Rural Second Homes and Their Impacts on Rural Development: A Case Study in East Iran

Abstract

Previously, rural tourism has developed due to population growth, urbanization, development of transportation, and communication routes. In this context, rural second homes (RSHs) are considered as one of the main instruments of permanent and temporary residency tourism. This study intended to evaluate the impacts that “rural second homes” have on rural development in the Khorashad village in the South Khorasan province of Iran. Data were collected through a questionnaire. Using a random sampling method, 146 permanent rural residents were selected. Results showed that in the view of the respondents, the most important positive and negative impacts of RSHs were, respectively, the physical-environment and socio-cultural aspects of the area. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between job type, gender, and purchase/construction year of the RSHs and people’s perceptions toward the impacts of RSHs. The study concluded that the most important strategies to reduce negative impacts and increase positive impacts of the RSHs are to, respectively, improve public policies and design geographical distribution patterns in order to develop RSHs.

1. Introduction

In the last century, natural environment and green landscapes have been an important tool in regional development that have gradually affected developmental processes [1]. As nature can be a significant asset for creating new tourism jobs, the processes of industrial and post-industrial development and the bustle of urban life have resulted in major concerns regarding rural areas that either have natural or man-made “nature” attractions for visitors who wish to spend leisure-time in the area. The emergence of environmental problems, such as air pollution, has led people to spend their vacations in villages that are home to villagers in order to relieve stress and escape urban life. Therefore, the actual and perceived rural life is an important element of the rural tourism experience, which is part of the economic, social, and cultural development of rural communities [2,3]. In recent years, rural tourism has developed due to population growth, urbanization, the development of transportation and communication routes, economic growth, transferring capital, and the income and employment from industrial, urban, and developed areas to non-industrial regions [3,4,5,6,7,8]. In general, rural tourism is a developmental tool that is used to protect natural resources and can also affect the long-term growth of tourism without damaging the natural environment [7,9,10,11]. In this context, rural second homes (RSHs) are considered as one of the main instruments of permanent and temporary residential tourism [12,13,14] and have been an issue of discussion among tourism experts, real estate agents, and politicians [4,15]. RSHs are defined as a “property which is the occasional residence of a household that usually lives elsewhere and is primarily used for recreational purposes” [16] (p. 9). According to Coppock (1977) [17], there are three socio-economic processes that trigger RSHs: (1) the higher disposable income; (2) greater leisure time from reduced working hours; and (3) higher rates of car mobility. According to Polo Peña et al. (2011) [18], the rural tourism sector constitutes a sector of great importance for the progress of rural areas and the sustainable development of advanced economies, and also contributes to reducing regional disparities. Furthermore, smaller businesses in rural areas play a strategic role in the sustainable development of economies, in the context of which the rural tourism sector particularly stands out. The use of marketing practices appropriate for the goals, capacities, and resources of such enterprises is proposed as a mechanism which improves their performance.

According to the Quebec declaration on ecotourism, the economic, social, and environmental impacts of tourism should be considered in order to recognize the principles of sustainable ecotourism [19]. Different studies have analyzed the impacts of RSHs on rural development [16,17,20,21,22,23,24]. Most of them discuss that the RSHs could have both positive and negative impacts on rural areas in terms of their economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects. In general, the development of RSHs needs to be suitably planned and its economic, social, environmental, and physical factors need sufficient attention, otherwise, it could result in many negative impacts [12]. RSHs provide a number of economic, social, and cultural conflicts and contestation, such as increasing property prices, local inflation, increasing costs associated with the increased provision of infrastructure and services, pollution, and the clearance of vegetation and deforestation [25]. They are also a serious threat to the traditional rural social fabric and can lead to an increase in migration from rural to urban areas [26]. Thus, the growth of the RSH sector gives rise to a number of new challenges, conflicts, and contestations in rural communities.

