CC BY
13
Ukrainian Journal of Ecology
Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 2018, 8(4), 70-78
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The effects of industrial towns on development of
surrounding areas
Z.N. Tupkanloo1, S. Yazdani2
^Department of Economics, Islamic Azad University, Neyshabur Branch, Neyshabur, Iran 2Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran E-mail: Zahra.noori.2007@gmail.com (or) saeed.yazdani 1395@gmail.com Received: 17.10.2018. Accepted: 15.11.2018
In this study, the effects of industrial towns on development of surrounding areas have been studied. Data in this study is related to the years 2017-2018. In this research, 358 villagers of Khayyam industrial town in Neyshabour, Iran were studied as a sample. In order to study deeply and combinations of variables, factor analysis was used to clarify the issue. Since the goal of factor analysis summarizing large number of variables is operating within the specified number. Therefore, the first step is to choose the appropriate variables among the variables used in the analysis. Bartlett's test and K.M.O method was used to determine the suitability of the data in the factor analysis. Variables related to each factor was ranked and it was found that in each factor, which variables have the most positive effects and which variables have the most negative effects. Also variables related to positive and negative effects were ranked and the most positive and negative factors were identified on agriculture. Kaiser was used to determine the number of factors. By calculating the sum of positive and negative variance of economic factor was determined that industrial estate of Khayyam has strengthened agriculture sector in the study area. Keywords: Economic factors; social factors; physical factors; environmental factors; agricultural agents
Introduction
Rural industrialization has an important place in strategies and policies of developing countries (Dutta, 2004). These countries have included rural industrialization strategy in their development plans since the mid-1970s (Rezvani, 2011). Industrialization policy in these countries generally followed with the aim to increase production and job opportunities. The targets in rural industrialization have been mixed with rural development strategies in order to create industrial growth centers in rural areas (Wang, 2001). Rural industrialization increases the volume of investment in the agricultural sector that the issue will modernize agriculture and as a result, helps increase production (Karbasi and Khaksar, 2003). Although poverty is a global problem, its highest effect is observable in the villages, which is being considered as the most important problem in rural areas. The poverty is the reason for the inefficiency of the rural economy to provide employment opportunities, income and living improving standards (Moradi and Motiee Langroodi, 2005). Rural industrialization has led to the development of the rural economy, absorb some of the rural population, and can partly solve the unemployment problem (Sunder, 2009). Theory of industrialization of rural areas, as a catalyst to create sustainable jobs and as a last resort to solve the problem of poverty in rural areas, is accounted as a potential part to solve the problem of unemployment and a relieving factor for underserved rural areas (Samal, 1997). Industrial expansion has reduced rural poverty and contributed to sustainable livelihoods of the villagers. As well as reducing, the consequences of rural migration and increasing prosperity are other consequences of the industries. If small businesses and home industries are associated with agricultural activities in the region, they can play a more effective role in their developments (Dass and Ashim, 2011). Industrial clusters in rural areas have caused the division of labor in the production process and have provided opportunities for small companies and entrepreneurs in the region (Hang et al., 2008). The only way to solve the problem of poverty and unemployment in rural areas is to create new job opportunities and planning for the establishment of industry in rural areas not only can create jobs, but also fulfill rural development objectives (Nayak, 1994). Abraham (1994) believed that the establishment of a stable industry in rural areas increase revenue as well as income leading reduced income differences between urban and rural residents. Rural industrialization using local resources results in the consolidation of decentralization of the industries and is a bridge that creates links between urban and rural areas and reduces the difference between living in urban and rural areas. Development of non-agricultural activities increases not only women's participation in economic activity, but as its earnings is very important for low-income families in rural areas, but improves their economic status. The introduction of professional industries and new jobs in rural areas causes the creation of new fields of work and activities and more familiarity about other areas of rural economic activities. Employment in non-agricultural sector and thus peasants' settlement in the
71 The effects of industrial towns on development of surrounding areas
countryside, in addition to providing economic objectives, helps achieve their preserve cultural identity and social personality in social goals (Barati, 2003).
