Constructing Indicator System and Evaluating Regional Development in Iran by Analytic Hierarchy Process

Constructing Indicator System and Evaluating Regional Development in Iran by Analytic Hierarchy Process R. Shaykh Baygloo1 • 1.Assistant Professor (Geography and Urban Planning), Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. Abstract One of the most fundamental executive policies of governments during development programs is creating balanced regional development. Regional inequalities are cited as reasons for growing social unrests, political instabilities, and disintegration. In Iran, these inequalities have been growing at an alarming rate leading to serious problems. So, analysis of development level of regions and consequently, identifying interregional and intraregional inequalities is of great importance in the way of adopting appropriate development policies. The aim of this study is evaluating development level of sub-provinces of Iran and exploring existent inequalities. A system of 54 indicators of different dimensions of regional development was constructed and submitted to Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for this purpose. Analysis of Coefficient of Variation (CV) was also applied to reveal regional inequalities about different dimensions of development. The results of this research showed that there are obvious differentiations among sub-provinces in development level. In addition, spatial distribution of sub-provinces with regards development level indicates that an intensive system of core and periphery exists in the country. So, it is necessary to reduce regional inequalities in Iran to pave way for greater national integration, increase in economic growth and more political stability. Keywords: Development, regional inequalities, Sub-provinces of Iran, National integration, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Coefficient of Variation (CV). • email: [email protected] 1 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran R. Shaykh Baygloo 1.Introduction Inequality and its different dimensions are the significant signs of undeveloped countries. Beside low level of development indicators, these countries suffer from regional inequality and unfair distribution of facilities. Regional inequality is a direct consequence of the pole growth process, as some areas grow faster and achieve greater income and economic development levels than other areas (Song ,et al. ,2000). Along with new opportunities in economic growth, the problem of increasing regional disparity has come in a growing number of developing countries (Hu ,2002). Of course, this problem is quite common to all large and diverse countries where unequal economic conditions in different regions lead to a buildup of social tensions (Fedorov ,2002). Regional inequalities represent a continuing development challenge in most countries, especially those with large geographic areas under their jurisdictions. Large regional disparities represent serious threats as the inability of the state to deal with such inequities creates potential for disunity and, in extreme cases, for disintegration (Shankar & Shah ,2003). The study of inequality and its aspects in different geographical limits has received the attention of planners and politicians in recent years (Yasouri ,2010). There has been considerable empirical research on the nature and causes of differences in regional output and growth (Chen & Groenewold, 2010). A number of these studies have, while discussing disparity, inequality, convergence and divergence, focused on correlations as well as causation between socio-economic variables and human development (Gylfason,1999) .Some other studies have focused on intraregional disparities and regional development (Song ,et al. ,2000). The common understanding in these studies is that intraregional disparities make a large proportion of total regional disparities. Therefore, a careful analysis of regional differences in sources of inequality could be of much help in devising policies for improving income distribution (Yasouri ,2010). Lack of political access and influence, as well as the 2 absence of economic clout, often leave marginalized populations excluded when important development and investment decisions are made, thus worsening their relative economic position in society (Dawson, 2001). Basically, the regional inequities are caused by two basic fields: (1) natural, cultural, social and economical conditions of each geographical region (Natural specifications of regions), and (2) Decisions of policy makers and economical planners (Higniz & Savi ,1997). As typically rich regions have better educated and better skilled labor, the gulf between rich and poor regions widens (Shankar & Shah ,2003). If poorer regions tend to grow faster than their counterparts to bring about reduced regional differentials, it is termed as convergence. Theoretically this may be possible