On the other hand, concurrent with the development of tourism throughout the world, rural tourism has become a formidable form of tourism practice in various destinations to overcome some of the social, economic, and environmental challenges associated with declining rural economies. Rural tourism has been increasingly determined as the most powerful engine for economic growth via transferring capital and incomes from developed urban areas to rural areas. The RSH in many rural communities represents a paradigm example of these developments [24]. Considering the incredible importance and role of RSHs in rural development, this survey study aims to analyze how permanent residents perceive the effects of RSHs and identify strategies to reduce the negative and increase the positive impacts of RSHs. The objectives of this study will help to obtain a better understanding about how permanent residents perceive the impacts of RSH, and identify strategies to decrease the negative and increase the positive impacts. The term permanent resident refers to local/native villagers. In the rest of the text, ‘permanent resident’ will be used to describe this group of local/native villagers. More specifically, this study explores the phenomenon of RSH based on environmental-physical, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions by analyzing the perceptions of local rural populations against such development.

The novel contribution of this article is to identify the negative impacts along with positive ones, as this is a significant gap in the current literature of this topic. The novelty of the study can also be understood since in developing countries, like Iran, few studies have focused on the impacts of RSHs and this type of information is still scarce. More detailed descriptions of RSHs have been provided in the next sections. Accordingly, this paper first provides background information on RSHs, the impacts of RSHs, and RSHs in Iran. Then, it describes the methodology and data that were collected and analyzed in this study. Afterwards, the results are explained. Finally, several discussions are elaborated followed by a conclusion on the research findings.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Rural Second Homes

Despite the long history of their formation and development, RSHs have mainly been referred to since World War II due to the increased income and improved well-being of countries which affected people’s desire to spend their leisure-time in non-urban areas [14]. Also, the improving public transport systems and higher rates of car mobility allowed people to become interested in non-urban areas for leisure by providing access to second homes in rural areas [27,28]. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in the United States, in 1992, more than 70% of people could reach rural and agricultural areas in order to enjoy a variety of entertainment. In Hong Kong, the number of people who tend to have RSHs across the border yet still retain their primary homes increased [29]. Approximately 8.3% of the total number of households in Hong Kong bought RSHs by 2005 [30], however, in recent years, significant changes in the number of RSHs have occurred around the world. In the United States, RSHs development increased from 1,652,546 units in 1980 to 3,578,718 units in 2000, while in Canada they have increased from 444,900 units in 1973 to more than 605,000 units in 1992. In the UK, the number of RSHs increased from 229,186 units in 2005 to 245,384 units in 2009, with an annual growth rate of 2.6%. Additionally, some countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, and Australia have provided favorable conditions for foreign investors that purchase RSHs [13]. It is also important to know that RSHs affect the lifestyle of permanent residents. In fact, an increase in income, expanded job opportunities, connections between permanent residents and newcomers, and the opportunity for permanent residents to expand their knowledge and life skills have improved the quality of life due to the development of RSHs [31,32,33].

Due to the differences between lifestyles in various countries, there is no consensus on the exact definition of second homes [34,35,36]. However, according to the Dartington Amenity Research Trust (1977) [37], the idea of property, long-leased or rented on a yearly basis or longer, as the occasional residence of a household that usually lives elsewhere, can be referred to as a RSH. Nevertheless, RSHs are defined in areas in rural regions that have good climates and environments to spend time [37]. RSHs are often purchased or rented by households that live in other regions. Yet, after the advent of RSHs as a topic of research in 1970, there is still ambiguity over the definition of RSHs. In general, based on [38], potential RSH consumers are looking for opportunities to relax in a quiet recreational area outside their residential environment or are simply escaping their daily busy lives [39]. Some of these people could actually spend more time in the RSHs outside of their urban environment than in their primary home in order to save travel time [40]. RSHs affect all the aspects of rural life including relationships, behaviours, and actions [13]. With the development of RSHs and the increasing population of villages, more services are required within rural areas, which in turn, require suitable planning in order to develop transport routes and trails in the village. Accordingly, more government facilities and investments will be assigned to these villages. Additionally, once people have established RSHs, they try to spend both their leisure time and money within the region of their RSHs; building some facilities (e.g., schools, banks, hospitals, shops, and supermarkets) [32,41,42].

