Agric. sci. dev., Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014. pp.

296-301

TI Journals

ISSN:

Agriculture Science Developments

2306-7527

www.tijournals.com

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Investigation of factors affecting villagers social and economic

participation in rural construction and development programs
(Case study: Sarbishe city)
Saeed Najafi*
Master of Rural Development, Islamic Azad University of Birjand Branch, Iran.

Kuroush Roosta
Assistant Professor and faculty member of Rural Department of agricultural extension education, Islamic Azad University of Birjand Branch, Iran.

Mojtaba Hosseyni
Master of agricultural extension education, Islamic Azad University of Birjand Branch, Iran.

M.N. Bameri
Master of Rural Development, Islamic Azad University of Birjand Branch, Iran.
*Corresponding author: saeednajafi64@ymail.com

Keywords
social participation
economic participation
rural construction and development
programs

1.

Abstract
This research has been done to investigate the factors affecting villagers' social and economic participation in
rural construction and development programs. In terms of purpose the present study is the applied research and
in terms of data collection method is of descriptive correlational study which has been done using survey
method. Questionnaire designed by the researcher was used as a data collection instrument and its validity was
confirmed by a panel of experts and its reliability was measured by Cronbach's alpha test as 0/899 which was
optimal. The study population consisted of households headed of Sarbishe villagers that their number was more
than 6388 persons. Among this population, 150 people were selected using Cochran formula and were studied
using cluster sampling method. Findings from the descriptive analysis of the research shows that the status of
villagers community participation in rural construction and development programs was in high and relatively
high level. Moreover, investigation of the status of villagers' community participation in rural construction and
development programs shows that this economic participation was in high and relatively high level. Findings
from correlation analysis showed that there is a significant relationship between levels of villagers community
participation and persons water share, income from agricultural activities, motivation of villagers' to
participation, social cohesion and confidence. Also there is a significant relationship between community
participation and persons' water share, income from agricultural activities, personal savings, social cohesion,
motivation for participation, confidence and satisfaction of experts. Results of average comparison analysis
indicated that villagers' social participation is more with university education. In addition, there is a significant
difference between villagers economic participation in different levels of education.

Introduction

A quick look at history of Iran, especially in rural communities, indicative of peoples' broad and diverse participation in different fields of
political, military and social - economic, etc. [6]. Participation is a term that has a history as old as human history, because of the theoretical and
practical dimension contributions lies within the community in terms of notions such as solidarity, alliances, partnerships, associations and the
like [1]. There are numerous definitions associated with participation, and despite the importance of this concept in economic-social planning
and applying it in different development programs and national development, unfortunately, the term concept it is not clear for most people who
used it, or have different and sometimes contradictory perceptions of it. In addition, each of experts according to their expertise have tried to
give it special meaning, financial planners have economic collision with it, engineers have economic - physical collision with it, and community
stakeholders have deemed it a kind of solidarity and collective effort [8]. Participation, involvement of people in economic, social, cultural and
political process will affect their lives which willingness to share power and decision-making from the political system and government are of its
provisions [9]. Participation could have different forms and degrees, such as cooperation, collaboration, solidarity, conformity, consistency,
acceptance, submission, social roles fascination and perform tasks that may relate to these roles [3]. Social participation implies expansion of
inter-group relations in the form of voluntary associations, clubs, associations and groups, that usually have local and nongovernmental character
and their aim is to engage and involve people in ifferent social processes in terms of social policies [7]. Economic Partnership focuses on
influencing the production style and dynamics , govern relationship on this dynamics and production material to meet the material needs and
increased production, which is found in forms of persons intervention and engaging in decision- making system about the allocation of economic
resources and participation in economic development policy [4]. Kutak in a study that he conducted showed that lack of attention to social issues
have large costs. Results of his studies indicate that projects which are adaptable with local socio - economic conditions have higher returns
compared with those who did not have this compatibility. In addition, his study shows that projects that in them interest groups only involved in
the implementation phase and no-one pays any attention to their presence in the initial stages of the project, were failed [10]. Ghasemi in a study
entitled people's participation in rural development examined the factors affecting persons participation in rural development activities, in his
opinion the relevant factors affecting prsons participation in rural development activities can investigated in three categories: attitudes, personal
characteristics, capacities and institutional - social structures and conceptual structures. So, whatever participation facilitated elements be
strengthened and obstacles be removed, rural development factors will emerge [5]. The above discussion illustrates the importance of
participation in rural development programs. This prompted us to by identifying factors affecting social and economic participation of villagers
in the city Sarbishe can take a useful step, however small, to advance the objectives of the villages development projects.