The establishment of industrial zones in the country arises a wave of new jobs, reduces unemployment, and increases job satisfaction (Rezvani et al., 2010). Rural plants attract the rural population and agricultural and prevents immigration (Barati, 2003). Given the above-mentioned cases, it can be concluded that the development of industrial estates near the villages have impact on the coverage area through economic, social, agricultural, environmental and physical indexes. Therefore, the main issue of this study is to investigate whether the establishment of Khayyam industrial zone in Neyshabur has developed areas around them or not?
Literature review
Intensive studies have been carried out on the establishment of the industry and its impacts in geographical areas. The following are some of the studies inside and outside the country: Kiyani et al. (2015), showed that the most important effects of the factory over Shahnjryn are among social and economic factors, including increased employment, economic development in the region, improving facilities and services, the development of side jobs, improved rural income, and satisfied people with the increased quality of rural roads. Also environmental factors, including the destruction of agricultural lands, sabotage of agricultural land, contamination of soil, reducing agricultural productivity and noise pollution are in next levels. Sajasighidari et al. (2015), showed that in general, non-agricultural entrepreneurs have positive effect on components of all three dimensions of economic, social and environmental quality of life. Bandani et al. (2015), showed that the mean score in total non-farmers is more and this means that non-farmers believe more agricultural activities impact on the development of the lives of villagers compared to farmers. Hamzee et al. (2014), showed that in most social and cultural measures especially the relationship with the media and benefit from insurance services, industrial estate could lead to positive change in the situation of rural workers. Barghi et al. (2014), showed that the establishment of Aghqala Industrial Estate economically has significant effects on the development of their surrounding rural areas and, economically significant difference was observed in other components of the studied areas except 'welfare and purchasing power. Mirlotfi and Molanoruzi (2014) in a study showed that there are significant differences between the equality assuming of the social, economic and health infrastructure components in treatment, recreation and leisure, education, employment, income, infrastructures and housing facilities of employed villagers in industrial Estate before and after employment in Khayyam industrial estate.
Poorramezan and Akbari (2014), in a study showed that establishment of rural industries and their relationship with the agricultural sector has positive and significant effects on supporting different stages of production, bolstering the rural economy, increasing the level and diversity of production and preservation of agricultural land and rural perspective. Portaheri et al. (2013), in a study found that economically, the estate affected its surrounding villages and the greater impact was discussed on poverty reduction and diversification of economic activities. Shurmyj and Asadiazizabadi (2013), in a study showed that the most important effects of settlements were development of marketing services, economic recovery of corporates and increased level of service in the region. Five factors of production, market, investment, services, education and consulting and communication have explained 58.37% of the variance related to the effects of settlements. Bozarjmehri et al. (2012), in a study showed that most economic indicators such as levels of employment, income, etc., have significant differences in the sample groups and rural workers employed in settlements had a better economic situation. Tavakol and Nozari (2012), showed that industrial development and technological developments of Parsian gas refinery in Hoories district in Mohr estate have followed conflicting results. On the other hand, creating sustainable income, employment and infrastructural facilities, provided opportunities and great potential for the villagers. Adewunm et al. (2011) empirically identified the impact of non-agricultural income on poverty reduction among rural families in Yao Uugan part of Nigeria's states and showed that age, education level and family size affected the poverty rate among farmer families as its intensity was more among households with low literacy levels. In addition, employment in non-agricultural activities has added to the share of total household income in the rural areas. Dass and Ashim (2011) studying the pattern of industrialization in the North East India found that industrial expansion could reduce rural poverty and contribute to sustainable livelihoods of the villagers. Also showed that the reduction of rural migration and increased prosperity are the consequences of the industry. If small businesses and home industries associate with agricultural activities in the region, they can play a more effective role in their development. Hang et al. (2008) examined the role of industrial clusters in rural area of Wenzhou in China and showed that industrial clusters caused the division of labor in the production process and provided opportunities for small companies and entrepreneurs in the area. Wang et al. (2008), in a study entitled "rural industrial areas and water pollution in China" had considered the issue as a serious problem and had been considered contamination of water resources in these areas because of these industries.