2.2. Impacts of RSHs

RSHs have different social, cultural, economic, and environmental impacts on rural regions as well as their rural communities [13,42,43]. Some of these impacts depend on the features of the local community, such as how the outcomes produced by RSHs are spent on the rural area. The development of RSHs can create connections between permanent residents and newcomers who visit and use RSHs. This creates an opportunity for permanent residents to expand their knowledge and life skills as well as to gain new experiences from others [44,45]. RSHs also impact their surrounding area in different ways. They can produce a flow of money into rural regions through the initial purchase price of the property, the money spent on renovation and improvements, increased tax income, and money spent on food, leisure, and other services [46,47]. RSHs can also cause the growth of other types of tourism by attracting friends and relatives to the area, instigating regional development and increasing benefits that can, in turn, inspire facilities for other types of tourism [15].

Despite these advantages, RSHs can also be the source of some problems that cause the loss of development. However, the impacts of RSHs, whether positive or negative, depend on the circumstances of the permanent residents. In some areas, because of the deprivation and poverty of the permanent residents, there is no chance of co-operation, especially socio-economic endeavors, and therefore, RSHs may not have significant advantages. Instead, RSHs can increase the cost of land and negatively affect the housing status of permanent residents (especially young people) and in some cases, lead to an increase in immigration from rural to urban areas [24].

Notably, regional economic disparities are another important factor that should be considered in the context of RSHs [30,34]. Given the fact that housing prices are generally lower in rural regions compared to urban areas, combined with the fact that a wider supply of RSHs exists nowadays, people are increasingly willing to buy RSHs. The important point is that the price of RSHs increases due to the growing demand for houses in rural areas. Consequently, the regional economy can be strongly affected [17,34,48]. Furthermore, considering the increase in income, rural people are motivated to buy houses in urban areas and to migrate there [49]. As a result, villages could be transformed into seasonal resorts, without any inhabitants for most of the year. Such villages lose their authentic character, cultural identity, as well as their ancient traditions, thus losing their appeal as tourist attractions [2,13].

Besides economic problems, RSHs can create a number of socio-cultural difficulties. Given the fact that RSH users or owners are often from other areas, they usually have different socio-cultural features than permanent residents who live in the village [23,50,51]. Some of the permanent residents look at them as their socio-cultural enemies due to having various socio-cultural features, which all may lead to socio-cultural conflicts between the RSH users (owners) and the permanent residents [23,26,46]. Accordingly, the social factors of RSHs require sufficient attention; otherwise, RSHs could result in many negative impacts [12]. RSHs are not universally welcomed by permanent residents because of the fact that they perceive that the vital resources of their village could be used for developing the countryside in a more profitable and healthier way than to use them as a second home for people who do not belong to or primarily reside in the village [23]. The assumption is that most of the RSH projects are growing without any kind of comprehensive policy or adequate planning mechanisms. In this case, ecological, social, and cultural conflicts can result in disappointment and conflicts between rural people and visitors [15].

2.3. RSHs in Iran

In Iran, the tourism sector mostly involved royal families and elite people who spent their spare time in the countryside [52]. The sector has gradually grown and is now practiced by more and more people due to the boom in their economic position and modernization [53]. So, the tourism sector has varied based on different cultures and societies over time. The formation of RSHs in Iran refers to the Ghajar era (about 200 years ago). The villages in Iran have always been regarded by Iranian kings as places for leisure during the winter and summer time, thanks to their favored climates and great environment. Nowadays, the majority of wealthy and rich people have more than one second home (often in two different regions) for leisure purposes [15,54]. For instance, the Niavaran Palace in Tehran is one of the seasonal second homes built and used by the Pahlavi dynasty for the summer time. However, over the last two decades in the country, RSHs have been considered much more than in the past. As a result, rural permanent residents have increasingly invested in rural and mountainous regions in order to build villa homes. Most of them try to build a second home for guests and visitors who come to the village. With urbanization booming, residents from the cities also wish to build second homes in rural areas for recreation and relaxation purposes. RSHs have grown rapidly in Iran for a variety of reasons, such as cheap rural land, less traffic, less financial inflation, and the greater availability of fresh and unpolluted air [15,55].

