Promoting Villages to City and its Role on Improvement of Quality of Life of Local Resident (Case Study: Firozabad and Sahen Cities in Lorestan and Kordestan Provinces)



Introduction: In recent years the development of small cities and including through promoting of villages to city as one of the main policies to improve quality of life in rural areas were considered in Iran and according this during recent decades a large number of villages have been changed to city. While urbanization in developing countries have been many problems such as lack of housing and employment and environmental pollution, but policy makers and planners in national and international levels are emphasized on the positive functions of cities, especially small and medium cities to improve the quality of human life . Urbanization in developing countries is a respond to the inevitable decline or stagnation in terms of rural areas. However it should be a distinctive between negative effects of urbanization through rapid expansion of cities large and the effects of promoting villages to small cities. Because most of the urbanization problems are see only in the large cities and metropolises. Small and medium cities don’t have such problems or its severity is very low, because many studies have a positive evaluation about the role of small cities in regional and local development. Therefore due to relationship between urbanizations and quality of life, the conceptual model of present study have been based on the hypothesis which promoting villages to cities can be improved objective and subjective dimensions of quality of life.These are pragmatic choice, to encapsulate in a convenient and practical way the main features or characteristics against which rural settlements could be appraised. They are: social participation, social interactions, introspection, social solidarity, social responsibility, social trust, satisfaction of organizations, fear of abnormal, sense of social exclusion, satisfaction of housing, satisfaction of income, job satisfaction, satisfaction of accessibility to services(quantity and quality), sense of place, expectancy to the future, sense of good luck
Methodology: In the present study to evaluate the role of promoting villages to city to improve the quality of life the subjective indicators, levels of satisfaction has been used the decuple domains of environment quality, housing, education, health, personal well-being, participation, entertainment and leisure, information and communication, employment and income and wealth. Research method is descriptive and analytic and to do it about 202 samples from two city residents of Saheb and Firouzabad cities randomly selected and using subjective indicators have been studied the effects promoting villages to improve quality of life. Data collection tool is a researcher-designed questionnaire that was produced according to research objectives. Used Questionnaire is formed mainly by questions with closed answers in Lykert spectrum five scales (much better: 5 to very worse: 1).
Discussion and conclusion: results indicate the promoting villages to city have been improved the quality of life in city of Firouzabad in domains of Environment, Housing, Education, individual Welfare, participation, information and communication, entertainment and leisure, employment, income and wealth and only in the domain of health has not improved. Results of data analysis in city of Saheb indicate that promoting of village to city could improve rural quality of life in six domain of environment, housing, individual welfare, participation, information and communication, income and wealth, but four domain of education, health, entertainment and leisure time and employment has not improved.
Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the important domains of life and main indicators each domain of life. Regression coefficients show the relative contribution of each domain and indicator in the quality of life.
Causal relations between domains of life and satisfaction about quality of life after promoting villages as follows:
QOL = 0.35EQ +0.74 HO +0.26 ED-0.24HE-0.57PW +0.17 PA-0.73IC +0.23 CE +0.16 EM +0.66 IN
(EQ: Environmental Quality, HO: Housing, ED: Education, HE: health, PW: Individual Welfare, PA: participation, IC: Information and Communication, CE: Entertainment and Leisure, EM: Employment, IN: Income and Wealth)
Total variance of the quality of life explained by this model is 57%.Coefficients in this model show the relative influence of each domain on the quality of life. As indicates the share of each domain in the quality of life is not equal. Domain of housing has the highest of causal effects, and later domains are the information and communications, income and wealth. But domains employment and participation have lowest of causal effects. This analysis shows that life identified domains in this study have a direct effect on the quality of life of local resident. Housing Facilities and amenities are the most important seer of satisfaction level about housing in cities. Satisfaction about the information and communication facilities mainly is predicted by access to public transport is predicted. Household savings is the most important seer for domains of income and wealth. In general, the findings of this research will be useful to design the next research for urban quality of life.