Materials and methods
The geographical location of the study area
Khayyam industrial town, located in Zebarkhan section in Neyshabour city, was approved by the Cabinet on 1990 March 16th and the operations began in 1991. The town covers an area of 246 hectares and industrial area of 10936 hectares, located at a distance of 20 kilometers on Neyshaboor-Mashhad road. About 102 companies of the 288 registered units in the town are in operation, 108 have not been operated yet, and 78 units are announced as idle plans. Food industry, Metal and chemical enterprises are the largest in number among registered companies, which have come into operation in the town. 2,050
Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 8(4), 2018
people work in a town that 445 people (21.7 percent) are living in rural areas, 137 people (6.6%) of Kharvin, and 104 (5%) of Dorood and 1364 people (66.5 percent) are from the city of Neyshabur. Therefore, Khayyam industrial Park has created employment opportunity for 686 residents of surrounding villages (Khayyam industrial estate, 2015). Research hypothesis
The main hypothesis: Khayyam industrial park has economically strengthened the agricultural of Neyshabur. Secondary hypotheses:
1. Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive social effects on area.
2. Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive agricultural effects on area.
3. Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive physical effects on area.
4. Khayyam industrial park caused positive environmental effects on area. Data analysis method
In this research, factor analysis is used in order for deeper studying of themes and categories of variables to clarify the issue. Since the purpose of factor analysis is to summarizing large number of variables in a certain number of factors, the first step is to select the appropriate parameters of the variables used in the analysis. Therefore, Bartlett test and KMO method have been used in order to determine the suitability of data for factor analysis. According to KMO method which is also known as M.SA test, the suitability of data for factor analysis is confirmed if the obtained amount is greater than 0.5. In this study, variables related to each factor (index) are ranked to finally determine which variables have the greatest positive impact on both platforms and which variables have the greatest negative effects. In addition, the variables related to positive and negative effects will be ranked and the most positive and negative factors in the agricultural area are studied. Kaiser rule is used to determine the number of agents. The total positive or negative impact of the town on the agricultural area can be identified by calculating the sum of the positive and negative variances of each factor.
Results and discussion
Ranking Khayyam Industrial Park effects on the agricultural sector. Ranking positive effects
The figures in Table 1 shows positive effects' ranking of Industrial Park Khayyam on the agriculture sector of its surrounding villages. According to this table, it can be concluded that rural income increment, improvement in the quality of roads in the region, providing farmers respectively ranked the educated sections of rural employment and providing seasonal employment for farmers' first to fourth in terms of villagers in these areas, which are the most well-known positive effects. KMO, based on the results of the factor analysis in Khayyam Industrial Park, equaled to 0.696 and Bartlett was equal to 4014.25 at 1% significant level. In this study, five factors were with eigenvalues greater than one according to the Kaiser criteria, which were extracted for the studied area, and the results are shown in Table 2 below. The cumulative variance explained by the five factors is equal to 66.74.
The first factor has the highest specific amount equal to 7.30 that explains 28.7 percent of the total variance and is the most important of positive effects of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Being immigration villages, reducing migration to cities, increasing employment opportunities for farmers, raising awareness and expertise among farmers, increasing education opportunities for the farmers' children, farmers easier access to industrial production, providing jobs for the educated class, providing seasonal agricultural employment, increasing employment opportunities in rural areas and quantitative and qualitative improvement of transportation in rural areas are variables of the factor (Table 3). The second factor entitled as an agricultural agent stresses that Khayyam Industrial Zone has positive effects on agriculture of the region. This factor has eigenvalue of 4.53, explaining about 13.61% of the variance associated with positive effects of Khayyam Industrial Zone on the agricultural sector the study area. Variables such as easier and more sale of crops and livestock, high degree of mechanization in agricultural activities, increment of an average production of crops and livestock, increasing the price of agricultural products, increasing the purchasing power of agricultural inputs and the use of agricultural products (Table 2) are presented in this factor.