through adoption of proper production technology and dynamics of technological progress which benefit poorer regions. By contrast, phenomenon of divergence is said to occur when richer regions grow faster to further their lead (Purohit ,2008). Regional development policies play an important role as a means of encouraging economic activities in depressed regions and reducing regional disparity (Matsumoto,2008). The reduction in regional differences to stop the movement and displacement of human forces and capital in the direction of preparing the ground for development is very effective. Immigration, poverty, low production and efficiency, unemployment etc. in some areas are the results of inefficient performance of economical, social and cultural foundations, agricultural depression, disorganized growth of population and discriminatory policies. Therefore, the study of economical and social indicators and the determination of the benefit areas are very urgent in the direction of finalizing development guidelines. Developmental programs must follow the improvement and promotion of the level of life. This not only helps the increase of purchase ability, but also provides some facilities in education, health, welfare and other fundamental facilities. Decreasing regional differences, particularly between cities and villages for preventing human Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) and funds movement and migration are very effective in providing the development (Yasouri ,2010). It may be argued that the policy of regional development will never be effective, unless the following is provided: • Clear delimitation of powers and responsibilities between regions and the capital, as well as among intra-regional levels of power; • Financial independence or sufficiency of local budgets for local self-government bodies to discharge their powers; • Promotion of development of backward regions by fiscal and investment support (Fedyuk & Bychenko ,2009). Today, from the social justice point of view, development is no longer means growth, but means the existence of facilities and fair distribution. Recognizing inequity and unbalancing within the framework of different geographical limits is under consideration and the necessities of working in this direction are recognizing the existing condition of every parts of the planning collections such as country, province, city and district and consequently, finding out the existing differences and distinctions and policy making for removing and decreasing the inequities in all parts of the collection. In this field, paying attention to regional inequities in the form of indices is considered as the most important tools of planning that through this, planners will be able to edit and evaluate the procedures and results of their planning in the frame and structure of geographical space (Ziari ,2004). Yet, it should be reminded that analysis of inequality at a very aggregate level might lead to bad conclusions (Cameron ,2002). The main goal of this research is to identify and explore the major inequalities among all sub-provinces of Iran (336 sub-provinces) which is prerequisite for adopting convenient policies for achieving balanced regional development. Other goal was to develop a set of common indicators of regional development. The concept of a region in this research corresponds to the second subdivision level of Iran named subprovince or Shahrestan. Until the point of finalization of this research, the existence of any other research that dealt with the similar problem (monitoring, setting, comparison and evaluating the indicators of regional development in this scale) in Iran has not been determined. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of regional inequalities and regional planning in Iran. Section 3 presents the evaluation framework and methodology for assessment of development level and brief description of AHP and CV methods. . Weighting indicators, assessment of development level of sub-provinces of Iran and regional inequalities are discussed in section 4. Finally, conclusions and remarks are provided in last section. 2. An Overview of Regional Inequalities and Regional Planning in Iran 2.1. Regional inequalities in Iran Regions within a country may be behind other regions in terms of income arising from economic activities. When this is combined with social poverty due to less access to goods and services provided by the public sector, it results in the region being seriously left behind the rest of the country. Inevitably, there is the perpetual effect of the latter on the former type of poverty. Iran is no exception to this process. Regional disparities in Iran have been growing at an alarming rate leading to serious problems including migration with its associated problems from backward provinces to the more affluent ones (Noorbakhsh,2002). The Human Development Report of Iran in 1999 reflects such disparities