297

Investigation of factors affecting villagers social and economic participation in rural construction and development programs (case study: Sarbishe...
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014.

2.

Type and methods of research

The present study, in terms of target is applied research because pays to understanding the current situation and the development of practical
knowledge in a particular field and in terms of the amount and degree of variables control is a field study. From time dimension is a prospective
research and the nature of the data is quantitative. In terms of method, this study is of descriptive - correlation group, because through
identification and characterization of existing space to analyzed the relationship between variables. The study population consisted of
households headed of Sarbishe villagers that their number was more than 6388 persons. Among this population, 150 people were selected using
Cochran formula and were studied using cluster sampling method. villages list were made to determine the clusters, and from this villages with a
population of 20 households and more than were selected and given two sections Sarbishe city and its four villages, three villages randomly
selected from each district, and from each village and appropriate individuals, randomly selected to answer the designed questionnaire.
Questionnaire was used as measurement instrument in this study The reliability of the prepared questionnaire by initially tested with the
completion of 30 questionnaire in a statistical population similar to community and its analysis by spss softwere, its' Cronbach's alpha was
measured as 0.865, which was an acceptable and desirable range.

3.

Research findings

3.1 Descriptive statistics

Some of the respondents' personal and crop and professional characteristics have been summarized in the following table.
Table 1. Summary of descriptive results of individuals identifying variables
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

variables
Marital status
The major product
Gender
Agriculture Experience
Area under cultivation
Share of aquaduct water

mean

Standard deviation

34
1.52 h a
12.50ha

17/4
1/65
14/88

Frequency
96 percent were married
42% wheat
94.75male
37/3% between 18 to 33 year
82/7% lower than the 2/4 ha
96/7less than 31 hours

3.2 ISDM Tests

In this section to assess the level of restoration and repair of aqueducts the subjects were asked, and after data collection, ISDM formula wasa
used for determine the level of social participation as follows:
Mean+SD< D
A< Mean-SD
Mean-SD< B < Mean
Mean< C < Mean+SD
Table 2. Status of villagers' social participation in rural development programs
Level of community involvement
Low
Relatively low
Relatively high
High
total

frequency
29
34
70
17
150

frequency
19.3
22.7
46.7
11.3
100.0

cumulative frequency
19.3
42.0
88.7
100.0

The findings, contained in the above table indicate that the 19/3% of people has low social participation in rural development programs, 22/7%
has relatively high social participation in rural development programs and 58% has very high social participation in rural development programs.
Table 3. Status of villagers' economic participation in rural development programs
Level of community involvement
Low
Relatively low
Relatively high
High

frequency
30
43
49
28

frequency
20.0
28.7
32.7
18.7

total

150

100.0

cumulative frequency
20.0
48.7
81.3
100.0

The findings, contained in the above table indicate that the 20% of people has low economic participation in rural development programs, 28/7%
has relatively high economic participation in rural development programs and 51/4% has very high economic participation in rural development
programs.

3.3 Priority items of social participation and economic participation using CV

In this section, using the formula CV (coefficient of variation) social participation and economic participation items have been prioritized as
follows:

Saeed Najafi *, Kuroush Roosta, Mojtaba Hosseyni, M. N. Bameri

298

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014.