Eigenvalue of the economic factor equals to 4.07, explains 13.25 percent of the total variance, and is the third factor among the positive effects of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. The factor includes variables such as changing consumption patterns of households, increase in farmers' income, increase in average purchasing power of farmers, urban investment in agricultural activities, increases in the prices of agricultural products and ensuring farmers to have a steady income (Table 3). Eigenvalue of physical factors equal to 2.73 that explains 6.63 percent of the total variance and is the fourth factor among the positive effects of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Valuable agricultural houses, improving the quality of roads in the region, reconstruction and increasing the quality of houses of rural farmers, space separation in rural areas and quality improvement of streets in the village are the variables of the factor (Table 2).
Eigenvalue of biological-environment factor is equal to 2.32, explaining 4.55 percent of the total variance and is the fifth factor of positive effects of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Reducing emissions of the area is the variable of the factor (Table 3).
_Table 1. Positive effects' ranking of Industrial Park Khayyam on the agriculture sector._
Rank Standard deviation Average Variables (positive effect)
I 0.841 4.56 income increment
II 1.197 4.05 average increase in the purchasing power of rural people
26 1.48 3.43 attract investment from urban to rural.
22 1.195 3.7 Increases in the prices of agricultural products
23 1.22 3.675 Increasing the purchasing power of agricultural inputs
14 0.99 3.945 Increase in the average production of crops and livestock
13 1.976 2.975 Check villagers steady income
15 1.037 3.88 Increase in the degree of mechanization in agricultural activity
18 1.09 3.81 Sale easier and more crops and livestock
19 1.1 3.78 Reducing inequality in area
20 1.14 3.75 Increasing the value of agricultural land
21 1.18 3.72 Valuable rural homes neighboring industrial township
9 1.05 4.14 Changing food intake
6 0.89 4.32 Creation and enhancement service jobs
17 1.09 3.82 Immigration to villages
16 1.296 3.87 Reducing migration to cities
5 2.388 4.35 Increase employment opportunities in rural areas
22 0.856 4.54 improvement in the quality of roads in the region
7 0.882 4.31 Quantitative and qualitative improvement of rural transportation
3 0.872 4.46 Providing employment for educated sections of rural
4 0.892 4.39 Provide seasonal employment for farmers
10 0.937 4.08 Increase of knowledge and expertise in villages
8 0.922 4.17 Easier access of villagers to the products of industrial town
12 1.082 4.02 Increase education opportunities for rural children
24 1.25 3.67 Reconstruction and increasing the quality of rural houses
29 1.63 3.23 Reduce pollution of the cities
25 1.34 3.57 use of agricultural products in the industry
27 1.53 3.35 Separate spaces in villages
28 1.535 3.35 Improving the quality of village streets
Source: research findings.
_Table 2. Factors extracted from factor analysis of the positive effects of Khayyam industrial town.
Factors
Eigenvalu Percentage es special value
28.7
of The frequency percentage of Percent of total cumulative variance Factors
The first factor (social) 7.3
The second factor 4.53 13.61
(Agriculture)
The third factor 4.07 13.25
(economic)
The fourth factor 2.73 6.63
(physical)
The fifth factor 2.32 4.55
(environmental)
Total 66.74
KMO =696/0 Sig = 0/000 Bartlett's Test = 25/4014
28.7 42.31
62.19
48.94
66.74
43
20.39 19.85 9.93 6.81 100
Source: research findings.
_Table 3. Factors extracted for positive effects of Khayyam town with their operating times.
