The Evaluation of the Effects of Implementing the Resettlement Policy in Rural Areas based on the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (Case Study: Central District of Avaj County)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Farhad Azizpuor
• Fatemeh Amiri

Kharazmi University of Tehran

10.22067/geo.v7i2.64560

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Throughout human life, there have always been threats to the lives of humans and their habitats. These threatening factors can be divided into two groups of natural factors and human-made factors. In the real-time locational process, these factors (flood, earthquake, fire, etc.) sometimes hit the human society and destroy their lives and activities. Hence, communities have used several policies and actions, including resettlement policy to protect villagers against all kinds of hazards when planning for settlements at risk, including the villages damaged or destroyed by natural disasters.
Different approaches can be used to assess the effects of the resettlement policy, one of which is the sustainable livelihood. In this approach, it is emphasized that any transformational factors, such as environmental hazards, will endanger the human community capitals (assets), and will lead to their weakness. The integrated orientation of this approach toward the five capitals and its emphasis on the structures and factors affecting the sustainable livelihood provide a framework which can be used as a proper basis for evaluating policies and actions.
This research was conducted with a sustainable livelihood approach with the aim of evaluating the effects of implementing resettlement policy on rural settlements in Avaj County and Qazvin Province in Iran (Abdare, Changureh, & Saeedabad, in 2016), which were relocated due to the earthquake in 2002.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research has a positive paradigm and quantitative methodology based on a descriptive-analytical method and applied objectives. Documentations (libraries), cyberspace, and fieldwork were used for data collection. The data and the main and applied information of the research were obtained using the field method. The interviews and questionnaires were used for collecting data. The sample size was estimated using the Cochran formula as 212 households in three villages. Statistical methods such as run, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, path analysis, regression, independence of error, and Durbin–Watson tests were used in the SPSS software for data analysis. GOOGLE EARTH, GSMD, and ARC GIS were used to draw maps and introduce the study area.

DISCUSSION

Based on impact assessment (both direct and indirect), all independent capitals (influenced by settlement policy) has had effects on the sustainable livelihood. These effects have not been the same among the capitals. Here we will explain how they were effective:

Natural capital in the studied villages reached a good condition after displacement in terms of improving the position of the villages regarding slope and topography compared to pre-resettlement, vegetation and the absence of pollution (sound and air). This improvement led to the fact that the natural capital component strengthened the sustainable livelihood in villages only with its direct impact and β=0.600, which was slightly different from the β of the financial capital. It is worth noting that this component is not in good conditions due to the mountainous nature of the studied region, sloped farms and the resulted erosion of soil, and water scarcity and contamination in some cases.
The social capital of the studied villages was in good conditions after displacement in terms of support network and kinship relations, villagers’ interaction, security, trust among villagers, coherence, etc. It created the basis for the positive development of sustainable livelihood under the influence of those factors. The status of trust between villagers and state institutions, the freedom to express beliefs or social demands, participation in financial affairs, etc. were however in poorer conditions, which undermined sustainable livelihood. As a result, this component ranked fourth in terms of affecting sustainable livelihood (β=0.4331).
Human capital was in a moderate condition only in terms of the ability to provide clothing and food and has had a positive effect on the sustainable livelihood in some cases. Other components such as health, treatment, sports, leisure, innovation, competition, knowledge and skills, workforce, and training were in very poor conditions. As a result, human capital (with a beta of -0.1047) has negatively affected the sustainable livelihood.
The financial resources in the studied villages after displacement has somewhat improved in terms of private ownership of housing and the lack of informal activities, credits, and savings. Nonetheless, they are not in good conditions in terms of access to banks, insurance, occupation, etc. Having been affected by resettlement, financial capital, however, has been able to lead to the sustainable livelihood with a beta of 0.6256.
The physical capital of the studied villages after the displacement was in good conditions in terms of access to a paved road to the city, safe haven, access to electricity and healthy water sources. Ranked first with a total beta of 0.7948, it laid the ground for improving the sustainable livelihood. On the other hand, the physical capital component remained in bad conditions in terms of the waste collection system, access to gas, transportation network, etc. However, the improvement of the physical capital conditions of the village is undeniable as compared to the pre-displacement conditions.
An analysis of the correlation between the capitals and the sustainable livelihood has shown that the effect of physical capital was high, while the effect of natural, financial, and social capitals was moderate and the effect of human capital was poor.


CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings, the following results were obtained:

Since rural settlements act as a system, they always follow different trends in the components (sub-systems) when influenced by events (including resettlement policy). Within the scope of the study, the trends were not formed in the framework of the sustainable livelihood. In this regard, some capitals had more favorable conditions than others. This event has not been able to meet the needs of the studied villages, therefore, an integrated approach to the implementation of this policy is necessary.
The orientation of the policy-making system towards the priority of environmental renovation in the displaced villages has provided the grounds for improving the conditions of physical capital.
Paying attention solely to the needs of the villagers from the viewpoint of external factors and the lack of attention to the demands of the villagers as well as seasonal migrations has reduced the sustainability of livelihood from the social aspects.

Keywords

• .Resettlement Policy
• relocation
• Evaluation
• sustainable livelihood
• Awaj

---

References

آلبا، عبدالله؛1390. تحلیل تأثیر تعاونی‌های مرزنشینان بر معیشت‌پایدار روستایی شهرستان سراوان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. استاد راهنما: دکتر مرتضی توکلی. جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه زابل.

