Structural Modeling and Casual Interpretation of Rural Communities’Self-Evaluation of Quality of Lie and Its Determinants

• Main Authors: Abbas Amini, Farzaneh Sadeghian, Tayebeh Zahedi
• Format: Article
• Language: fas
• Published: University of Isfahan 2017-03-01
• Series: جامعه شناسی کاربردی
• Subjects: Quality of life evaluation; Rural Communities; Structural Equation Modeling; Path Analysis; Dehaghan and Bardsir
• Online Access: http://jas.ui.ac.ir/article_21368_159dca8b9462e890b79564835359087d.pdf

Introduction Evaluation and perception of villagers from their rural life is influencing by several tangible and intangible factors, as well of the reality of their own living. This self-evaluation images the objective circumstances and subjective reflection on their life. By measuring this self-evaluation, it is possible to assess their settlement conditions and development level, and their attitudes toward rural life and its contingences, especially compared to urban life, as well. By defining and operationalizing a close comprehensive rural self-evaluation scale for measuring the quality of life, it can be evaluated both the living and thinking sphere of villagers, reflecting the physical and objective conditions of settling rural environments as well of their mentalities and attitudes towards rurality and ruralism especially compared to urbanization and urbanism.  Materials and Methods The present study aims to assess the villagers’ self-evaluation quality of life and casually analyze its determinants in some rural areas of Isfahan and Kerman provinces of central Iran, based on a sample of 239 household heads size, stratified proportionally and selected randomly to primarily gather the needed data by field operations. Providing a conceptual framework for measuring the self-evaluation quality of life and scaling its comprehensive set of determinants has been a major part of the study. The scale has comprised two ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ dimensions, including sub-scales of “state of existential balance”, “realizing of life potential”, “fulfillment of needs” and “objective factors” measuring the ‘objective’ dimension and “well-being”, “satisfaction with life”, “happiness” and “meaning in life” measuring the ‘subjective’ one. Based on literature reviewed, the set of independent variables has also contained age, socioeconomic situation (SES), housing situation, environmental properties, facilities, social capital, recreational activities, relative deprivation and stressful factors. The analysis procedures performed using advanced statistical methods of structural equation modeling (SEM) and path analysis in order to evaluate and interpret the interrelationship and causality structure among the variables.  Results and Discussion Exception of some neglects, description of the variables showed no difference in quality of life evaluation between the twin age, gender, marriage and geographic region groups of respondents. The complex and multiple interrelation of the variables and their direct and indirect effects on the quality of life evaluation has casually analyzed and interpreted using the advanced path analysis and structural equation modeling statistical procedures. In addition to the main structural model for analyzing the quality of life evaluation, five casual path models have also analyzed in detail for assessing the interrelations of independent variables, based on the identification and configuration of conceptual-analytic framework of the study. Referring to the total direct and indirect effects, the socio-economic status (SES), dwelling situation, recreational activities and facilities have respectively been the most positive and then, the sense of relative deprivation, stressful affaires and age the negative factors influenced the villagers’ evaluation of quality of life. Model fit indices and some future recommendations have represented finally. Conclusion Among the measured and studied determinant variables of rural quality of life, two non-significant variables of environmental situations and social capital are collective ones in nature, in contrary of others. This indicates and reveals that the self evaluation of rural peoples from quality of their lives do not correlates with their attitudes on collective affaires. Contrarily, the personal view points and their families’ situation have been the main determinants of this evaluation. Accordingly, the individual needs and problems are nowadays more important determinants and preferred apprehensions than collective affaires in view of villagers for their quality of life. This individualism is in the contradiction with the old and long lasting collectivist properties and determinants of rural communities in the past and seems be due to the deep and widespread technological evolutions and especially the information and communication revolution in recent century, apprised local communities the gap and inequalities between the urban societies and them.