Load factor town
0.792
0.663
0.799
0.722
0.63
0.803
Effects
Social (28.7)
Variables
Immigration to villages
Reducing migration to cities
Increase employment opportunities in rural areas
Increase of knowledge and expertise in villages
Increase education opportunities for rural children
Easier access of villagers to the products of industrial town
0.847
0.81
0.769
0.716
0.803
0.653
0.615
0.708
0.766
0.75
0.541
0.678
0.608
0.68
0.678
0.665
0.676
0.601
0.505
0.561
0.505
0.727
Agriculture (13.61)
Physical (6.63)
Economic (13.25)
Environmental (4.55)
Providing employment for educated sections of rural
Provide seasonal employment for farmers
Increase employment opportunities in rural areas
Quantitative and qualitative improvement of rural transportation
Sale easier and more crops and livestock
Increase in the degree of mechanization in agricultural activity
Increase in the average production of crops and livestock
Increases in the prices of agricultural products
Increasing the purchasing power of agricultural inputs
use of agricultural products in the industry
Valuable rural homes neighboring industrial township
improvement in the quality of roads in the region
Reconstruction and increasing the quality of rural houses
Separate spaces in villages
Improving the quality of village streets
Changing food intake
income increment
average increase in the purchasing power of rural people
attract investment from urban to rural.
Increases in the prices of agricultural products
Check villagers steady income
Reduce pollution of the cities of the region
Source: Research findings.
Ranking negative effects
The information of Table 4 show the ranking of negative effects Khayyam Industrial Zone on the agricultural sector in the surrounding countryside. Given this information, it should be stated that the statements of loss of attention to agriculture and problems in this sector, providing labors of industrial zone from the city, sale and land use change, pollution of underground water in rural settlements, respectively ranked as first to fourth in terms of villagers in these areas which are the most negative effects mentioned by farmers.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, KMO of Khayyam Industrial Park was 0.695 and Bartlett was equal to 3445.7, which were significant at 1%. In this study, according to the Kaiser criteria, 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than one were extracted for the study area and the results are listed in Tables 5 and 6.
The cumulative variance explained by the five factors is equal to 72.78. Social factor has the highest amount equal to 5.89 that was explained 24.33 percent of the total variance and is the most important effect among negative effects of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Being consumer farmers, adverse effect on rural traditional markets, dropout of farmers' children, providing most of the labor force for industrial zone from the city, reduction of children's interest in agriculture, reduction in young workers in the agricultural sector and the use of certain groups of farmers are variables of the second factor.
Eigenvalue of the environmental factor is equal to 3.66 that explained 14.86 percent of the total variance and ranked as the second negative effect of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Variables such as air pollution of the village, degradation of pastures, noise pollution caused by the industrial units, agriculture water pollution and groundwater contamination around the town are included in the factor.
Eigenvalue of the agriculture factor is equal to 3.37 that explained 12.89 percent of the total variance and ranked as the third negative effect of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Variables such as reduced investment in agriculture, reduced attention to agriculture and problems and transport of agriculture water to industry sector are included in the factor.
Eigenvalue of the economic factor is equal to 2.98 that explained 11.60 percent of the total variance and ranked as the fourth negative effect of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Variables such as transfer of farmers' surplus to be invested in cities, increasing the income of a group of farmers and an unreal increase in the price of nonresidential land of farmers are included in the factor.
Eigenvalue of the physical factor is equal to 2.06 that explained 9.1 percent of the total variance and ranked as the fifth negative effect of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages. Variables such as relative development of villages near the settlements than others and polarization of the region are included in the factor. Considering the amounts indicated in Table 7, it could be noted that from the total impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector, the economic impact on the agricultural sector was positive at a rate of 9.49 percent and its negative impact on the agricultural sector was 8.31 percent. Due to the higher positive economic impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector than negative, it can be stated that the construction of Khayyam industrial park strengthens the
positive effects of the agricultural regions. The main hypothesis is confirmed based on that, Khayyam industrial park has strengthened agricultural economy of Neyshabur.