بدری، سید علی؛1380. ارزیابی پایداری راهبرد اسکان مجدد روستایی (مطالعه موردی مجموعه ادغامی آب بر). رساله دکتری، استاد راهنما: دکتر عبدالرضا رکن‌الدین افتخاری. جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

جلالیان، حمید؛ 1394. جزوه درسی برنامه‌ریزی مدیریت ریسک و مخاطرات در مناطق روستایی. دانشکده علوم جغرافیایی دانشگاه خوارزمی.

جمعه پور، محمود؛ احمدی، شکوفه؛ 1390. تأثیر گردشگری بر معیشت‌پایدار روستایی (مطالعه موردی: روستای برغان، شهرستان ساوجبلاغ). پژوهش‌های روستایی. شماره 1، 33-63.

حیدری ساربان، وکیل؛ مجنونی توتاخانه، علی؛ نقابی، محبوبه؛ 1395. بررسی و ارزیابی تأثیر الگوهای اسکان مجدد بر تغییرات سرمایه اجتماعی در روستاهای زلزله‌زده (مطالعه موردی: روستاهای زلزله‌زده شهرستان ورزقان). جغرافیا و توسعه. شماره 43، 70-51.

خنیفر، حسین؛ امیری، علی‌نقی؛ جندقی، غلامرضا؛ احمدی آزرم، هادی؛ حسینی فرد، سید مجتبی؛ 1388. درگیر شدن در کار و رابطه آن با عدالت سازمانی در چهارچوب نظریه مبادله اجتماعی و فرهنگی. مدیریت فرهنگ‌سازمانی. شماره 21، 200-177.

خیری، شقایق؛ 1382. رهیافت معیشت‌پایدار و جایگاه آن در توسعه روستایی. جهاد، شماره 261، 87-95.

رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ کوکبی، لیلا؛ منصوریان، حسین؛ 1392. تأثیر اسکان مجدد بر کیفیت زندگی روستاهای آسیب‌دیده از سوانح طبیعی (مورد: شهرک زنجیران و شهرک ایثار – استان فارس). مسکن و محیط روستا، شماره 144، 106-97.

سازمان دهیاری‌ها و شهرداری‌ها؛ 1394. دانشنامه مدیریت شهر و روستا.

سجاجی قیداری، حمدلله؛ صادقلو، طاهره؛ رئیسی، اسلام؛ 1393. سنجش سطح دانش مدیریت بحران مدیران محلی روستایی با تأکید بر زلزله (مطالعه موردی: دهستان گشت، شهرستان سراوان). پژوهش‌های روستایی. شماره ۳، ۵۶۴- ۵۴۱.

سعیدی، عباس؛ حسینی حاصل، صدیقه؛ 1388. شالوده مکان‌یابی و استقرار روستاهای جدید. انتشارات شهیدی، چاپ دوم.

شایان، حمید؛ حسین زاده، سیدرضا؛ خسروبیگی، رضا؛ 1390. ارزیابی پایداری توسعه روستایی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان کمیجان). جغرافیا و توسعه. شماره 24، 120-101.

قراگوزلو، هادی؛ عیسی لو، علی‌اصغر؛ گراوند، فرزاد؛ 1393. ارزیابی اثرات کالبدی- فضایی جابه‌جایی در سکونتگاه‌های روستایی (مطالعه موردی: دهستان ملاوی، شهرستان پلدختر). فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای. شماره 16. 125–136.

مرکز آمار ایران؛1390. سرشماری عمومی و نفوس و مسکن.

نوروزی، ملیحه؛ 1391. سنجش میزان رضایت‌مندی روستاییان از اسکان در مجتمع‌های زیستی روستایی احداث‌شده پس از رویداد زلزله (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان زیرکوه). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. استاد راهنما: دکتر علی حاجی‌نژاد. جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان.

Bebbington, A., 1999. Capital and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 12, 2021–2044.

Carney,D., 1999. Sustainable livelihood Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change. London: DFID.

Carrasco, S., Ochiai, C., & Okazaki, K., 2016. Disaster Induced Resettlement: Multi-stakeholder Interactions and Decision Making Following Tropical Storm Washi in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 218, 35-49.

Cernea, M., 1997. African Involuntary Population Resettlement in a Global Context. Environment Department Papers, Social Assessment Series, No. 045.

Chambers, R.,& Conway, G. R., 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS)UK.( Discusson Paper 296.

DFID., 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development, London, UK: DFID.

Donohue, C., & Biggs, E., 2015. Monitoring socio-environmental change for sustainable development: Developing a Multidimensional Livelihoods Index (MLI). Applied Geography ,62,391-403.

FAO., DFID., IFAD., UNDP & WFP., n.d. Forum on Operationalizing Participatory Ways of Applying Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Proceedings. A cooperative venture of the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom, the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

Internal displacement monitoring center., 2015. Global Estimates,people displaced by disasters,Notwegian Refugee Council.

Kollmair, M., & St, Gamper., 2002. THE SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH. Development Study Group, University of Zurich (IP6).

Ortolano, L., & K. K. Cushing., 2000. Grand Coulee Dam and Columbia Basin Project Case Study – Scoping Report. prepared for the World Commission Dams, Cape Town, South Africa.

Serrat, O., 2008. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Mandaluyong: ADB.

Xu, J., Wang, Z., Shen, F., Ouyang, C., & Tu, Y., 2016. Natural disasters and social conflict: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17, 38-48.