and reiterates that one of the major human development policies in the country’s Third Plan is to “pay attention to the spatial planning as a long-term framework for social justice and regional balance”. This report observes wide regional disparities within 26 provinces of Iran in terms of Human Development Index (HDI) and Human Poverty Index (HPI). After dividing provinces into higher, medium and lower groups according to the value of their HDI, the report highlights the extent of regional disparities and the need to deal Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 3 R. Shaykh Baygloo with them: “The level of deprivation seen in the third group and the vast areas covered by the provinces in the second group suggest that special disparityreducing measures need to be taken”. The report concludes the analysis of regional disparities in human development by stating that “An improvement in human development in the I.R. of Iran as a whole requires not only a higher rate of economic growth but also a more equitable distribution of health and education facilities” (Plan and Budget Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran and United Nations). In justifying regional inequality in Iran, some pinpoint the lack of natural resources in various areas. It is clear that natural resources are an important factor; however, in the absence of a clear and specific policy, they cannot account entirely for a region’s development status. Some other commentators attribute the regional inequalities in Iran to ethnic and cultural differences and identify a significant relationship between those and the development of the nation’s regions. In response to this, it can be said that while ethnic and cultural differences are not a new issue, regional inequality in its contemporary acute form is a new phenomenon. Another approach holds that the country’s regional inequalities are related to the limitations of regional markets and the market-oriented nature of Iranian industries. It is clear that such an analysis is addressing the effects rather than the causes of the problem (Afrakhteh , 2006). However, two factors are accounted as main causes of spatial inequality in Iran: (1) The centralized and sectoral nature of the political, administrative and social structure of Iran, which began in the mid-19th century with the entry of capitalism and which was institutionalized during the 1920s; and (2) The planning of the national economy according to principles of regional efficiency based on natural resources, along with the capital-oriented policy which expanded via organizational planning from 1949 onwards (Amir Ahmadi , 1986). 2.2. Regional Planning in Iran Regional planning in Iran during the first decade following the Revolution (the 1980s) was based on 4 reducing the development gap between different regions and creating a relative balance in regional development, special attention to the backward areas, control of urban and rural system, preparing the foundation for hierarchical distribution of services and infrastructure in the entire territory (Sheikhi , 1998). 2.2. Regional Planning in Iran Regional planning in Iran during the first decade following the Revolution (the 1980s) was based on reducing the development gap between different regions and creating a relative balance in regional development, special attention to the backward areas, control of urban and rural system, preparing the foundation for hierarchical distribution of services and infrastructure in the entire territory (Sheikhi , 1998). In the second decade after the Revolution (beginning in 1991), a new direction appeared in the regional planning including: • Change of the direction of regional planning from national and interregional levels to intra-regional, regional and sub-regional levels. • Increased attention to organizing plans for rural areas. • Attention to identifying potential and capacities of regions for development (Sheikhi , 2001). Law of the Fourth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2005-2009) states that “In order to establish justice and social stability, to reduce social and economic disparities, to reduce the gap between income deciles and to secure fair distribution of income in the country, as well as to alleviate poverty and deprivation, enabling the poor, via allocation of effective and targeted allocation of the social security resources and payment of subsidy, government is bound to prepare and implement comprehensive plans for eradicating poverty and promoting social justice on the basis of the …” (Management and Planning Organization of Iran ,2005). Conceptually, two approaches have been manifested in Iranian regional planning. One holds regional planning to be a kind of continuation of architec- Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) ture and the other believes regional planning to be a policy for economic development or an expansion of social justice. Following these two approaches, the regional planning process has been in practice unable to identify the real needs and priorities at different regional levels and consequently their application in responding the needs of the region have been hampered. On the other hand, the weakness of traditional methods of planning and the ambiguous legal position, responsibility and manner of providing regional plans, and lack of a clear task division among the relevant departments have, in practice, resulted in inter-departmental rivalries and caused parallel movements in compiling regional plans and programs which in the end has hampered their success (Afrakhteh , 2006). 