Table 4. Prioritize items of villagers' social participation in development programs

Items
partnership in convening of meetings
Coordinating partners to work
Cooperation in providing the work means
Cooperation in collecting primary data
collaborated with pitmans
monitor the work of pitmans
Report problems to the experts
Monitoring and Evaluation expert work
Cooperate in the dredging after restoration and repair
Inform others of the importance of maintaining the aqueduct

Mean
3/48
3/68
3/49
3/52
3/69
3/28
3/40
3/36
3/6
3/42

Std
1/115
1/056
1/151
1/127
1/074
1/182
1/215
1/160
0/976
1/238

Cv
32/04
28/69
32/97
32/01
29/10
36/03
35/73
34/52
27/11
36/19

R
5
2
6
4
3
9
8
7
1
10

According to the findings contained in the above table can be seen that the last priority with coefficient of variation 36/19 is related to index of
(Inform others of the importance of participation in preservation projects) and the first priority with coefficient of variation 27/11 is related to
index of (Cooperation in the maintenance of the project after its completion).
Table 5. Prioritize items of villagers' economic participation in development programs
Items
providing craftsman and workers feed
Providing appropriate labor
financing of projects
providing some local materials
providing tools for working
providing equipment and materials transportation

Mean
3/58
3/24
2/63
2/68
3/02
3/08

Std
0/971
0/982
1/012
1/118
1/169
1/140

Cv
27/12
30/30
38/47
41/71
38/70
37/01

R
1
2
4
6
5
3

According to the findings contained in the above table can be seen that the last priority with coefficient of variation 41/71 is related to index of
(providing some needed local materials of projects) and the first priority with coefficient of variation 27/12 is related to index of (feed financing
of craftsman and workers).

4.

Inferential statistics

Using the Pearson correlation coefficient the relationship between variables with social participation and economic participation was determined.
Table 6. Determining the relationship between studied independent variables with
variable of degree of villagers' social participation in rural development programs
Hybrid variable

Agronomic,
personal
characteristics
and...

Economic
Characteristics

The first
variable

Scale

Age
History of
Agriculture
Area under
cultivation
Share of
aquaduct water

Relative
Relative

The second
variable

Scale

Correlation
Type
Coefficient
-.030
.034

Significant
level
.712
.678
.967

Relative

.214**

.009

agricultural
activities
income
Nonagricultural
income
debt to private
organizations
debt to a friend
Cost of Living

Relative

.268**

.001

Relative

.028

.734

.127

.121

Saving

Relative

.100
.032
.070
.502**

.222
.697
.397
.000

Motivation to
participate
Participation in
community
activities
Social
Cohesion
Social trust
Confidence
Consent of
Experts

Relative

.406**

.000

Relative

.033

.691

Relative

.663**

.000

Relative
Relative
Relative

.132
-.030
.034

.107
.712
.678

Relative
Relative
Relative

rehabilitation
and restoration
of the aqueduct

Pearson

-.003

Relative

Relative

299

Investigation of factors affecting villagers social and economic participation in rural construction and development programs (case study: Sarbishe...
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014.

According to information obtained from research outlined in the above table it can be seen that:
The findings showed that there is no significant relationship between the variables of age, experience in farming, the area under crops, income
from non-agricultural activities, debt to private instruments, debt to friends, living expenses, savings rate, social trust and satisfaction of experts
with the main variables of villagers' social participation in development programs.
In addition, information obtained from the present study indicate that there is a significant and positive relationship between variables, the share
of water from the aqueduct, income from agricultural activities, motivation for participation in charitable activities, social cohesion, social trust,
villagers confidence and variable of social participation in development planning, with 99% confidence.
Table 7. Determining the relationship between studied independent variables with
variable of degree of villagers' economic participation in rural development programs
Hybrid variable

Agronomic,
personal
characteristics
and...

