اولویت‌بندی توسعه استان‌های کشور به لحاظ برخورداری از تاسیسات گردشگری بین‌راهی

پژوهش حاضر باهدف سطح‌بندی استان‌های کشور و اولویت‌بندی توسعه آن‌ها به لحاظ برخورداری از تاسیسات گردشگری بین‌راهی به نگارش درآمده تا ضمن شناخت نابرابری‌های بین استان‌ها، کمبود و اولویت توسعه هرکدام از آن‌ها مشخص شود. پژوهش برحسب هدف، کاربردی و از بُعد روش، توصیفیتحلیلی می‌باشد. روش جمع‌آوری داده‌ها به‌صورت کتابخانه‌ای اسنادی و با استناد به آمار اداره کل میراث فرهنگی، صنایع‌دستی و گردشگری کشور بوده است. جهت رتبه‌بندی استان‌ها از تکنیک topsis و آنتروپی شانون و برای سطح‌بندی آن‌ها از تحلیل خوشه‌ای استفاده گردیده که نتایج در نرم‌افزار arcgis تصویرسازی شده است. نتایج رتبه‌بندی استان‌های کشور دال بر وجود نابرابری در برخورداری از تاسیسات گردشگری بین‌راهی است، به‌گونه‌ای که مازندران از بین 9 شاخص به‌تنهایی ایده‌آل مثبت 3 شاخص را به خود اختصاص داده است. نتایج اولویت‌بندی توسعه نیز حاکی از آن است که استان‌ها از مجموع 270 بار، مجموعاً 109 بار (40.3 درصد) در اولویت اول توسعه قرارگرفته‌اند و این بدین معنی است که استان‌ها در مجموع با کمبود قابل‌توجهی در زمینه تاسیسات گردشگری بین‌راهی مواجه هستند. استان‌های تهران، خوزستان و فارس با 9 بار (100 درصد) جای گرفتن در اولویت اول توسعه، بیشترین کمبود را در برخورداری از تاسیسات گردشگری بین‌راهی دارا بوده‌اند، درحالی‌که سمنان با 8 بار (88.8 درصد) قرار گرفتن در اولویت سوم، وضعیت مطلوبی را از این نظر داراست.

Prioritization of Iran’s Provinces Development in terms of Having Roadside Tourism Facilities

Extended abstractIntroductionAs one of the most important infrastructures, roadside facilities play a key role in meeting the passengers’ needs, communication facilities, children’s parks, relief and health facilities and so on; so that at present, the integration of road welfare services in the form of road welfareservice complexes is considered as a common accepted method in the world. For several years now, the construction of welfare service complexes between roads and tourism facilities on Iran’s roads has been considered in order to organize road services and enhance the welfare of road travelers. What is obvious is that Iran’s provinces do not equally benefit from these facilities and do not have these facilities depending on their needs and the volume of passenger and tourist traffic. Accordingly, the current study has been conducted based on the available statistics and with the purpose of ranking the Iranian provinces in terms of having urban tourism facilities, so that while recognizing the inequalities among the provinces, the weakness of each province are identified and the development of each of the nine elements of roadside tourism in the country’s provinces are prioritize. MethodologyIn terms of purpose, this is an applied study of descriptiveanalytical type. The data collection method is library and with the main emphasis on the documents of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Iran. To achieve a logical answer to the main purposes of the research, nine main indicators of roadside tourism facilities of the provinces of the country have been utilized that were leveled by TOPSIS technique and the distance of each province to the ideal positive was determined. Moreover, Shannon entropy coefficient was used for weighing the indicators. After ranking the provinces, they were leveled based on the average distance from the positive ideal by cluster analysis and the provinces with similar status were assigned to similar clusters. After leveling the provinces, the extent of passenger traffic volume was compared with the performance level of each of the roadside tourist facilities of the provinces of the country to investigate the needs of this sector as well as the development priorities.Results and discussion According to the TOPSIS technique, among the options in the welfareservice complex facilities of Isfahan province, catering complexes and restaurants of Khorasan Razavi province, Tir Park of Zanjan province, food store of Qom province, chelokebabi (kebab and rice), kebabi and Jegaraki (liver selling store), traditional restaurant, coffee house and tea house of Mazandaran, and the mosque and prayer hall of Hamedan province are the ideal options.Then, “cluster analysis” was employed to examine homogeneous areas in benefiting from the nine indicators of roadside tourism facilities in order to identify homogeneous levels. The level of passenger traffic volume was also compared with the performance level of roadside tourism facilities in the provinces of the country. “Yellow” color shows the first prioritized provinces in need of development; “green” color represents “proportionality” with the second priority of development; and “orange” color represents the “optimal level” with the third priority of development. In this section, the provincial priorities for the development of roadside tourism facilities are determined according to the comparisons made, as follows:West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khorasan Razavi, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Fars, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Golestan, Hamedan provinces are in the first priority of development in terms of “chelokebabi” index. East and West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Fars, Qazvin, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Gilan, Lorestan, Markazi, and Hamedan provinces are in the first priority in terms of “food sales” index.East and West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khorasan Razavi, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Fars, Qazvin, Golestan, Gilan, Markazi, and Hamedan provinces are in the first priority of “kebabi and jegaraki” index development. Moreover, East Azerbaijan, Bushehr, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Fars, Qazvin, Kurdistan, Kerman, Kermanshah, Golestan, Gilan, Lorestan, Mazandaran, and Hamedan provinces are in the first priority of “hospitality complex and restaurants” index development. Regarding the “traditional restaurant, coffee and tea house” index, it can be claimed that East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khorasan Razavi, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Fars, Kermanshah, Gilan, Lorestan, Central, and Hamedan provinces are the first priority of development. This is while, in terms of “restaurant” index, East Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchistan, Fars, Qazvin, Kurdistan, Kermanshah, Golestan, Gilan, Lorestan, and Hamedan provinces are in the first priority of development. ConclusionOut of 270 times, provinces have been in the first priority of development 109 times (40.3%). This means the provinces are totally facing a significant shortage of roadside tourism facilities. Furthermore, they have been in the second priority of development 95 times (35.1%), and they are in the third priority of development 66 times (24.4%). With nine times (100%) being in the first priority of development, Tehran, Khuzestan and Fars provinces are the ones with the most shortages in roadside tourism facilities. As a general recommendation, the interaction of two public and private complexes should be recognized as a model in the country in order to attract investors, ensure them for investment, and as a factor in creating large and wellknown investment movements in the context of tourism facilities. Prioritization of the development of provinces in terms of roadside tourism facilities appropriate to the volume of passengers may be an effective factor in declining the current inequalities among the provinces of the country.