3. Materials and methods For evaluating regional development and regional inequalities in Iran, first, the aspects and attributes of regional development for which reliable data exists were identified. After establishing the set of indicators, the weights of indicators was calculated by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) using Expert Choice software. Then these weights were submitted to rating scale AHP for calculating composite score of regional development and ranking sub-provinces. Analysis of Coefficient of Variation (CV) was also applied to reveal regional inequalities about different dimensions of development. The detailed descriptions of each step are elaborated in the following sub-sections. 3.1. Assessment of the level of Regional development In order to provide a scientific basis for decisionmakers, it is very necessary to comprehensively assess the status of regional development with regard to economy, resources and environment (Yu ,et al. , 2010). Assessment of the level of development of territorial units is crucial for regional planning and development policy and is a key criterion for allocation of various structural funds and national subsidies (Czira´ky , 2006). Determining the degree of development and ranking of economic areas is a problem that has been frequently studied in the past two decades. In earlier papers, economic systems of countries were considered as economic areas (Korhonen & Soismaa ,1980). Recently, regions have been considered as economic areas owing to the fact that their harmonious development is a very important prerequisite for economic stability and the progress of the country on the whole (Martic & Savic ,2001). The human development index (HDI) as a measure of human well-being became popular with the publication of the first report on human development in 1990 by the United Nations Development Program (United Nations Development Program ,1990). Not only has the index been accepted by academics, policy makers, governments and development agencies, it has become a means of ranking countries annually. While the HDI offers a composite index that summarizes basic choices available to people, it has been criticized on many grounds. For example, it is argued that it does not capture the totality of issues that affect human wellbeing. Hence, efforts are being made to widen the scope of issues covered by the index (Sanusi , 2008). Because, society is a complex and dynamic state resulting from a number of interconnected and evolving, dynamic systems or domains (Dopfer ,1979). These systems may include the social, economic, political, environmental and spiritual, which can be represented by an integrated social-ecological and economic system. The concentration on only one of these systems to assess, measure or plan development is inadequate (Clarke & Islam ,2003). The ranking of regions according to degree of social-economic development is often treated in the literature as the problem of the multi-criteria classification of elements of one set (Martic & Savic ,2001). Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is one of the most widely used decision methodologies in the sciences, business, government and engineering worlds. MCDM methods can help to improve the quality of decisions by making the decisionmaking process more explicit, rational, and efficient. The typical MCDM problem is concerned with the Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 5 R. Shaykh Baygloo task of ranking a finite number of decision alternatives, each of which is explicitly described in terms of different characteristics (also often called attributes, decision criteria, or objectives) which have to be taken into account simultaneously (Wang & Triantaphyllou , 2008). A vast number of multicriteria models and approaches are available in the literature, including among many others, some very well-established methods like multi-attribute utility theory, analytic hierarchy process, weighted sum and many more (Papadopoulosv & Karagiannidis ,2008). A prominent role in MCDM methods is played by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method which is based on pairwise comparisons. According to this method the decision maker compares two decision entities (pair of alternatives considered in terms of a single criterion or a pair of criteria) at a time and elicits his/her judgment with the help of a scale (Wang & Triantaphyllou , 2008). One of the most important advantages of the AHP is to be based on pairwise comparison. Besides, the AHP calculates the inconsistency index which is the ratio of the decision maker’s inconsistency (Önüt , et al. 2010). The rationale for selection of AHP method for evaluating regional development in this study, beside these advantages, has been that this method is one of the more popular and widely used MCDM methods. 