (1999): Provincial ranking in terms of relative well-being of using factor analysis, Issue 81, Tehran: Planning and Budget Organization Publications.


15. Salimifar, M (2003): Development Economics, Tehran: Movahed Publications


16. Shaekhbaygloo, R (2011): Identification of deprived areas of Iran using hybrid ranking, Journal of Urban Research and Planning, 2 (7), pp: 53-70.


17. Salehi, E., & Pourasghar Sangachin, F (2009): An Analysis of the Barriers to Land Preparation in Iran. Rahbord Quarterly, 18 (52), pp: 149-181.


18. Ghorchian, N.gh., & Jamshidi, M (2006): From Land use planning to lesson planning, Tehran: Andisheh meta-cognitive publications.


19. Makhdoom, M (2013): Fundamental of Land use planning, Tehran: University of Tehran Publications.


20. Mousavi, M.N., Kahaki, F.S (2016): Priority Assessment of Iranian Islamic Development Indicators in the Realization of Spatial Planning of Khorasan Razavi Province with the Justice Based Approach. Journal of Geography and development, No 45, Pp: 93 – 120.


21. Nazmfar, H., Bakhtar, S., & Alavi, S (2015): Ranking Development Level of Rural Areas (Case Study: Rural Districts of Kermanshah Province). Journal of Geography and Environmental Studies, 4 (14), Pp: 181-192.
    
    
    1. Bista, Ch. (2010): Poverty and inequality in Nepal: an analysis of deprivation index 2003-08. Masters by Research thesis, School of Economics - Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3082.
    
    
    2. Department for Communities and Local Government (2015): The English Indices of Deprivation. London.
    
    
    3.  Gamache, Ph., Hamel, D. & Pampalon, R (2017): The material and social deprivation index: a summary. INSPQ, Public health expertise and reference centre, Canada.
    
    
    4. Kroll, L.E., Schumann, M., Hoebel, J. & Lampert, T (2017): Regional health differences – developing a socioeconomic deprivation index for Germany. Journal of Health Monitoring, 2 (2), pp: 98–114.
    
    
    5. Noble, M., Zembe, W., Wright, G. & Avenell, D (2013): Multiple Deprivation and Income Poverty at Small Area Level in South Africa in 2011 Cape Town. Southern African Social Policy Research Insights (SASPRI). South Africa.
    
    
    6. Townsend, P., Phillimore, P. & Beattie, A (1988): Health and Deprivation: Inequality and the North. Croom Helm Ltd, London.