Scale

Age
History of
Agriculture
Area under
cultivation
Share of
aquaduct water
agricultural
activities
income
Nonagricultural
income
debt to private
organizations
debt to a friend
Cost of Living
Saving
Motivation to
participate
Participation in
community
activities
Social
Cohesion
Social trust
Confidence
Consent of
Experts

Relative
Relative

The second
variable

Scale

Correlation
Type
Coefficient
-.004
.112

Significant
level
.962
.173

-.059

.473

Relative

.171*

.037

Relative

.340**

.000

Relative

-.001

.989

.051

.539

.007
-.135
.195*
.426**

.932
.098
.017
.000

Relative

.407**

.000

Relative

.083

.314

Relative
Relative
Relative

.544**
.349**
-.004

.000
.000
.962

Relative
Relative
Relative
Relative
Relative

rehabilitation
and restoration
of the aqueduct

Pearson

Relative

Relative

Economic
Characteristics

The first
variable

According to information obtained from research outlined in the above table it can be seen that:
The findings showed that there is no significant relationship between the variables of age, experience in farming, the area under crops, income
from non-agricultural activities, debt to private instruments, debt to friends, living expenses, savings rate, social trust and with the main of
economic participation in rural development programs.
In addition, information obtained from the present study indicate that there is a significant and positive relationship between variables, income
from agricultural activities, motivation for participation in charitable activities, social cohesion, social trust, villagers confidence, satisfaction of
experts and variable of economic participation in development programs, with 99% confidence.
Also there is a significant and positive relationship between variables of the share of water from the aqueduct, and persons' savings rate with
economic participation in development programs, with 95% confidence.
In this section using Kruskal-Wallis test, was determined the relation of some variables with social participation and economic participation.
Table 8. mean comparison of villagers' social participation in development programs at multiple levels of education and major product
Groups
Level of
Education

The major product

Variables
Illiterate
Primary
Guidance
High school
University
Barberry
Crocus
Jujube
Wheat
Barley

Dependent
variable
Rehabilitation and
Restoration of
Aqueduct

Rehabilitation and
Restoration of
Aqueduct

Average

chi-square

Significant level

78.53
80.36
61.83
62.14
82.29
70.43

4.668

0.323

10.724

0/030

42.94
44.00
85.52
76.37

According to information obtained from research outlined in the above table it can be seen that:
There was no significant difference between the variables of villagers' social participation in development programs with variable of levels of
education. In other words, individuals with different education levels have same social participation in development programs and the education
level was not distinctive.

Saeed Najafi *, Kuroush Roosta, Mojtaba Hosseyni, M. N. Bameri

300

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014.

There was significant difference between villagers' social participation in development programs with variable of different level of major
product with 95% confidence. In other words, those with a different major product can have different actions in social participation. Highest
mean is related to persons whose main product is wheat.
Table 9. mean comparison of villagers' economic participation in development programs at multiple levels of education and major product
Groups
Level of
Education

The major product

Variables
Illiterate
Primary
Guidance
High school
University
Barberry
Crocus
Jujube
Wheat
Barley

Dependent
variable
Rehabilitation and
Restoration of
Aqueduct

Rehabilitation and
Restoration of
Aqueduct

Average
82.54
80.48
50.60
55.95
89.92
73.88
43.00
53.33
81.56
78.15

chi-square

Significant level

12.585

.013

7.253

.123

According to information obtained from research outlined in the above table it can be seen that:
There was significant difference between the variables of villagers' economic participation in development programs with variable of levels of
education. In other words, individuals with different education levels have not same standpoint abput economic participation in development
programs and highest mean is related to persons with academic education.
There was no significant difference between the variables of villagers' economic participation in development programs with variable of
different level of major product. In other words, individuals with different products have same economic participation in development programs
and major product factor was not distinctive.

5.