3.2. Indicators for Evaluating Development Level The basis for decisions by public and private institutions usually comes from information that is available to the decision maker, and it is widely accepted today that the information is mostly provided in the form of indicators. Developing, calculating and disseminating indicators and their related data is also an important step in building an information system that will allow progress towards better transparency, accountability and good governance in public affairs (Önüt , et al. 2010). The purpose of indicators is to provide a tool for guidance in sustainability policies, including monitoring of measures and their results, and communication to the public at large (Spangenberg , et al. ,2002). 6 The most important step in studying regional development is determining development indices or indicators. Development indices are in fact the statistical expression of existing phenomena in the region. So, different economical and social variables must be converted to indices within a specific and logical theoretical framework. Different ratios, percents, rates of growth, per capita amounts and etc. are matters that are used logically as development indices within a special theoretical framework. Indices can be used for measuring the existing condition or historical process of economical and social changes, policy making, determining the rate of progress, evaluating the exploration of undeveloped regions and measuring regional disparities in different spatial and geographical levels (Yasouri ,2010). The history of the use of socioeconomic indicators and the composite measures of development based on these indicators has shown that if such measures are not geared to policy making their effects are limited and at best they can have a limited consequence for the way we consider them (Noorbakhsh,2002). Aspects of well-being, inequality, deprivation or polarization, are intrinsically many-dimensioned things (Atkinson , 2003). So, the conventional way of assessing development by economic indicators only has been challenged many times (Noorbakhsh,2002). Policies and investments that are directly aimed at reducing non-income dimensions of poverty may be more important in increasing the welfare of the poor than economic growth (World Bank , 2001). “If we want a particularly satisfactory measure of inequality or poverty, we cannot define it over the income space alone and have to supplement the income data by information about the social relations between people and about comparison groups...Economic data cannot be interpreted without the necessary sociological understanding... There is a long way to go still to make adequate social sense of economic measures” (Sen ,2006). For evaluating regional development and regional inequalities in Iran, a national survey involving all sub-provinces (336 sub-provinces) was conducted to Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) obtain data. The required data was collected mainly from detailed results of the last Population and Housing Census (2006) published by Statistical Centre of Iran, and statistical yearbooks of provinces of Iran. By using the all sub-provinces of Iran as case study, it was developed a system of 54 indicators of re- gional development that address economic development, agriculture, education, health, housing, infrastructure, and socio-cultural attributes, the details of which can be found in Table 1. 3.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Dimension Indicator Unit Desired direction Agriculture X1. Per capita arable land Hectare + X2. The yield of grains culti- kg/hectare + % + number + number + X6. Per capita milk production liter + X7. Per capita honey produc- kg + number - % + X10. Literacy % + X11. Seating capacity of cin- number + number + number + number + X15. Seating capacity of theat- number + vation X3. Proportion of farmers owning farm machinery X4. Per capita light livestock (sheep & goat) X5. Per capita heavy livestock (cow, camel & buffalo) tion Social-Cultural X8. Average household population X9. Proportion of inhabited villages emas per 10,000 population X12. Number of public libraries per 100,000 population X13. Number of books in public libraries per 1000 population X14. Number of printingoffices per 100,000 literate population ers per 10,000 population Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 