سنجش درجه اثرگذاري كارخانه ذوب‌آهن كردستان بر توسعه نواحي روستايي پيرامون

Measuring the Degree of the Impacts ofKurdistan Iron Smelting Factory onthe Development of Surrounding Rural Areas

توسعه صنعتي در نواحي روستايي دربردارنده پيامدهايي است كه بي‌توجهي به آنها، نتايج ناگواري را به بار مي‌آورد. در پژوهش حاضر به سنجش درجه تاثيرگذاري كارخانه ذوب آهن كردستان بر توسعه نواحي روستايي پيرامون پرداخته مي‌شود. بدين‌منظور از روش توصيفي- تحليلي با رويكرد مقايسه اي بهره گرفته شده است. جامعه آماري پژوهش، روستاهاي پيرامون كارخانه‌اند كه بر اساس فاصله، در سه لايه 5، 10 و 15كيلومتري از كارخانه طبقه بندي گرديده‌اند. سپس، با هدف تعيين محدوده احتمالي تاثيرگذاري، از روش نمونه گيري گلوله برفي استفاده شد و در مجموع 20 روستا شناسايي شدند و مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. در هر روستا، با انتخاب 15 درصد از روستاييان (نخبگان روستايي)، به بررسي و مطالعه پرداخته شد. براي جمع آوري داده ها، پرسش نامه محقق‌ساخته به كار رفت. براي تعيين اعتبار ابزار پژوهش نيز از روش تحليل عاملي، و به منظور تعيين پايايي آن از هم‌ساني دروني به روش آلفاي كرونباخ استفاده شد. آماره KMO (510/0 تا 690/0) و ضريب آلفاي كرونباخ (610/0 تا 864/0) به دست آمده، از بهينگي پرسش نامه حكايت مي‌كند. براي تعيين درجه تاثيرگذاري كارخانه ذوب آهن بر روستاهاي پيرامون روش تركيبي تاپسيس و آنتروپي به كار رفت، و در مدل سازي درجه تاثيرگذاري، نرم افزار Arc-GIS 9.3 راهگشا گرديد. يافته ها نشان داد كه محدوده واقعي تاثير كارخانه مورد مطالعه، در هشت روستاي پيرامون خلاصه مي گردد. كارخانه بيشترين تاثير كاهشي را بر مشاركت روستاييان در پروژه هاي توسعه روستايي گذاشته، در حالي كه بيشترين تاثير افزايشي در بخش زيرساختي رخ نموده است. ناگفته نماند كه با توجه به ضريب تغييرات محاسبه شده، عدم تعادل ژرفي در تاثير كارخانه بر روستاهاي پيرامون مشاهده شد. نتايج حاصل از تاپسيس و آنتروپي مشخص مي‌ساخت كه اگرچه كارخانه مذكور بر توسعه نواحي روستايي پيرامون تاثير چنداني نداشته، ليكن بيشينه تاثير آن بر دو روستاي كريم آبادعلي-وردي و يالغوزآغاج متمركز بوده است.

Introduction The historical experience of development process in developed countries revealed that rural development is a basic requirement for national development and that it should be considered and given high priority. Accordingly in Iran, the government also paid more attention to rural development in recent years. In this regard, different methods and approaches were implemented due to social and economic development of rural regions. A large number of these strategies and industrial projects focus on the development of rural areas. One of the main strategies for development is industrialization and establishment of industry in rural regions. These industrial projects have been initiated to alleviate poverty and unemployment, and to deal with the insufficient food supply. Although these projects were assumed to be beneficial for rural people, they often had unintended negative impacts on the environment and local communities. Evidence suggests that while sustainability is a crucial and independent dimension of development, it has most often been neglected when planning these industrial projects. These projects have been faced with numerous challenges such as a growing sense of rural households’ dissatisfaction, negative attitudes, and conflicts with the industrial projects, un-sustainability and in many instances complete failure. Therefore, in recent years, industrial rural development projects in Iran and in many developing countries have been criticized for their detrimental effects on various aspects, and on sustainability at large. Therefore, there is a widespread consensus about the importance of the assessment of the impact of industrial projects on rural areas. Subsequently, in line with the triple bottom line approach for sustainable development, the impact assessment is of particular importance in considering the sustainability of industrial rural development projects. In this regard, the Kurdistan Iron Smelting Factory, as a great industry in Kurdestan province, was established in 2003 in a high-potential agricultural region. Establishing the factory would potentially cause many social, economic and environmental changes in surrounding rural areas. Measurement of the degree of these impacts would help policy makers and project planners to better understand the projects’ impacts. Therefore, the objects of this study were: • To display the impacts of Kurdistan Iron Smelting Factory on the development of surrounding rural areas; • To determine the scope of the impacts of Kurdistan Iron Smelting Factory on the development of surrounding rural areas; and • To model the range and levels of the impacts of Kurdistan Iron Smelting Factory. Methodology The study followed exploratory quantitative research methodology. Also the research method was descriptive-analytic in the form of comparative approach. The comparative design is an accepted research technique for exploring impacts that cannot be manipulated experimentally. The statistical population of the study was the rural people who lived in the villages surrounding the factory. The villages were categorized in three group distances of 5, 10, and 15 kilometers from the factory, using Arc-GIS software. Fifty four villages were affected by the factory and using snowball sampling, seven villages from the first, nine from the second, and four from the third layer were selected and investigated. The sample size of the rural people was determined using the sampling size table given by Patten. The final sample included 230 rural people selected from villages surrounding the factory. Accordingly, 15% of the rural people in each village participated in this study. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to collect data using a questionnaire containing open and closed questions. In order to make the questionnaire, a complete list of the items regarding the impacts was developed. The impact items were categorized in 11 impact criteria by a panel of experts. The criteria include: demographic characteristics, structure, perceived wellbeing, social capital, social participation, social structure development, quality of life, agriculture, economic conditions, conservation of community resources, and life pattern and model. In Total, 86 sub-impacts were investigated using environmental impact assessment (EIA). A panel of experts confirmed the face validity of the questionnaire. Results In order to determine the reliability of the questionnaire, internal contingency by Cronbach’s Alpha value was implemented and the KMO coefficient (0.510 to 0.690) and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (0.610 to 0.864) also confirmed the questionnaire. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical package (version 17.5 for Windows). In order to determine the degree of the impacts of the Iron Smelting Factory on surrounding villages, descriptive analysis and entropy method in combination with TOPSIS were used. For modeling the degree of the impacts, Arc-GIS software was used. Results showed that the range of factoryʹs impacts include eight surrounding villages. The factory has decreased some of the criteria such as agriculture, conservation of community resources, social participation, social structure development, and social capital among which the greatest decrease pertained to the rural peopleʹs social participation. On the other hand, life pattern and model, quality of life, economic conditions, structure, perceived wellbeing, and demographic condition were improved by the Kurdistan Iron Smelting Factory. Conclusion The most increasing effect of the factory was on the structural condition. The coefficient of variation showed the profound imbalance between the impacts. Findings from TOPSIS and entropy also revealed that the factory had no significant influence on surrounding rural areas. Finally, the factory had the greatest impact only on the village of Karim-Abad Aliverdi and Yalghuoz-Aghaj.