Considering the amounts indicated in Table 7, it could be noted that from the total impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector, the social impact on the agricultural sector was positive at a rate of 20.57 percent and its negative impact on the agricultural sector was 17.43 percent. Due to the higher positive social impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector than negative, it can be stated that the construction of Khayyam industrial park strengthens the agricultural sector. The first hypothesis is confirmed based on that, Khayyam industrial park has strengthened agricultural social effects.
Also the amounts indicated in the table shows that Khayyam Industrial Park affected on the agricultural sector in term of agriculture, and the impact of the factor on the agricultural sector was 4.75 percent and its negative impact was 6.52 percent. Due to the higher negative impact than positive, it can be stated that the construction of Khayyam industrial park strengthens the negative effects on the agricultural sector. The second hypothesis is not confirmed based on that, Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive agricultural effects.
Table 4. Ranking the negative effects of Khayyam Industrial Township From the perspective of farmers.
Ran Standard Averag Variables (negative effects)
k deviation e
6 0.743 4.26 Transfer of surplus rural incomes and investments in cities
6 3 0.877 4.48 Sales and land use change
14 1.182 3.26 Non-real price increase in residential land
5 1.1 4.31 Increase in income group of rural people
9 1.252 3.86 Fell investment in agriculture
4 0.831 4.4 Groundwater contamination of villages around the towns
1 0.864 4.61 Reduced attention to agriculture and reduced attention to the problems in this
section
20 1.019 3.03 Agricultural water pollution
18 1.098 3.15 Sound pollution caused by the industrial units
15 0.867 3.26 Rangeland degradation
10 1.046 3.79 polarization of area
13 0.871 3.42 use of particular group of rural people
11 0.929 3.76 Loss of young workers in the agricultural sector
8 0.797 4.05 Decreased interest in rural children to agricultural activities
21 0.881 2.86 Air pollution in the village
12 0.909 3.47 Transfer of agricultural water to the industrial sector
2 0.87 4.59 Providing labor industrial town of the city
19 0.945 3.1 The relative development of villages near the industrial town
17 0.945 3.16 Dropping the children of some families
7 1.009 4.16 Consumption of rural households
16 0.741 3.2 Towns adverse effect on traditional markets
Source: Research findings.
_Table 5. Factors extracted from factor analysis of the negative effects of Khayyam industrial town.
Factors
Eigenval Percentage ues special value
24.33
of The frequency percentage of Percent of total cumulative variance Factors
The first factor (social) 5.89
The second 3.66 14.86 factor(environmental)
The third 3.37 12.89 factor(Agriculture)
The fourth 2.98 11.6 factor(economic)
fifth factor (physical) 2.06 9.1
Total 72.78
KMO =695/0 Sig = 0/000 Bartlett's Test = 7/3445
24.33 39.19
52.08
63.68
72.78
33.42 20.41
17.71
15.93
12.5 100
Source: Research findings.
Table 6. Factors extracted for negative effects of Khayyam town with their operating times.
Load factor Effects Variables
town
0.706 Social (24.33) Consumption of rural households
0.773 Towns adverse effect on traditional markets
0.726 Dropping the children of some families
0.767 Providing labor industrial town of the city
0.721 Decreased interest in rural children to agricultural activities
0.729 Loss of young workers in the agricultural sector
0.718 use of particular group of rural people
0.703 Environmental Air pollution in the village
0.823 (14.86) Rangeland degradation
0.626 Sound pollution caused by the industrial units
0.687 Agricultural water pollution
0.717 Groundwater contamination of villages around the towns
0.786 Agriculture (12.89) Sales and land use change
0.811 Fell investment in agriculture
0.727 Reduced attention to agriculture and reduced attention to the problems in this section
0.692 Transfer of agricultural water to the industrial sector
0.742 Economic (11.6) Transfer of surplus rural incomes and investments in cities
0.708 Increase in income group of rural people
0.693 Non-real price increase in residential land
0.763 Physical (9.09) The relative development of villages near the industrial town
0.705 polarization of area
Source: Research findings.