7 R. Shaykh Baygloo Health X16. Hospital beds per 10,000 number + number + number + number + number + number + number + number + number + none + number + none + number + none + number + % + % + population X17. Hospitals per 100,000 population X18. Rural health homes per 10,000 rural population X19. Number of medical diagnosis laboratories per 100,000 population X20. Number of pharmacies per 100,000 population X21. Number of radiography centers per 100,000 population X22. Number of rehabilitation centers per 100,000 population X23. General physicians per 10,000 population X24. Specialist physicians per 10,000 population Education X25. Teacher/student ratio in elementary schools X26. Number of classrooms per 100 students of elementary schools X27. Teacher/student ratio in middle schools X28. Number of classrooms per 100 students of middle schools X29. Teacher/student ratio in high schools X30. Number of classrooms per 100 students of high schools X31. proportion of the +20 years old population studying at universities X32. proportion of the +20 years old population graduated from universities 8 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) Housing X33. House/family ratio none + X34. Proportion of houses that % + % + % + % + % + % + number + X41. Number of industrial fac- number + have electricity X35. Proportion of houses that use piped drinking water X36. Proportion of houses that use piped natural gas X37. Proportion of houses that have kitchen X38. Proportion of houses that have bathroom X39. Proportion of houses with Metal skeleton or Reinforced concrete skeleton Economic X40. Number of cooperative companies per 10,000 working people tories per 100,000 population X42. Number of banks per number + X43. Employment % + X44. Proportion of employ- % + % + 1,000,000 Rials(The currency + 100,000 population ment in agriculture X45. Proportion of employment in industry X46. Per capita bank deposits of Iran) Infrastructure X47. Number of gas stations number + per 100,000 population Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 9 R. Shaykh Baygloo X48. Proportion of villages % + km + km + number + % + % + % + that have electricity X49. Length of highways per 1000 km2 area X50. Length of rural asphalted roads per 1000 km2 area X51. Number of rural post offices per 10,000 rural population X52. Diffusion rate of telephone X53. Diffusion rate of mobile phone X54. Proportion of villages that have telephone communications Table 1. Indicator system constructed to evaluate regional development of sub-provinces of Iran The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a systematic method widely used for decision problems with many criteria and alternatives first developed by Saaty (Saaty ,1980). It is a tool used for solving complex decision problems that may have correlations among decision criteria based on three principles: decomposition, comparative judgments and synthesis of priorities. The AHP divides the decision problem into three main steps: (1) Problem structuring, (2) Assessment of local priorities, and (3) Calculation of global pri- orities. First, the problem is structured hierarchically, i.e. the decision maker constructs the hierarchies of factors for solving the decision problem. The overall goal is represented by the upper level of the hierarchy; one or more intermediate levels correspond to the hierarchy of the decision criteria, while the lower level consists of all considered alternatives (Chamodrakas ,et al. , 2010). Decomposition of decisional process into a hierarchy of criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives is done using Importance intensity Definition 1 Equal importance 3 Moderate importance of one over another 5 Strong importance of one over another 7 Very strong importance of one over another 9 Extreme importance of one over another 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values Reciprocals Reciprocals for inverse comparison Table 2. The 1-9 scales for pairwise comparisons in the AHP 10 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) a set of weights that reflect the relative importance of alternatives (Berrittella, et al. ,2008). In fact, this method systematizes the problem by employing the subsystem perspective endowed in the system (Tsaur ,et al., 2002). The AHP method provides a structured framework for setting priorities on each level of the hierarchy using pairwise comparisons that are quantified using 1–9 scales in Table 2. The pairwise comparisons between the decision criteria can be conducted by asking the decision maker (DM) or expert questions such as which criterion is more important with regards to the decision goal and by what scale (1–9). The answers to these questions form an m × m pairwise comparison matrix which is defined as follows:  a11 a12 ... a1m  a a2 ... a2 m  A = (aij ) m×m =  21    ...     