Spatial Analysis of Regional Indicators of Rural deprivation(Case study: Poledokhtar Township)

Introduction According to the World Bank (2016), more than 46% of the world's population (3.9 billion) live in rural areas. Predicted that by 2050 this number is reduced to 34%. The most important reason for this is rural migration to urban areas, seeking better quality of life, the existence of regional inequalities, and rural deprivation. Therefore, in order to prevent rural immigration and promote rural development, reducing deprivation and identifying its indicators as a principle for policy makers should be prioritized. These indicators are important for identifying the patterns of economic and social inequality in societies. For this reason, measures have been taken by countries to identify these indicators. The city of Poledokhtar is one of the areas with a rural population above the national average. The villages of this city are among the most deprived areas of Lorestan province. Barriers and limitations in quality of life, income sources, poor housing conditions, inadequate education, and lack of sanitation and social services for rural residents have led a large number of households to migrate from rural to urban areas to achieve better quality of life. On the other hand, it is necessary to identify the indices of deprivation in rural areas and present suitable solutions to it, implementation of deprivation and rural development programs, especially in the economic dimension and sustainable livelihood of rural households. Therefore, the present research attempts to analyze the regional deprivation indices in Poledokhtar. The research questions are: What are the most important indicators of rural deprivation in Poledokhtar? Which indicators (objective or subjective) can better assess rural deprivation? Moreover, what is the spatial pattern of the dimensions of rural deprivation in this region? Research Methodology Research and applied research as the "method", in the context of "cross" occurs. The data are collected in two ways: "documents" and "you know" is. Data collection has also been done in both "documentary" and "field". The statistical population of the research includes the village of Poldokhtar. Using Cochran formula, 400 households are selected randomly from a sample population. To identify the most important deprivation indices, unlimited exploratory uncertainty test (Johansson method) is used in Eviews software version 9. In this test, considering the special values (numerical value), identifying and exploring the most important indicators, they can be ranked. In order to evaluate the objective and subjective indices of deprivation, a one-sample t-test is used to examine the difference between rural areas in terms of deprivation indices of Post-Hoc Anova follow-up tests in Spss software version 22, and to provide a spatial pattern of the system Geographic Information (GIS) be used. Discussion and Findings To investigate the most important rural deprivation indices in the study area, an unlimited exploratory coherency test has been used. The findings of this test are shown that among the eighteen indicators considered to measure rural deprivation, eleven indicators are at a low level, and the villages in the region are in a disadvantaged position. Of these eleven indicators, three Index Income and savings (0.219), Ownership (0.120) and Housing (.114) related to economic deprivation, three Index Educational (0.147), Hygiene (0.127) and welfare Services (0.114) related to Social dimension, two Index of cultural infrastructure (0.120) and the rights of ethnicities and minorities (0.164) related to the political-cultural dimension and three Index Village environment (0.135), Street network (0.102) and Rural infrastructure (0.160) related to the Peripheral-physical dimension the deprivation has been. One-sample t-test is used in the context of the importance of the objective and subjective indices of rural deprivation. The findings show that the mean of objective indices is 4.08 and subjective indices are 3.52. The value of sig obtained for the dimensions is also not equal. Both are less than the alpha level of 0.05. This indicates the difference between objective and subjective indicators for assessing deprivation in the study area. Hence, it can be concluded that the respondents consider the importance of objective indicators to be more than mental indices. In rural areas where significant differences exist in the dimensions of deprivation. Discussion and conclusion For a number of reasons, rural areas require a careful look and analysis of rural development policies; first, the bulk of the world's population lives in villages. Second, rural areas contain almost all the necessary resources, such as food and energy resources for human life; Third: Urban and rural inequality and rural deprivation. One of the most important strategies for most countries to achieve development is the issue of eliminating rural deprivation. Considering the importance of this issue, this study also identifies important indicators of rural deprivation, analyzing its spatial pattern. The results showed that of the eighteen indicators, eleven indicators are located at the lower level and the villages of the region are deprived of these eleven indicators. Of these, three indicators of income and savings, property and housing related to the economic dimension, three indicators of education, health and welfare services related to the social dimension, two indicators of cultural infrastructure and the rights of ethnic groups related to the political-cultural dimension, and finally Three environmental indicators, road network and infrastructure have been related to environmental degradation. Spatial analysis of the villages of Poldokhtar in terms of deprivation dimensions showed that there is a significant difference between different villages. The degree of deprivation of villages has severity and weakness, and in order to reduce the deprivation, identification of regional indicators of deprivation must be provided for each region. It is therefore proposed to effectively overcome rural deprivation, rural communities need real support, not with plans, programs and political gestures. To reduce rural deprivation, long-term plans for agriculture and livestock should be devised, not by the program. In physical and symbolic terms, it is necessary to provide them with the facilities, not cash or tune their stomachs.