Volume 13, Issue 48 (9-2024)
serd 2024, 13(48): 65-84 |
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:
amidi S, Ghadiri Masoum M, Khorasani M A, Torkashvand Z. Analysis of the rural entrepreneurship ecosystem of Alborz province. serd 2024; 13 (48) : 4
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3999-en.html
URL: http://serd.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3999-en.html
1- Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. , amidi66@ut.ac.ir
2- Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (2907 Views)
Objective: The rural entrepreneurial ecosystem plays a pivotal role in stimulating entrepreneurship and employment in rural areas. By leveraging entrepreneurship in rural regions, it is possible to address the challenges faced by these areas and create dynamic and innovative economies. Despite favorable climatic, geographic, connectivity, and accessibility conditions, Alborz province has experienced inappropriate economic conditions in its rural areas in recent years, including rising unemployment rates, low economic participation rates, and income disparities between rural and urban households. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the status of the rural entrepreneurial ecosystem in Alborz province as a key economic indicator.
Methods: This research was conducted within a quantitative research methodology. Data collection was carried out through a combination of library research and field surveys, with questionnaires being the primary tool in the field. The statistical population comprised the villages of Alborz province, from which a sample of 33 villages was selected. Using the Cochran formula, a sample size of 380 individuals was determined for completing the questionnaires. For data analysis, statistical tests such as chi-square, one-sample t-test, ANOVA, Duncan’s post hoc test, and Kriging interpolation were employed.
Results: The research findings indicate that the rural entrepreneurial ecosystem in Alborz province is in a suboptimal state. Out of the ten key indicator groups examined, including business indicators, financial indicators, educational indicators, human capital indicators, support indicators, market and customer indicators, social indicators, cultural indicators, infrastructure indicators, and innovation, research, and development indicators, only two groups were found to be in a favorable condition, while the remaining eight groups were in an unfavorable state. Additionally, the geographical distribution of the rural entrepreneurial ecosystem's status varies across the province.
Conclusions: The presence of hard infrastructure such as access to transportation networks and urban centers is insufficient on its own to foster the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Concurrently, the development of soft infrastructure, including financial services, education, various support systems, human and social capital, and research and development, must also be prioritized.
Methods: This research was conducted within a quantitative research methodology. Data collection was carried out through a combination of library research and field surveys, with questionnaires being the primary tool in the field. The statistical population comprised the villages of Alborz province, from which a sample of 33 villages was selected. Using the Cochran formula, a sample size of 380 individuals was determined for completing the questionnaires. For data analysis, statistical tests such as chi-square, one-sample t-test, ANOVA, Duncan’s post hoc test, and Kriging interpolation were employed.
Results: The research findings indicate that the rural entrepreneurial ecosystem in Alborz province is in a suboptimal state. Out of the ten key indicator groups examined, including business indicators, financial indicators, educational indicators, human capital indicators, support indicators, market and customer indicators, social indicators, cultural indicators, infrastructure indicators, and innovation, research, and development indicators, only two groups were found to be in a favorable condition, while the remaining eight groups were in an unfavorable state. Additionally, the geographical distribution of the rural entrepreneurial ecosystem's status varies across the province.
Conclusions: The presence of hard infrastructure such as access to transportation networks and urban centers is insufficient on its own to foster the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Concurrently, the development of soft infrastructure, including financial services, education, various support systems, human and social capital, and research and development, must also be prioritized.
Article number: 4
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