am1 am 2 ... am  where represents a quantified judgment on with for i,j = 1, 2, . . . ,m. If the pairwise comparison matrix satisfies for any i,j,k = 1, 2, . . . ,m, then A is said to be perfectly consistent; otherwise it is said to be inconsistent. From the pairwise comparison matrix A, the weight vector W can be determined by solving Eq. (1): (1) A W = λmaxW where is the maximum eigenvalue of A. Such a method for determining the weight vector of a pairwise comparison matrix is referred to as the principal right eigenvector method (Saaty ,1980). Since the DM may be unable to provide perfectly consistent pairwise comparisons, it is demanded that the pairwise comparison matrix A should have an acceptable inconsistency ratio (I.R.) which can be calculated by Eq. (2): (2) I .R. = (λmax − n ) / (n − 1) R.I .I . where R.I.I. is a random inconsistency index, whose value varies with the order of pairwise comparison matrix. If I.R. ≤ 0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix is thought to have an acceptable consistency; otherwise, it need to be revised. The traditional analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method can only compare a very limited number of decision alternatives, which is usually not more than 15. When there are hundreds or thousands of alternatives to be compared, the pairwise comparison manner provided by the traditional AHP is obviously infeasible (Wang, et al., 2008). This limitation can be removed by the rating scale AHP in which a rating scale is assigned to each sub-criterion related to every alternative. Thus, the comparison matrices are constructed through pairwise comparisons among the rating levels for each sub-criterion. The use of a rating scale instead of direct comparisons among the alternatives was introduced by Liberatore and can be found in various studies (Lee,et al., 2005). The major advantage of Liberatore’s rating scale method is that it overcomes the explosion in the number of pairwise comparisons when the number of alternatives and/or the number of sub-criteria is large (Chamodrakas ,et al. , 2010). 3.4. Coefficient of variation (CV) The coefficient of variation (CV) is one of the most widely used measures of regional inequality in the literature. The CV is a measure of dispersion around the mean (Shankar & Shah ,2003). This method is used for measuring how much an index has been distributed unequally between regions. The coefficient of variation is calculated by Eq. (3): n ∑ (x i =1 C.V . = − xi ) 2 i n n ∑x i =1 (3) i n Where is the amount of one indicator in the region i, is the mean of , and represents the number of regions. The coefficient of variation has been used for Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 11 R. Shaykh Baygloo examining the procedure of existing disparities in development indexes between regions in large level, which the high amount of CV, indicates more disparity in distributing the index (Memar Zadeh ,1995). 4. Results and discussion This study applied AHP method for evaluating development level of sub-provinces of Iran. First, the hierarchy frame for 54 development indicators was established (Figure 1), where the preliminary classification of indicators consists of seven dimensions involving economic development, Figure 1. Hierarchy structure of evaluating regional development in Iran Dimension Indicator Relative Final weight weight 0.272 X16 0.057 0.016 X17 0.216 0.059 0.216 0.059 0.092 0.025 Agriculture X1 0.181 0.008 X18 0.044 X2 0.280 0.012 X19 X3 0.083 0.004 X20 0.057 0.016 X4 0.122 0.005 X21 0.027 0.007 X5 0.280 0.012 X22 0.027 0.007 X23 0.092 0.025 X6 0.034 0.001 X7 0.020 0.001 Socio-Cul- X8 0.023 0.001 Education tural X9 0.231 0.013 0.142 0.056 X24 0.216 0.059 X25 0.106 0.015 X26 0.106 0.015 X10 0.406 0.023 X27 0.041 0.006 X11 0.048 0.003 X28 0.041 0.006 X12 0.118 0.007 X29 0.041 0.006 X30 0.041 0.006 X13 0.048 0.003 X14 0.078 0.004 X31 0.222 0.032 0.003 X32 0.402 0.057 X15 12 Health 0.048 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) 0.027 0.006 0.217 X34 0.252 0.055 X35 0.252 0.055 X36 0.113 0.025 X37 0.052 0.011 X38 0.052 0.011 X39 0.252 0.055 Economic X40 0.060 0.008 0.130 X41 0.131 0.017 X42 0.021 0.003 X43 0.320 0.042 X44 0.204 0.027 X45 0.204 0.027 X46 0.060 0.008 Infrastructure X47 0.026 0.004 X48 0.175 0.024 X49 0.263 0.037 X50 0.263 0.037 0.139 X51 0.026 0.004 X52 0.078 0.011 X53 0.053 0.007 X54 0.116 0.016 Sum weighting results was submitted to rating scale AHP to calculate the composite score of development of each sub-province. In this stage, each indicator (subcriterion) was normalized through scaling. This is important because, first, the indicators do not have the same units of measurements and second, to allow for comparison. So, different scales and units among various indicators were transformed into common measurable units by Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) for positive and negative indicators respectively. rij = (4) rij = (5) Table 3. Weights of indicators in AHP method