Although RSHs have been investigated by many scholars in Iran [24,42,55], no study has focused on the impacts of RSHs in this area. They have studied this phenomenon in the rural areas north of Tehran and their studies have shown that the area has suffered from poor management and a lack of planning. As a consequence, RSHs have neither appropriately created opportunities of leisure for the citizens in Tehran nor have they improved the economic and social lives of the rural people. In contrast, to create opportunities, migration has had undesirable consequences, such as water pollution, destruction of natural landscapes, destruction of and land use changes of gardens, declining agricultural activities, and social dichotomy that have all been increasing as a result of RSHs. According to Hassanzadeh (2014) [24], although RSHs had a significant role in maintaining the local lifestyle in the past, nowadays, they are the source of a number of socio-cultural, economic, and environmental problems for the permanent residents [55,56,57]. For example, the Noshahr villages in the Mazandaran province (north of Iran) possessed great natural attractions, but now, face overpopulation, structural changes, and pollution. In addition to that, the locals must deal with limited water resources, electricity, and land since they are forced to share them with tourists and second home owners. Another negative impact of RSHs is the deforestation that has occurred in most parts of this region. Deforestation as a direct impact of RSHs points to destroying jungles and the green environment for personal use and recreational purposes [24].

The number of RSHs has also grown in Iran in the South Khorasan province (especially in Birjand’s villages). This area consists of dry desert and great mountainous and natural landscapes, which have attracted many visitors to the rural areas in this province, more than in the past decade. As a result, RSHs have been increasingly constructed and developed in those rural areas. Although RSHs have been one of the most important phenomena in this province, no studies have focused on the impacts of RSHs in this area. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the impacts of RSHs on rural development in Iran to identify the changes that RSHs might bring to their communities, using a survey method as describe in the following sections.

Given the objective of the study, the following hypotheses were formulated:

• There exist stronger negative than positive impacts of RSHs on rural development in the view of the people.
• People perceive the impacts of RSHs in three different categories: environmental-physical (e.g., pollution and deforestation), economic (increasing employment, higher prices of certain goods and services, selling local products), and socio-cultural (e.g., education and cultural development, immigration).
• People with different personal and professional attributes have different perceptions toward RSHs.

3. Methodology

3.1. Description of the Study Area

This study was carried out in Khorashad, a humid village in the Khorasan province of Iran (Figure 1). The population of Khorashad consists of about 1000 people in 235 permanent residents households whose manners and characters are of a kind and friendly disposition. Most residents are engaged in agriculture, producing saffron and barberry for export. Beet and wheat are also cultivated there. Grapes, black plums, apricots, melons, watermelons, almonds, and pistachios are other prominent products of this village. The village is known for its beautiful nature, its notable people, and its handicraft. As a result of these unique features, the construction of RSHs in recent years has been increasing in this area. RSHs that are built by individuals and a number of organizations have brought attention to the Khorashad village and have made the village a tourist attraction for visitors. Along with the economic growth in the Khorashad village, the RSHs have also developed. The construction of second homes in the village began in early 1995 and there are presently about 90 RSHs in the village and 40 under construction. Most RSHs are built with an average surface area of 300 m² [58].

3.2. Study Sample

According to Equation (1), the sample size was calculated based on Cochran’s formula, as follows:

$$n=\frac{N{t}^{2}pq}{N{d}^2+t^{2}pq}$$

(1)

where:

• n (146) is the sample size,
• N is the total number of households in the selected area (235),
• t is t Student that is the value for selected alpha level (i.e., t = 1.96 for a 95% confidence level)
• pq is the standard deviation of the 30 respondents in the pilot study (0.25),
• d is the preferred likelihood accuracy (0.05).

Accordingly, 146 permanent resident households were randomly selected from the 235 permanent households through a simple random sampling technique.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

In this study, a survey was conducted in 2015 to collect data. In order to collect quantitative data, a questionnaire-based survey was employed. The questionnaire was completed through face-to-face interviews. Afterwards, the data were analyzed in a quantitative way (descriptive statistics and factor analysis by SPSS (version 17, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)). The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by a panel of experts (including professors from different universities). The reliability was confirmed by estimating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients that were higher than the acceptable rates for all the scales used in the study. Next, a pilot study was conducted to pre-test the questionnaire. The final version of the questions was developed based on the results of the pilot study. The alpha coefficient was estimated at 0.84, which indicates the high internal consistency of the questionnaire which was improved based on the results from the pilot study. Descriptive statistics and relevant statistical tests including the t-test, F-test, and factor analysis were applied. In this study, the physical-environment (including pollution and deforestation), economic (including increasing employment, higher prices of certain goods and services, selling local products) and socio-cultural (including education and cultural development, immigration) impacts of RSHs were considered as dependent variables and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents were considered as independent variables.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