Table 7. Positive and negative effects of Khayyam industrial town on the agricultural sector Khayyam industrial town along with the percentage share of each factor._
Factors Percentage of special value Percentage of Percent of Percent of total factor
(positive effects) special value (negative effects) total factor (positive effects) (negative effects)
The first factor 28.7 24.33 20.57 17.43
(social)
The second factor 4.55 14.86 3.26 10.65
(physical)
The third factor 13.61 12.89 9.75 9.23
(environmental)
The fourth factor 13.25 11.6 9.49 8.31
(economic)
The fifth factor 6.63 9.1 4.75 6.52
(Agriculture)
Total 139.52 47.82 52.14
Source: Research findings.
Discussion and conclusion
The results indicated that from the total impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages, the physical impact on the agricultural sector was positive at a rate of 3.26 percent and its negative impact on the agricultural sector was 10.56 percent. Due to the higher negative physical impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector than positive, it can be stated that the construction of Khayyam industrial park does not strengthen the positive physical effects of the region. The third hypothesis is not confirmed based on that, Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive physical effects of the region.
The results indicated that from the total impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the agricultural sector in adjacent villages, the environmental impact on the agricultural sector was positive at a rate of 9.75 percent and its negative impact on the agricultural sector was 9.23 percent in which the positive impact is higher than positive, it can be stated that the construction of Khayyam industrial park strengthen the positive environmental effects of the region. The fourth hypothesis is confirmed
Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 8(4), 2018
based on that, Khayyam industrial park has strengthened positive environmental effects of the region. According to research findings, the following suggestions are offered:
It is suggested to have agriculture oriented industrialization strategy for the region. The units of production and transform the surrounding villages dependent on agricultural production and animal husbandry should be created and developed to be supported by agriculture, livestock and horticultural activities, especially complementary garden products industry due to several gardens in the area should be strengthen and developed. In general, the link between the two sectors seems necessary for the sustainable development of both.
Due to higher negative physical effect of Khayyam industrial town on the region, it is recommended to run special policies to prevent relative development of villages near the settlements and not to have polarized region. Due to higher agricultural effects caused by the establishment of Khayyam industrial zone in the region, it is recommended to perform policies to prevent the sale and land use changes, increase investment in the agricultural sector, increase attention to agriculture and related problems occur in the region.
Providing rural financial participation infrastructure in the development of industrial zones and activities can prevent transfer of savings from rural to urban areas. Therefore, it is to provide villagers' investment in this section or at least to attract rural savings. In this regard, Industries and Mines Organization or involved organizations can be effective in encouraging villagers to invest in rural industries with more interaction with the agricultural sector through providing credits for businesses that welcome rural investment.
References
Abraham, T. (1994). Rural Industries and Rural Industrialization in Developing Economy, India experience. Journal of Rural Recon Struction, 8(2), 37-51.
Adewunmi, Y., Omirin, M., & Koleoso, H. (2012). Developing a sustainable approach to corporate FM in Nigeria. Facilities, 30(9/10), 350-373.
Barati, A. (1832). The importance of non-agricultural activities in rural development programs. The First Congress of Rural Development, Challenges and Prospects, Tehran.
Barghi, H., Taziki, R., & Tusi, R. (2014). The economic effects on the development of rural areas adjacent industrial areas: Industrial City AghGhala. Quarterly Journal of Economics space and Rural Development, 4(10), 144-129. Bozarjmehri, K. H., Shayan, H., & Hamzee, M. (2012). The economic effects of industrial towns in rural areas Case Study: Industrial Park Khayam. The Journal of Applied Research Geographical Sciences, 27, 52-31.
