ضوابط تعادل بخشی به چندگانگی روستابودگی در ایران: تدوین چشم اندازی سازگار برای بازتعریف قلمروهای روستایی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری

2 دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

مدیریت جامعه­ی روستایی ایران از ساختار اقتصادی، اجتماعی، فرهنگی و طبیعی متنوع و متفاوت آن برخاسته است. ضمن این­که، نواحی روستایی در سال­های اخیر متأثر از جریان­های بیرونی دچار تغییرات بسیاری شده­اند و بیش از پیش با فضای متفاوت شده­ی روستایی مواجه هستیم. اداره­ی چنین جامعه­ی ناموزونی دو راه بیش­تر نداشته و ندارد: یا روی به تمرکزگرایی آورد؛ چیزی که در طول تاریخ برنامه­ریزی توسعه­ی روستایی در کشور شاهد آن بوده­ایم و یا از روش­های جدید مدیریت استفاده کرد. سازوکاری را باید اندیشید که بر این ناموزونی­ها فائق آید بدون آن­که از اهمیت آن کاسته شود. مقاله­ی حاضر طرح­واره­ی هالفاکری(2006) یعنی زندگی روزمره­ی روستایی را به­عنوان راهکاری جهت تشخیص این ناموزونی­ها و به­علاوه تعیین حدود قلمروهای جوامع محلی معرفی می­کند. با بهره­گیری از این چارچوب دیگر از معیارهای تراکم جمعیت و اندازه­ی قلمرو استفاده به­عمل نمی­آید، بلکه به پتانسیل­های درون­محلی توجه می­شود. قلمروهای تاریخی جوامع محلی به عنوان ملاکی برای تعیین حدود واحدهای روستایی گرفته می­شود. در این­جا بلوک، به­عنوان کوچک­ترین واحد اقتصادی-اجتماعی تقسیمات کشوری این خواسته را برآورده می­سازد. از طرفی، شاخص اراضی باز در قالب پوشش زمین به­عنوان معیاری برای تشخیص تنوع و تفاوت­های درون­روستایی درنظر گرفته می­شود. در نهایت، تعداد بلوک­های پیموده شده برای رسیدن به مادرشهر منطقه می­تواند به­عنوان معیاری برای دسته­بندی و ضابطه­ای برای تقابل با تنوع روستابودگی در عین ملاحظه اهمیت آن باشد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Equilibrium regulating for the Multiplicity Rurality in Iran: Consistent Vision compatible to redefine the Rural Territories

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Khosrobeigi Borchelouie 1
  • Jafar Javan 2
1
2
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The management of the Iranian rural community has emerged from its diverse economic, social, cultural and natural structures. In addition, rural areas have been affected by external influences in recent years (urban-rural integrity and integration into the global economy) and are increasingly facing a different rural environment. There are two ways to control such diversified settlements. Or we should resort to reconciliation; what we have seen with regard to the centralized rural planning system in Iran, or whether new rural management practices, such as tackling the diversity of rural areas, should be taken into account without losing the importance of this diversity. Unfortunately, the differences created in rural areas by rural development management in the country-under the pretext of modern-day discourse-have been neglected, and the social and economic consequences of this trend are unrealistic and contradictory conceptions of disagreements and applying an alignment view has been for a variety of people in rural areas. Accordingly, executive management of development planning, including planning for rural development in Iran, is conducted only at the national and regional levels (provincial). There are no such plans at the local level. Because of the centralized planning decision making system in the country, regional planning is weak and inadequate, and development planning is practically limited nationally. In the sense that neither the plurality nor economic, social, cultural or natural diversity are considered and are not affected by the central planning of the overall reality of the country's villages. It is argued that when the rural territories are more than reasonable and the various mechanisms of each one are considered, executive management is in chaos. At the same time, if the rural management units are also geographically larger, it will focus. Therefore, the solution between the two should be designed, and this can be done in the area, and there is no extremes. Therefore, the research question is: How can the cultural and natural features of local areas, as a criterion for identifying rural areas, be combined with each other in a regional framework?
Materials and Methods
The main concern of this research is the definition of the village and its local area with the aim of solving the problem of centralization and revealing the internal and local potentialities in the rural areas, which forms the basis of the main rural development planning strategies in the third millennium, and as it does not seem to be a simple task. The basic theory used here is turning to the "Halfacree triple space" in the context of the concept of everyday rural life, which supports the criteria of the size of the territory and its land cover. The main realities of the villages, whether in our country or elsewhere, depend on the external flows of the global economy and the capitalist system, on the diversity of economic, social, cultural and natural differences in the complexity of space. Therefore, it is necessary to think about the various and complex aspects of space as a whole in the methodology of rural research. The present paper introduces the Halfacree Scheme (2006), which describes rural everyday life as a way of detecting these irregularities and as a basis for determining the scope of local communities. This conceptual framework allows diagnosis: The spatial manipulation of official representations (the goals of planners and government officials) in an interrelated environment; legal and informative processes that create tensions among different elements of rural space; and the everyday life of a village that is different in nature and irreconcilable. This is an entrenchment against the one-dimensional and objective criteria of rural development strategies, namely population density, agriculture and natural resources. In these circumstances, the change from the deviant criteria of the size of the territory and population density in the executive management of rural development programs in the country is required by the criteria of the size of the territory and land cover. It is claimed that the rural unit should, in the smallest (that is, the simplest), have a realm for the daily use of rural actors, on the one hand, and in the context of specialized planning and policy-making that identifies local networks and small groups-from the other side is determined to be good at defining the space and mapping according to the available data set. This situation is matching with the concept of rural ideals: a place for the most sense of the realm of societies. Land cover literature assumes that the rural unit should be able to take into account local differences and complexity in the landscape structure and knowledge of local land cover and distances. This concept is consistent with the village's ideals, "close to nature," and suggests that local management of rural prospects and cultural heritage can play a pivotal role in the future of rural development.