According to the findings of this study, 84.2% of the respondents were married, with an average age of 41.73 years. Less than half (40%) of the respondents had a primary education with an average family size of 4.34 members. The occupation of the majority of the respondents was non-agricultural jobs with 8.16 years of work experience. Most of them (82.9%) did not have any second home anywhere else and had been residents in the village for an average of 17.53 years. Most of those respondents who had their second homes in the Khorashad village, bought them between 2002 and 2011.

4.2. RSHs’ Impacts on Rural Development

As shown in

Table 1. Statistical distribution of descriptive indicators of the RSHs’ impacts on the development of the Khorashad village.

Impacts	Aspect	Mean *	SD	CV	Priority
Positive impacts	Environmental-physical	3.8	0.567	0.149	1
	Economic	3.37	0.629	0.187	2
	Socio-cultural	3.25	0.659	0.214	3
	Total	3.47
Negative impacts	Socio-cultural	3.53	0.553	0.157	1
	Environmental-physical	3.94	0.652	0.165	2
	Economic	4	0.698	0.175	3
	Total	3.64

* Range: 1–5, SD = standard deviation, CV = coefficient of variance.

, the average of the negative impacts of RSHs on the development of the Khorashad village was more than the average of the positive impacts (respectively, 3.64 compared to 3.47). This shows that despite some positive effects of RSHs, they have more negative impacts, that might be due to the lack of planning and mismanagement of available opportunities for developing tourism in the study area. Moreover, “environmental-physical”, “economic”, and “socio-cultural” impacts were respectively the most important positive impacts of the RSHs. This shows that RSHs benefit mainly from the villages physically, environmentally, and economically. On the other hand, the “socio-cultural”, “environmental-physical”, and “economic” impacts were respectively the most important negative impacts of the RSHs. This means that although permanent residents agree with the development of RSHs in their communities and welcome the modern lifestyle, they might have some problems with regard to the different socio-cultural attitudes that newcomers bring to rural areas.

4.3. Association between the Effects of RSHs

The results also revealed that there were some significant correlations between the impacts. According to

Table 2. Matrix of correlation coefficients of the rural second homes (RSH)’ impacts on the development of the Khorashad village.

Impacts	+ Economic	+ Socio-Cultural	+ Environmental-Physical	− Economic	− Socio-Cultural	− Environmental-Physical
+ Economic	1
+ Socio-cultural	0.473 **	1
+ Environmental-physical	0.498 **	0.105	1
− Economic	−0.252 **	−0.398 **	0.07	1
− Socio-cultural	−0.03	−0.308 **	0.101	0.573 **	1
− Environmental-physical	−0.08	0.041	0.146	0.104	0.381 **	1

Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001; + refers to positive and − refers to negative impacts of RSH.

, a significant correlation was found between the positive economic, socio-cultural impacts (p ≤ 0.01, r = 0.473), and the environment-physical positive impacts (p ≤ 0.01, r = 0.498); the economic negative impacts and socio-cultural negative impacts (p ≤ 0.01, r = 0.573); the socio-cultural negative impacts and environmental-physical negative impacts (p ≤ 0.01, r = 0.381); the socio-cultural negative impacts and the economic positive impacts (p ≤ 0.01, r = −0.398). Therefore, it can be concluded that the different impacts of RSHs that had a significant relationship with each other should be considered simultaneously.

4.4. Comparing Respondents’ Perceptions toward the Economic Impacts of RSHs

According to

Table 3. Comparing the economic impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (t-test).

Characteristics	Groups	No.	Mean	t	p-Value
Gender	Male	123	3.3882	0.84	0.402
	Female	23	3.3681
Originality	native	93	3.3163	−1.352	0.178
	Non-native	53	3.4623
Having a home in the city	Yes	44	3.3977	0.358	0.721
	No	102	3.357

and

Table 4. Comparing the economic impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (F-test).

