Village and Development

Village and Development

Architectural and Economic Factors Promoting Rural Business Development: A Case Study of District 7 of the Babylonian System

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
M. Maleki Charkovani 1
F. Mozaffar 2
M.A. Khan Mohammadi 2
B. Saleh Sedghpour 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Department of Architeture, Faculty of Architecture & Urbananism, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Architeture, Faculty of Architecture & Urbananism, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajai Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.
10.30490/rvt.2026.367420.1662
Abstract
Introduction
Rural buildings as a place of business have an important place in economic prosperity of village. However, few studies have investigated how architecture affects the development of rural business. Rural buildings divide into three groups: direct acquisition buildings (sales and tourism), production buildings (agriculture, animal husbandry and processing) and hybrid buildings (farm and tourism housing). Sales and tourism buildings as a platform for direct income, plays a pivotal role in the financial success of the rural business. Instead, these spaces need a high standard level of urban and modern architecture that in addition to the initial cost and financial burden, can cause damage of "rural quasi - urbanization" and its solution is to use local and native materials and methods, in contrast, modern interior layout to increase the welfare of the customer. Despite its great importance in the local economy, production buildings (breeding and processing) are faced with mortality and losses due to pest penetration and the solution is to use washable and disinfected materials and sanitary details for disposal of insect, pest control and ventilation in making these plants. however, hybrid buildings help to reduce the initial cost of building, due to the nuisance of the business (domestic animal husbandry) with habitation, in case of lack of proper separation and increase of compatibility, caused to remove these spaces by the people of the village.in this study, architectural factors of rural business prosperity in the view of producers and business owners in mountainous villages of northern iran have been studied. Innovation of this research is considering and compare of three groups of rural buildings (manufacturing, sales - tourism and combined) and the difference of view in poor, medium and developed villages.
Materials and Methods
This research is a qualitative - quantitative study and exploratory factor analysis. After reviewing the literature, object - content table and questionnaire design were done. Validity of questionnaire assessed through experts and to increase the reliability, the questionnaire was conducted in pilot and Cronbach's test was used. After consulting and studying the Manzoomeh plan, District 7 of the Babylonian System was selected. Statistical population was rural business owners and producers and random cluster sampling method and sample size, 180 were determined in three clusters. In the first stage, comparison of cluster of poor, medium and developed villages was done. In the second step, the identification of the factors done by software and exploratory naming (via analysis of components key word) was done. In the first order 32 factors were determined that due to the multiplicity and impossibility of structural relationship, factor analysis was performed again and 21 of the 32 first order factors were classified under 7 second order factors. These factors were classified in Amos software and finally an evaluable structural model with 7 main factors and 20 components was obtained.
Results and Discussion
The results of the first step analysis showed the difference between three clusters developed, medium and poor in the form of modernism versus nativism. for example, the cluster of developed villages mostly agreed on the centralized construction of productive spaces and sales - tourism spaces which means separating business from rural housing that leads to quasi - urbanization of developed villages. In the average cluster, there was no significant difference with the developed cluster, but in contrast, the poor villages agreed on some sentences including support - based low cost solutions, barrier removal, use of home spaces and tools and available agricultural products.
Conclusions
The overall objective of the present study was to investigate architectural strategies and their relationship with rural business prosperity in the district 7 of the Babylonian system. according to the results of first and second order factor analysis, seven factors were identified: "development and support", "tourism farm", "creative farm", "principles of business architecture", "non-residential architecture and proximity", "adaptability" and "pest penetration control". Also, a comparison of developed and poor villages showed that semi-urban villages such as Derazkola and Kebriyakola emphasize more on urban concepts such as "concentrated placement of production spaces", which is due to density and attention to "sanitary spaces". Also, these villages emphasize business and sales more than work and production, which is also due to increased economic power.
Keywords
Creative Village-Farm
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Livelihood housing
Rural Business Architecture
Tourism Farm.
Subjects
1.      Azizpour F., & Sadeghi Z. (2018). The assessment of the effects of implementing special improvement plan on rural housing development (Case study: Abrisham rural district). Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 37(164), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.22034/37.164.3. [In Persian] 
2.      Cogato, A., Cei, L., Marinello, F., & Pezzuolo, A. (2023). The role of buildings in rural areas: Trends, challenges, and innovations for sustainable development. Agronomy, 13, 1961. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy13081961.
3.      Doosti Sabzi, B., & Babaei, M. (2023). Monthly Reports of the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 18948, 1-32. [In Persian]
4.      Ghasemi Ardahaee, A., Mahmoudian, H., & Nowbakht, R. (2017). An analysis of the causes of internal migration of the census of 2006 and 2012. Social Studies and Research in Iran, 6(3), 375-390. doi: 10.22059/jisr.2017.141758.317. [In Persian]
5.      Hirota, T., Kishita, Y., Tsunezawa, M., Sugiyama, K., Tasaka, K., & Umeda, Y. (2023). Architecture-based scenario design methodology for platform-enabled circular economy business. Procedia CIRP, 116, 293-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.050.
6.      Kharabati, S., & Shirazi, P. (2021). Achieving a rural housing design pattern (Case study: Tazareh village of Damghan). Housing And Rural Environment, 40(175), 3-18. [In Persian]
7.      Kharabati, S., Sereshki, S., & Saheri, M. (2021). A study of the principles of Iranian architecture in rural housing Case Study: Kolamu village of Shahroud). Journal of Research in Urban Planning and Architecture Environment Identity (Jrupa-Ei), 2(6), 43-55. doi: 10.22034/(JRUPA-EI).2021.303953.1095.
8.      Nikpour, A., Esfarm, Y. & Shakeri Mansour, E. (2017). Economic strategies for improving housing indicators in rural areas of the city of kagielviya. Journal Space Economy & Rural Development, 6(22), 73-96. [In Persian]
9.      Shamsuddini, A., Shakour, A. & Rustami, R. (2011). The impact of rural housing reconstruction on the livelihood economy of the rural people. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 30(135), 57-70. [In Persian] 
10.  Taban, M., Sharafi, V. & Faghihi, S. (2023). Presenting a model for rural business development (Case study: Ilam Province, Iran). Journal of Research & Rural Planning, 12(3), 43-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.22067/jrrp.v12i3.2302-1075
11.  Taghavi, Z.B., Rahbari Manesh, K., & Armaghan, M. (2020). The impact of economic change on livelihood spaces (Agriculture and animal husbandry); Qazvin rural housing. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 39(172), 3-16. doi: 10.22034/39.172.3. [In Persian]