Discussion and Results
In this research, it was agreed to use the "block" as a territorial unit and to determine the extent of the villages. Referring to the past literature of the village, we find that the block is the smallest possible unit of land, which could relieve us of the executive recommendations of the state - which are the only criterion for the differentiation of rural areas as a population density - and relate to the realities of everyday life of local residents. "Land use" was considered as a criterion for representing the variation and internal differences of the blocks. Land use is inevitably related to "land cover" that is visible on the ground. In addition, the "open land" indicator was seen appropriate as covering the surrounding land of residential densities and constructions to define the characteristics of the village. Identification of Rural Diversity and Differences is the final stage of a general determination for rural development planning, although it is not undermined by the principle of existing differences. Based on Johnson & Nielsen's point of view (2012), a simple operational approach to considering the diversity of the countryside, based on the length of the route, the time of travel, the perspective and counting of rural communities, should be from a point of departure to an urban area. Meanwhile, if there is no rural community, the degree of rurality is 1. If a rural community is attained, the degree of rurality is 2. If two rural communities are trained, the degree of rurality is 3 and up until the end. The discussion here is merely abstract, which assumes that there is a time gap between the more centers (villages) to reach a metropolis.
Conclusions
The main thing behind the presented model in this study is that balance cannot be created unless the point that there has been no true solution. The theoretical solution is, in a pluralistic order (daily life), let the demands freely grown and competed with each other until the balance of forces reaches the equilibrium point. As we can see, in the course of recent socioeconomic transformations, rural-urban integration, urbanization flows, integration into the global economy-regional equilibrium, and somewhat rural areas, found their place in communication with the city center, respectively (Rurality Rating). This point cannot be temporary, because the balance of force proportions is changing. So the existing order undergoes turbulence and constant perturbation. In this order, those who are most despised and want to overthrow the existing order are those who are the weakest of all (remote and marginal villages). Such a mechanism cannot be created, but it is the organic growth of society (diverse land coverings due to different local capacities). Here, the domains of socioeconomic activity are distinguished from each other (the block), in such a way that rural communities do not have to identify themselves with one and can maintain their independence in the distance between these domains. The survival of such a structure depends on any kind of extremism: i.e. tolerance, in which the individual respects another, and opposes the expansion of conflicts that make compromise impossible. In general, rural areas should be required to live together in accordance with the criteria (executive management limits), in order to these criteria to be implemented and, in other words, be balanced.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Everyday lives
  • BLOCK
  • Land cover
  • open land
  • grading
  • rurality
Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and change, Volume 32(4), pp 681-715. Bell, M. M. (2007). The two-ness of rural life and the ends of rural scholarship. Journal of rural studies, Volume 23(4), pp 402-415. Berry, B. J. L. (1976). Urbanization and counter-urbanization (Volume 11). SAGE Publications, Incorporated. Bobek, H. (1974). Zum Konzept des Rentenkapitalismus. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 65(2), pp 73-78. Bunce, M. (2003). Reproducing rural idylls. Country visions, pp 14-30. Bunce, M. F., & Bunce, M. (1994). The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape. Psychology Press. Buttel, F. H. (2003). Continuities and disjunctures in the transformation of the US agro-food system. Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century, pp 177-189. Cheshire, L., & Woods, M. (2009). Rural citizenship and governmentality. Cruickshank, J. A. (2009). A play for rurality–Modernization versus local autonomy. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 25(1), pp 98-107. Davies, B. B., & Hodge, I. D. (2007). Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: AQ methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological economics, Volume 61(2), pp 323-333. Dibden, J., Potter, C., & Cocklin, C. (2009). Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European :union: and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 25(3), pp 299-308. Duenckmann, F. (2010). The village in the mind: applying Q-methodology to re-constructing constructions of rurality. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 26(3), pp 284-295. Ehlers, E. (1977). City and hinterland in Iran: The example of Tabas/Khorassan. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 68(5), pp 284-296. Foucault, M. (1999). Pastoral power and political reason. Religion and culture, pp 135-52. Frouws, J. (1998). The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 38(1), pp 54-68. Gasson, R. (1986). Part Time Farming Strategy for Survival?. Sociologia ruralis, Volume 26(3‐4), pp 364-376. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections fiom the prison notebooks. New York: Intl. Pub. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process (p. 40). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Halfacree, K. (2006). Rural space: constructing a three-fold architecture. Handbook of rural studies, pp 44-62. Halfacree, K. (2007). BACK‐TO‐THE‐LAND IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY–MAKING CONNECTIONS WITH RURALITY. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, Volume 98(1), pp 3-8. Halfacree, K. (2008). To revitalise counterurbanisation research? Recognising an international and fuller picture. Population, Space and Place, Volume 14(6), pp 479-495. Halfacree, K. H. (1993). Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of rural studies, Volume 9(1), pp 23-37. Harrison, D. (1992). Tourism and the less developed countries. Belhaven Press. Hidle, K., Cruickshank, J., & Mari Nesje, L. (2006). Market, commodity, resource, and strength: Logics of Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, Volume 60(3), pp 189-198. Hidle, K., Ellingsen, W., & Cruickshank, J. (2010). Political conceptions of second home mobility. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 50(2), pp 139-155. Johansen, P. H., & Nielsen, N. C. (2012). Bridging between the regional degree and the community approaches to rurality—A suggestion for a definition of rurality for everyday use. Land Use Policy, Volume 29(4), pp 781-788. Kay, C. (2008). Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: a new rurality? Development and Change, Volume 39(6), pp 915-943. Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony: The role of universality in the constitution of political logics. Na. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso. López-i-Gelats, F., Tàbara, J. D., & Bartolomé, J. (2009). The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum, Volume 40(4), pp 602-612. Losch, B. (2004). Debating the multifunctionality of agriculture: from trade negotiations to development policies by the South. Journal of Agrarian Change, Volume 4(3), pp 336-360. Marsden, T. (1990). Towards the political economy of pluriactivity. Journal of rural studies, Volume 6(4), pp 375-382. Marsden, T. (1995). Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 11(3), pp 285-296. Marsden, T. (1999). Rural futures: the consumption countryside and its regulation. Sociologia Ruralis 39, pp 501–526. Marsden, T. (2008). Agri-food contestations in rural space: GM in its regulatory context. Geoforum, Volume 39(1), pp 191-203. Massey, D. B., & Jess, P. M. (1995). A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization. Milbourne, P. (Ed.). (1997). Revealing Rural" Others": Representation, power, and identity in the British countryside. A&C Black. Mingay, G. E. (1989). The rural idyll. Routledge. Mofid, K. (1987). Development planning in Iran: from monarchy to Islamic republic. Kingston Pr. Morakabati, Y. (2011). Deterrents to tourism development in Iran. International Journal of Tourism Research, Volume 13(2), pp 103-123. Murdoch, J., & Pratt, A. C. (1993). Rural studies: modernism, postmodernism and the ‘post-rural’. Journal of rural studies, Volume 9(4), pp 411-427. Nilsson, B., & Lundgren, A. S. (2015). Logics of rurality: Political rhetoric about the Swedish North. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 37, pp 85-95. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, Volume 34(3), pp 380-404. Ploeg, J. D. V. D. (1993). RURAL SOCIOLOGY AND THE NEW AGRARIAN QUESTION A Perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 33(2), pp 240-260. Ray, C., & Ward, N. (2006). The futures of rural policy: The significance of rural futures studies. Discussion Paper 7, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British journal of sociology, pp 173-205. Shucksmith, M. (1993). Farm household behaviour and the transition to post‐productivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 44(3), pp 466-478 Slee, R. W. (2005). From countrysides of production to countrysides of consumption?. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Volume 143(04), pp 255-265. Smith, D. (2007). The changing faces of rural populations: ‘“(re) Fixing” the gaze’or ‘eyes wide shut’?, Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 23(3), pp 275-282 Somerville, P., Smith, R., & McElwee, G. (2015). The dark side of the rural idyll: Stories of illegal/illicit economic activity in the UK countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 39, pp 219-228. Svendsen, G. L. H. (2004). The right to development: construction of a non-agriculturalist discourse of rurality in Denmark. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 20(1), pp 79-94. Terluin, I. J. (2003). Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. Journal of rural studies, Volume 19(3), pp 327-344. Tilzey, M., & Potter, C. (2008). Productivism versus post-Productivism? Modes of agri-Environmental governance in post-Fordist agricultural transitions. Sustainable rural systems–sustainable agriculture and rural communities, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, pp 41-66. Vesala, H. T., & Vesala, K. M. (2010). Entrepreneurs and producers: Identities of Finnish farmers in 2001 and 2006. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 26(1), pp 21-30. Wilbur, A. (2013). Growing a radical ruralism: Back‐to‐the‐land as practice and ideal. Geography Compass, Volume 7(2), pp 149-160. Williams, R. (1973). The Country Andthe City. London: Chatto and Windus. Woods, M. (1997). Discourses of power and rurality: local politics in Somerset in the 20th century. Political Geography, Volume 16(6), pp 453-478 Woods, M. (2004). Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. Sage. Woods, M. (2006). Redefining the ‘rural question’: the new ‘politics of the rural’and social policy. Social Policy & Administration, Volume 40(6), pp 579-595. Zografos, C. (2007). Rurality discourses and the role of the social enterprise in regenerating rural Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 23(1), pp 38-51.