Characteristics	F	p-Value
Age	1.031	0.408
Number of family members	0.962	0.412
Education	0.464	0.834
Occupation	2.888 *	0.025
Background of living in village	0.832	0.588
Background of working in village	0.938	0.495
The extent of residentially	0.091	0.913
The year of buying home in village	1.991	0.099

Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

, no significant difference was found between the perceptions of the respondents with different socio-economic attributes (gender, originality, as well as having a home in the city) with regard to the economic impacts of RSHs. Moreover, only “occupation” had a significant difference within the groups of the respondents and their perceptions toward the economic impacts of RSHs on the development of the Khorashad village (p = 0.025, F = 2.888).

4.5. Comparing Respondents’ Perceptions towards the Socio-Cultural Impacts of RSHs

Based on

Table 5. Comparing the socio-cultural impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (t-test).

Characteristics	Groups	No.	Mean	t	p-Value
Gender	Male	123	3.8647	0.561	0.583
	Female	23	3.4269
Originality	native	93	3.828	0.086	−1.731
	Non-native	53	3.7393
Having a home in the city	Yes	44	3.8822	0.095	−1.681
	No	102	3.7585

, no significant difference was found between the socio-economic attributes of the respondents (gender, originality, and having a home in the city) and the socio-cultural impacts of RSHs on the development of the Khorashad village. Moreover, there were no significant differences between any of the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents and the socio-cultural impacts of RSHs on the development of the Khorashad village (

Table 6. Comparing the socio-cultural impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (F-test).

Characteristics	F	p-Value
Age	0.895	0.500
Number of family members	0.794	0.499
Education	0.950	0.461
Occupation	1.016	0.402
Background of Living in village	1.244	0.273
Background of working in village	0.951	0.483
The extent of residentially	0.060	0.942
The year of buying home in village	1.595	0.179

).

4.6. Comparing Respondents’ Perceptions towards the Environmental-Physical Impacts of RSHs

Lastly, the results showed that among the socio-economic attributes of the respondents, “gender” (p = 0.001, T = 3.530) and “the year of buying a home in village” (p = 0.018, T = 3.073) had a significant difference with the environmental-physical impacts of RSHs on the development of the Khorashad village with regard to the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (

Table 7. Comparing the environmental-physical impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (t-test).

Characteristics	Groups	No.	Mean	t	p-Value
Gender	Male	123	3.8647	0.001	3.530 **
	Female	23	3.4269
Originality	native	93	3.828	0.365	0.908
	Non-native	53	3.7393
Having a home in the city	Yes	44	3.8822	0.228	1.212
	No	102	3.7585

Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

and

Table 8. Comparing the environmental-physical impacts of RSHs and the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents (F-test).

Characteristics	F	p-Value
Age	0.994	0.432
Number of family members	0.391	0.759
Education	1.361	0.235
Occupation	0.698	0.594
Background of Living in village	1.364	0.211
Background of working in village	0.597	0.798
The amount of residentially	0.107	0.899
The year of buying house in village	3.073 *	0.018

Note: * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

).

4.7. Factor Affecting the Impacts of RSHs

Principal Component Analysis in SPSS was used in order to identify strategies to increase the positive impacts and reduce the negative impacts of RSHs. This analysis is usually recommended to break down the variance of each factor into common and unique portions when the measured variables might have a linear function of the unmeasured variables [7,59]. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was equal to 0.822. The KMO index is able to show as if the sampling correctly predicts (based on correlation and partial correlation) whether data are likely to be factored into the analysis well. In other words, KMO can be used to identify which variables should be dropped from the model given their multi collinear role. Also, the value of the Bartlett test was 5245.104, which represents a high significance level. Only those factors (five factors) with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.0 were considered in the analysis. These factors accounted for approximately 77.267% of the total variance (

Table 9. Elements and Eigen values resulting from the factor analysis on the strategies to increase the positive and reduce the negative impacts of the RSHs.

Elements	Eigenvalues	Variance	Cumulative Percentage
1	12.938	43.128	43.128
2	4.875	16.249	59.378
3	2.556	8.519	67.896
4	1.601	5.337	73.234
5	1.21	4.034	77.267

). Additionally, a scree plot of the eigenvalues (Figure 2) was used to identify the breaks or discontinuities in determining the number of factors. The factors were labelled as: (1) organizing government policies; (2) designing geographical distribution patterns; (3) reorganizing rural tourism; (4) developing education and culture; and (5) developing a socio-political perspective (

Table 10. Factor analysis on the impacts of the RSHs.

