نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه معماری دانشکده معماری و علوم محیطی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران
2 گروه معماری دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران
3 دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران
4 دانشکده علوم انسانی - دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Given the growth of rural populations and the imperative to enhance villagers’ income and welfare, the development of rural businesses has become essential. Contemporary rural development theories primarily emphasize minimizing external intervention, fostering endogenous processes, and focusing on local economies, production activities, and business spaces, including marketplaces. Business space is conceptualized as comprising four elements: (1) livelihood housing, (2) indigenous tourism farms, (3) village-creative farms, and (4) non-residential workspaces.
Scholars have offered diverse perspectives on the relationship between tourism and the economic prosperity of rural communities. This relationship can be understood through positive, negative, and dual dimensions: negative impacts arise from extensive and uncontrolled development, whereas positive outcomes result from dispersed and integrated development in the context of sustainable tourism. The dual effects are context-dependent, varying with time, location, and planning strategies.
Tourism farms, also referred to as agricultural tourism, can stimulate socio-economic development while mitigating negative environmental impacts. Consequently, they can be categorized as a form of sustainable tourism. However, research on the architecture of rural business spaces remains limited. This study aims to examine the role of tourism farms, in combination with livelihood housing, within a SEM framework of business spaces in endogenous villages characterized by limited development and support.
Methodology
To examine the variables and their structural relationships, the study employed correlation analysis and SEM. The study population comprised rural and tourism business owners and producers. A sample of 180 participants was surveyed using a closed-ended questionnaire with a 4-point Likert scale. Path analysis was conducted using SPSS 20 and AMOS 24 software.
The implementation steps included: (1) developing the indicator model, entering it into the software, and converting it into the target model; (2) constructing hypothetical models of intrinsic tourism architecture; (3) evaluating indicators to prioritize two-, three-, and four-factor models; and (4) discussing and interpreting the results within the SEM framework.
Factor analysis was performed twice in SPSS to identify the underlying factors. Initially, 32 factors were extracted. Due to the large number of factors and resulting modeling options, the variables of each factor were aggregated into composite functions. A second round of factor analysis in SPSS produced seven second-order factors and 21 first-order factors. Subsequently, these factors were incorporated into a conceptual model and refined in AMOS according to standard model fit indicators, ultimately yielding five second-order factors and twelve first-order factors.
Regarding relationships among components, the maximum standardized regression weight between the tourism farm and livelihood housing was 1.684. Among the components, indigenous tourism exhibited the strongest association, with a standardized weight of 0.611 in the second stage of livelihood breeding (silkworm production), decreasing to 0.61 and 0.31 in subsequent business stages.
Discussion
This study examined the indicators of seven structural relationship models with two, three, and four factors. A summary of the results and their interpretation is presented in the table below.
Table 1. The recommended number of factors involved in business architecture in the village of intrinsic tourism
Priority according to the number of factors Impressionable Mediator Influential Number of factors Total rank
First 2 factors-attention to the relationship between these two factors in simple planning Livelihood housing - Tourism farm 2 1
Second 2 factors-the development of non-residential buildings is not the first priority. Non-residential business - Tourism farm 2 2
Third 2 factors-not recommended. Creative farm - Tourism farm 2 3
First 3 factors-tourism and creative farms can develop livelihood housing. Livelihood housing Creative farm Tourism farm 3 4
Second 3 factors - not recommended. Non-residential business Creative farm Tourism farm 3 5
This model can be used in planning on the scale of the rural area where these factors exist. Non and residential business Creative farm Tourism farm 4 6
Support development unit to serve rural business development as a initiator, driver and facilitator. Non-residential business 3other factors Support development 5 7
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study demonstrated that removing the exogenous factor of village development and support improved the evaluation indicators across all hypothetical models. Therefore, in planning and designing rural business spaces, it is recommended to focus on the minimal number of factors necessary. The simplest and most effective structure highlights two factors: tourism farms and livelihood housing.
The most complex model incorporates four factors—tourism farms, livelihood housing, village-creative farms, and non-residential architecture—but produced the weakest outcomes among the proposed models. The optimal configuration is a three-factor model, comprising tourism farms, livelihood housing, and village-creative farms.
The elimination of the exogenous factor, combined with the evaluation, validation, and interpretation of the tourism farm business models, demonstrates the effectiveness of removing exogenous influences while preserving the endogenous role of the tourism farm. These findings support the theoretical framework of second-generation rural development, which emphasizes endogenous models.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)