Hwa, E. C. (1988). The contribution of agriculture to economic growth: some empirical evidence. World development, 16(11), 1329-1339.
Das, R., & Das, A. K. (2011). Industrial cluster: an approach for rural development in North East India. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(2), 161.
Dutta, S. (2004). Rural Industrial entrepreneurship, The Case of Bardhaman District in West Bengal, Wageningen University. Hamzee, M., Shayan, H., & Bozarjmehri, K. (2014). Social Impact Assessment industrial estates in rural areas: industrial town Khayyam. Space Quarterly Journal of Economics and Rural Development, 3, 163-149.
Poorramezan, A., & Akbari, Z. (2014). The effects of further development of processing industries and agriculture, the rural economy: central part of the city of Rasht. Quarterly Journal of Economics space and Rural Development, 4, 164-145. Portaheri, M., Eftekhari, A., & Fatahi, A. (2013). Quality of Life in - rural areas (Case Study: North Khave district, province). Human Geography Research, 76, 31 -33.
Rezvani, M. H. (2011). Introduction to rural development programs in Iran. The Ghomes, Tehran.
Rezvani, M. R., Ramazan, Z. M., & Mohammadpur, M. (2010). Analyze the effects of socio-economic development of industrial zones in rural areas: industrial area frequented Tonkabon Solomon. Geography and Development, 18, 26-35. Karbasi, A. R., & Khaksar, H. (2003). The relationship between agriculture and industry sectors (Case Study of Iran). Economic Research in Iran, 15, 39-19.
Kiyani, F., Ansari, R., & Taghdisi, A. (2015). The effects of socio-economic and environmental Hegmatan cement factory in the village of Shahnjryn. Quarterly Journal of Economics Space and Rural Development, 2(12), 144-133.
Moradi, M., & Moteei, L. S. (2005). The position of industry in the process of industrialization and rural development of the central city of Birjand. Geographic Study, 53, 149-137.
MIrlotfi, M. R., & Mollanoruzi, M. (2014). Examine the impact of Khayyam Industrial Park on the objective quality of life villages) Case study: Villages Zeberkhan District. Journal of Geographic Space, 64, 259-235. Nayak, U. S. (1994). Rural industrialization. M.D. publication pvt., NewDelhi, India.
Hang, Z., Zhang, X., & Zhu, Y. (2008). The role of clustering in rural industrialization: A case study of the footwear industry in Wenzhou. China Economic Review, 19, 409-420.
Jan, N. B., Margareta, G. B., Shahaduz, Z. Z., & Nahar, K. (2012). Role and function: Aspects of quality of life of older people in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(3), 363-374.
Tavakol, M., & Nozari, H. (2012). Analysis of economic, environmental and industrial gas refinery Persians on rural areas) Case Study: Rural areas Mohr city in Fars province. Journal of Social Studies and Research in Iran, 1(4), 28-48. Sajasighidari, H. A., Shayan, H., & Noorbakhshrazmi, Z. (2015). Analysis of the quality of life of rural non-agricultural entrepreneurs: rural Shandiz Binalood city. Quarterly Journal of Economics space and Rural Development, 2(12), 55-76. Samal, K. C. (1997). Rural Non-Farm Activities in Spesifc Regions of Orissa. Journal of Rural Devehopment, 16(3), 357-464.
Sundar. K. (2009). Rural Industrialisation: Challenges and Proposition. Commerce Wing DDE, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, India.
Shurmyj, R., & Asadiazizabadi, M. (2013). Analyzing the effects of scientific and technological park on the region's economic development, technology development. Quarterly Journal of Parks and Incubators Perched Ninth Year, 36(1392), 11-18. Wang, G. T., & Hu, X. B. (1999). Small Town Development and Rural Urbanization in China. Journal of Contemporary, 29, 7693.
Citation: Zahra, N.T., Saeed, Y. (2018). The effects of industrial towns on development of surrounding areas. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, 8(4), 70-78._
I work Is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. License