No.	Variables	Factors
		1 a	2 b	3 c	4 d	5 e
1	Taxation of the RSHs for equipping and developing public welfare facilities	0.8810	0.831	−0.254	−0.038	0.104
2	Preparing a comprehensive tourism and development plans for the Khorashad village	0.592	0.859	−0.028	−0.255	0.065
3	Training villagers in order to effectively interact with the RSH owners	0.804	0.568	−0.167	−0.275	−0.010
4	Training RSH owners to effectively interact with indigenous villagers	0.833	−0.194	−0.218	−0.203	0.082
5	Promoting local people’s participation in optimizing development processes of the RSHs in the village	0.315	0.606	−0.560	0.090	0.384
6	Planning in order to increase understanding of the rural community by RSH owners in the region	0.609	−0.116	0.512	−0.199	0.192
7	Development of recreational spaces to increase the survival time of the RSH owners in the village	0.572	0.479	0.432	−0.210	0.001
8	Approving and implementing environmental rules in the region	0.775	−0.296	0.063	−0.446	−0.178
9	Designing integrated management systems of the RSHs and monitoring the spread of RSHs	0.631	−0.026	0.416	0.371	−0.028
10	Allocating abandoned land or determining specific areas of the village for the construction of the RSHs	0.484	0.041	−0.127	0.067	−0.451
11	Research, training, and development of a rural tourism center in the country’s cultural heritage and Tourism Organization	0.567	−0.475	0.004	0.153	−0.386
12	Including the RSH owners as members in the village council	0.374	−0.333	0.127	0.628	0.194

For each factor, three highest factor loadings are indicated in bold. ^a Organizaing of government policies (Eigenvalue = 12.938); ^b Designing geographical distribution patterns (Eigenvalue = 4.875); ^c Reorganizing of rural tourism (Eigenvalue = 2.556); ^d Education and cultural development (Eigenvalue = 1.601); ^e Development of socio-political perspective (Eigenvalue = 1.210).

).

5. Discussion

The RSHs have undoubtedly had a huge impact on the behavior of permanent residents, lifestyles, marriages, and even their life goals [24]. They have increased the consumption of the permanent residents and reduced their productivity due to increasing demands and services [60]. Furthermore, they can increase the demand for historical tours which provide more cultural opportunities for the permanent residents [61]. Different studies have analyzed the impacts of RSHs on rural development [16,17,20,21,22,23,24]. Most of them agreed that the RSHs could have both positive and negative impacts (including economic, social, cultural, and environmental) on rural areas.

RSHs have increased rapidly in Iran due to various reasons, such as cheap rural land, less traffic, less financial inflation, and more availability of fresh air and clean untouched environments in the rural areas. RSHs in Iran improved the economic situation and lifestyle of villagers and permanent residents and forced them to develop their lifestyle and living conditions. Due to the fact that RSHs in most of the rural areas in Iran have developed without any attention or consideration of the permanent resident and their socio-cultural structures [62], they could not have a positive significant impact on the sustainable development of rural areas.

According to the results, it can be concluded that the negative effects of RSHs are much more prominent than their positive impacts in rural areas. Accordingly, the first hypothesis can be accepted as there exists stronger negative than positive impacts of RSHs on rural development. The findings of this study are in line with previous studies [22,23,24] that show that RSHs have both positive and negative impacts on rural development.

According to the results, the second hypothesis can be also accepted as there are environmental-physical, economic, and socio-cultural impacts of RSHs. In terms of positive impacts, environmental-physical and economic impacts were more important than socio-cultural impacts. The outcomes of the development of RSHs will result in higher prices of certain goods and services provided by local businesses. Therefore, it can be concluded that economic improvements such as the extent and strength of economic integration between newcomers (seasonal residents) and the local residents will make some positive impacts for RSHs. This finding is confirmed [34,47,62], but is not in line with other studies [63,64]. Also, in terms of negative impacts, the socio-cultural impacts were the most important negative effects of RSHs on rural development. This finding can be confirmed by [12,24,42,47,65].