Conclusions

Descriptive findings of this study showed that 96% of respondents were married and 94/7% of respondents were male. 37/3 % of the respondents
had experience between 18 to 33 years in the agricultural sector and 96/7% of people have had owner's share less than 31 hours of aqueduct
water in their village. The results showed that 82/7% less have than the 2/4 acres under cultivation of crops and wheat was the major crop
cultivated of 42% of them. ISDM test results showed that villagers' social participation in rural development programs was at relatively high
level and also villagers economic participation in rural development programs was at relatively high level. Correlation test results showed that
there is a significant relationship between the variables individuals share of aqueduct water, income from agricultural activities, motivation to
participate in charitable activities, social cohesion and confidence with villager social participation in rural development programs. Also it
showed that there is a significant relationship between the variables individuals' share of villages' aqueduct water, income from agriculture,
savings rate, social cohesion, motivation to participate in charitable activities, self-esteem and villagers' satisfaction of experts with villager
economic participation in rural development programs. The results of the comparison test showed that the there is a significant difference
between the villagers' mean social participation in rural development programs with different levels of product. Also there is a significant
difference between villagers' mean economic participation in rural development programs with levels of education. Based on the findings of the
study can be concluded if projects implemented in rural areas have an achievement for villagers and meet one of their needs result in rising their
motivation and consequently the villagers in the future for other projects will have voluntarily active presence and thus increase social cohesion
and trust in the villages. To perform rural projects there is a neet to consultation, counseling and regular work of populace. If villagers' action
and spoke was one works be done better and more regular and consistent and targeted which this will be one of the main factors and fields od the
villagers social and economic participation in rural development programs. Villagers' confidence and belief in their abilities can result in
advancing the objectives of rural development, increase social trust, confidence in the villages. Whatever villagers believe that humans are
capable of performing the task, can further increase the ability their participation, and encourage others to participate in works and be cause to
themselves and rural community human and spiritual growth.

6.

Suggestions

Change the view of the government and the people's representatives in the decision-making authority regarding to participation, participants in
development planning and rural development projects.
Coordination and appropriate technology for rural development projects with rural needs
creating interaction between villagers people and Government with creating the trust between the parties and taking on the role of elders and
local leaders will solve many of the problems that impede participation
More train to experts and government officials in dealing with people from initial to accomplish the plans, can enhance trust between the parties
and accept many initiatives by the villagers based on the created trust.
Attention to the process of confidence building in interpersonal levels can reinforce social trust and social cohesion
Creating organizations in villages, from among villagers to evaluate and prioritize needed projects for rural and coordinator between villagers
and local governments to use effectively forces in various areas of social and economic for rural development projects.
Providing conditions for the industrialization of agriculture to boost farmers' income and rural savings and lateral and seasonal jobs for farmers
considering current conditions.

301

Investigation of factors affecting villagers social and economic participation in rural construction and development programs (case study: Sarbishe...
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (9), September, 2014.

Reference
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

Bafkar, H., 2011. A comparative study of traditional partnerships with new partnerships in a rural community, Dirast: Journal of Education, Geography,
Vol. 25, No 3, University of Tehran, Iran, 1 P.
Bayat, M., 2006. village Islamic Council from law to execute , Irans' sociology website, www.sociology of iran.com
Biru, Alan, 1992. translated by B. Sarokhani, social sciences culture, published Diba, 48 P.
Ghaffari, G., 2001. Explanation of social and cultural factors affecting villagers organized participation in society - economic, as a mechanism for rural
development in Iran, G. Dissertation, University of Tehran, Iran.
Ghasemi, M. A., 2002. Evaluation of socio - economic factors affecting participation in rural development projects (case studies of the central city of
Kashan), M. A. Dissertation, University of Tehran, Iran.
Jahandust, R., 2010. discussion about the definitions, concepts and conditions for creating the participation in rural communities with emphasis on
patterns of Islamic Councils, Website: www.rasoljoghraphy.blogsky.com
Mohseni-Tabrizi, A., 1990. Evaluation of villagers participatory areas and its relationship with promote agriculture, Iran, IRI, 108 P.
Sydaee, Iskandar and Dehghani Amin, 2010. the role of public participation in rural development with emphasis on the traditional and new
contribution (case study central city Nurabad mamasani), Dirast: applied sociology, Vol. 21 serial number (37), No. I, University of Tehran, Iran, 2 P.
Yavar, B., 2001. participatory urbanism, and peoples' position in Iranian city, facts, goals, strategies, B. Dissertation, University of Science and
Technology Iran.
Zand Razavi, Siamak and ikhlas poor, roya, 2001, the benefits and the risks of participation, the first conference on natural resources, participation and
year development, Iran, 449 P.