Volume 13, Issue 49 (11-2024)
serd 2024, 13(49): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohamadi M, habibi F, ghaderi S. Tourism Development and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods
A Case Study of Kurdistan Province. serd 2024; 13 (49) : 6
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3965-en.html
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3965-en.html
1- university of Kurdistan
2- university of Kurdistan ,f.habibi@uok.ac.ir
2- university of Kurdistan ,
Abstract: (545 Views)
Objective: The experience of many developed countries highlights that tourism development is a fundamental driver of national growth and should be prioritized accordingly. This research aims to investigate the impact of tourism on sustainable rural livelihoods in Kurdistan Province by comparing two groups: tourism-oriented villages and non-tourism villages.
Method: This study adopts a quasi-experimental design, comparing data from tourism and non-tourism villages. A questionnaire was employed to gather the necessary information. Using Cochran's formula, the sample size was determined to be 350 households, consisting of 203 heads of households from tourism villages and 147 heads of households from non-tourism villages. Participants were selected randomly. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS and Excel software, with the reliability of the questionnaire confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82.
Results:
1. Livelihood Conditions: The one-sample t-test revealed that the five livelihood capitals (human, social, physical, natural, and financial) in both groups of villages were below average and in poor condition.
2. Comparison of Capitals: An independent t-test showed that the average human and social capital and total investment were significantly higher in tourism villages compared to non-tourism villages.
3. Livelihood Strategies: A Friedman test identified the key livelihood activities in each group:
Method: This study adopts a quasi-experimental design, comparing data from tourism and non-tourism villages. A questionnaire was employed to gather the necessary information. Using Cochran's formula, the sample size was determined to be 350 households, consisting of 203 heads of households from tourism villages and 147 heads of households from non-tourism villages. Participants were selected randomly. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS and Excel software, with the reliability of the questionnaire confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82.
Results:
1. Livelihood Conditions: The one-sample t-test revealed that the five livelihood capitals (human, social, physical, natural, and financial) in both groups of villages were below average and in poor condition.
2. Comparison of Capitals: An independent t-test showed that the average human and social capital and total investment were significantly higher in tourism villages compared to non-tourism villages.
3. Livelihood Strategies: A Friedman test identified the key livelihood activities in each group:
- Tourism Villages: Gardening. Agriculture, Local food sales, Handicraft sales, Home rentals, Sales of local dairy products, and Sales of local clothing.
- Non-Tourism Villages: Gardening, Agriculture, Local dairy product sales, Animal husbandry, and Labor.
Article number: 6
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