The results also revealed that there is a significant relationship between the effects investigated. In other words, most of the impacts of RSHs (both positive and negative) had a significant relationship with one another. For example, the positive economic impacts had bonds with positive socio-cultural and environment-physical impacts, and the negative economic impacts had a relationship with socio-cultural negative impacts and so on. Moreover, based on the results, it can be concluded that some of the variables and socio-economic attributes of the respondents, such as “gender” (p < 0.01, T = 3.530), “occupation” (p < 0.05, F = 2.888), and “the year of buying a house in the village” (p < 0.05, F = 3.073), were more effective than the others. In other words, these variables created a different attitude among the respondents in terms of the positive or negative impacts of RSHs on the rural development of the Khorashad village. Accordingly, the third hypothesis can be accepted as some the personal and professional characteristics of the respondents have a significant relationship with the impacts of RSHs.

Finally, the factor analysis revealed that there were five basic strategies, including: (1) the organization of government policies; (2) the patterns of geographical distribution; (3) the reorganization of rural tourism; (4) education and cultural development, and (5) the development of socio-political insights. The factor analysis further showed that some strategies such as training RSH owners and villagers in order to effectively interact together and develop public welfare facilities, can be considered as the most important type of government policies when dealing with the negative impacts of RSHs. Similar arguments were already observed by previous studies [55,56]. To improve the patterns of geographical distribution, some actions, such as preparing a comprehensive development plan for tourism in the Khorashad village, should be put into action [66]. Moreover, in order to cope with the reorganization of rural tourism, it is necessary to promote the participation of permanent residents in order to optimize the development process of RSHs in the village [15,55]. Additionally, one of the most important ways to improve cultural development is to encourage RSHs owners to become the members of the village council. The village council is the closest governmental body to local communities and the place where policies are applied. However, it is suggested that no more than two non-permanent residents become members of the village council, given that they may have different concerns than the permanent residents of the village. Furthermore, allocating abandoned land or allocating specific areas of the country for the construction of RSHs and related studies, and training and development of rural tourism centered in the country's cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization can be useful and valuable strategies in order to develop socio-political insights [32,42]. Therefore, the strategies identified in this study should be considered in order to increase and improve the positive impacts of RSHs in the Khorashad village.

6. Conclusions

This study showed that although RSHs have some positive impacts, they have more negative impacts due to lack of planning and the poor management of available opportunities for the development of tourism. The most important positive impacts of RSHs on rural development were employment, business investment, increasing trade, development of the culture of the village, reducing desolate land, rural connectivity, improving facilities and equipment, and improvement and changes to the type of the village architecture. In contrast, RSHs have created many problems such as increased prices of agricultural land, job losses in agriculture and animal husbandry, changing the concept of culture among the villagers, social and cultural conflicts among them, creating duality in the environment, changing landscapes, and erosion of the villages. The threats associated with tourism and its undesirable consequences are the destruction of natural landscapes, changes in garden and land use style, increased immigration and declining agricultural activities, and social dichotomy. The results also revealed that most (positive and negative) impacts of RSHs had a significant relationship with one another. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between job type, gender, and the purchase/construction year of the RSHs and people’s perceptions toward the impacts of RSHs. The study concluded that the most important strategies to reduce the negative and increase the positive impacts of RSHs are respectively, to improve public policies and design geographical distribution patterns in order to develop RSHs.

The conclusions of this study suggest some interesting implications for practitioners working in the rural tourism sector. Another main contribution of this study was to identify the strategies that should be considered in order to increase and improve the positive impacts of RSHs in the Khorashad village. This study is not without its limitations. Specifically, the results of this study must be acknowledged as the outcome of a case study and can only be extended to represent one rural area in Iran. As a large country with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, future studies can compare RSHs in other rural areas to evaluate the impacts of RSHs and open more insights for the generalization of the findings. Generalizability to other regions and countries should also be studied. Given the small sample size, the results of the present study should be used with caution. Accordingly, future studies could use larger sample sizes to justify the results of this study. Moreover, given different perceptions of the respondents toward the positive or negative impacts of RSHs on the rural development of Khorashad, we recommend that future studies focus on determining whether and to what extent socio-economic attributes can contribute to the impacts of RSHs in the rural development of Iran.