Sub-prov- Score ince Rank Rank agriculture, education, health, housing, infrastructure, and socio-cultural attributes. Pair-wise comparisons of were carried out in order to determine the importance (weights) of different dimensions of development and respective indicators. The relative and final weights of indicators were estimated using the AHP model whose results are presented in Table 3. Because of aforementioned limitation of traditional AHP for comparison of large number of alternatives, Score max( xij ) − min( xij ) max( xij ) − xij max( xij ) − min( xij ) Then, normalized appraisal matrix was constructed. In this matrix, minimum and maximum values for every indicator are 0 and 1 respectively. Based on normalized values of indicators, it was defined 5 rating levels. The comparison matrices were constructed through pairwise comparisons among the rating levels for each sub-criterion. The weight of rating levels can be seen in Table 4. 1.000 Sub-province xij − min( xij ) Rating Level Weight 0.00-0.19 0.033 0.20-0.39 0.063 0.40-0.59 0.129 0.60-0.79 0.261 0.80-1.00 0.513 Table 4. The weights of rating levels Maximum inconsistency ratio in all comparisons was 0.05 which is acceptable value. The rating scale was assigned to each sub-criterion related to every Sub-prov- Score ince Sub-province Score Rank X33 Rank Housing Shemiranat 0.511 1 Azarshahr 0.329 85 Takab 0.295 169 Sirjan 0.266 253 Tehran 0.457 2 Ferdows 0.329 86 Kashmar 0.295 170 Kaleibar 0.265 254 Ramsar 0.453 3 Hendijan 0.329 87 Esfarayen 0.295 171 Andimeshk 0.265 255 Gorgan 0.427 4 Zanjan 0.328 88 Gonabad 0.294 172 Ramshir 0.265 256 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 13 R. Shaykh Baygloo Sari 0.422 5 Karaj 0.407 6 Esfahan 0.396 Golpayegan 0.396 Boyerah- 0.328 89 Aq Qala 0.294 173 Sumaehsara 0.265 257 Jam 0.327 90 Khoy 0.293 174 Mohr 0.264 258 7 Behshahr 0.327 91 Dashtestan 0.293 175 Mamasani 0.264 259 8 Noshahr 0.327 92 Ilam 0.292 176 Meshkin- 0.263 260 mad shahr Tabriz 0.392 9 Ardestan 0.391 10 Ardakan Saveh 0.327 93 Sonqor 0.292 177 Namin 0.262 261 0.327 94 Fariman 0.291 178 Torbat-e- 0.262 262 Heydariyeh Qaemshahr 0.390 11 Haris 0.325 95 Ramhormoz 0.291 179 Kalat 0.261 263 Mahmoudabad 0.387 12 Tiran & 0.325 96 Oshnaviyeh 0.290 180 Baneh 0.261 264 Fereydun- 0.290 181 Qirokarzin 0.260 265 Karvan Eslamshahr 0.385 13 Abhar 0.322 97 Kashan 0.383 14 Lahijan 0.322 98 Dayyer 0.290 182 Rudan 0.260 266 Damghan 0.382 15 Arak 0.322 99 Khorram- 0.290 183 Piranshahr 0.259 267 Bijar 0.381 16 Borkhar & 0.321 100 Estahban 0.290 184 Dehloran 0.259 268 shahr shahr Meymeh Rey 0.377 17 Abyek 0.321 101 Garmi 0.289 185 Qeshm 0.259 269 Damavand 0.376 18 Sahneh 0.321 102 Rasht 0.289 186 Minab 0.258 270 Taft 0.376 19 Babol 0.319 103 Bandar 0.289 187 Farashband 0.257 271 Bushehr 0.374 20 Orumiyeh 0.318 104 0.288 188 Dalahu 0.257 272 Lengeh Torbat-eJam Pakdasht 0.373 21 Langrud 0.318 105 Shirvan 0.287 189 Dezful 0.256 273 Ashtian 0.373 22 Borujerd 0.318 106 Rafsanjan 0.287 190 Fasa 0.256 274 Falavarjan 0.372 23 Semirom-e- 0.317 107 Nahavand 0.286 191 Khalil Abad 0.255 275 Aran & Bidgol 0.367 24 Behbahan 0.316 108 Quchan 0.285 192 Maneh and 0.255 276 Sofla Samalqan Sadugh 0.367 25 Arsanjan 0.316 109 Qorveh 0.285 193 Shahr-e- 0.255 277 Ardebil 0.365 26 Bandar 0.316 110 Khorrama- 0.285 194 Khamir 0.255 278 0.284 195 Ivan 0.252 279 0.284 196 Zarrindasht 0.252 280 Babak Abbas bad Yazd 0.365 27 Neka 0.315 111 Juybar 0.364 28 Khomein 0.315 112 Bandar-eMahshahr Dasht-eAzadegan Qazvin 0.363 29 Tabas 0.314 113 Shush 0.284 197 Poldokhtar 0.252 281 Chalus 0.363 30 Najafabad 0.312 114 Astane-ye- 0.284 198 Shadegan 0.251 282 0.283 199 Zarand 0.251 283 0.282 200 Kalaleh 0.251 284 Ashrafiyeh Savadkuh 0.363 31 Khorram- Nir 0.362 32 Pasargad 0.312 115 0.312 116 darreh 14 Sar-e-pol-eZahab Sabzevar Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) Bafgh 0.362 33 Gachsaran 0.312 117 Abadan 0.282 201 Kuhdasht 0.251 285 Semnan 0.361 34 Khalkhal 0.311 118 Shazand 0.282 202 Sarakhs 0.250 286 Khomeinishahr 0.360 35 Shahrud 0.311 119 Charoimaq 0.281 203 Fuman 0.250 287 Shabestar 0.359 36 Kerman- 0.311 120 Maku 0.281 204 Harsin 0.249 288 shah Natanz 0.359 37 Malekan 0.310 121 Kohbonan 0.281 205 Siahkal 0.249 289 Shahriar 0.359 38 Farsan 0.310 122 Komeijan 0.281 206 Lordegan 0.248 290 Delijan 0.359 39 Astara 0.310 123 Chadegan 0.280 207 Shaft 0.246 291 Garmsar 0.358 40 Bojnurd 0.309 124 Kabudara- 0.280 208 Aligudarz 0.246 292 hang Amol 0.357 41 Kordkuy 0.308 125 Bavanat 0.279 209 Zabol 0.243 293 Osku 0.353 42 Abarkuh 0.308 126 Varzaqan 0.278 210 Bam 0.242 294 Miyaneh 0.353 43 Khatam 0.308 127 Mah-Velat 0.278 211 Gilan-e- 0.242 295 Naeen 0.353 44 Khorrambid 0.307 128 Neyshabur 0.278 212 Kohgiluyeh 0.242 296 Kowsar 0.352 45 Gavbandi 0.307 129 Marivan 0.278 213 Chaldoran 0.241 297 Alborz 0.351 46 Bahar 0.307 130 Zarandiyeh 0.278 214 Masal 0.241 298 Deylam 0.349 47 Ahvaz 0.306 131 Asadabad 0.278 215 Dena 0.240 299 Ajabshir 0.348 48 Minudasht 0.306 132 Salmas 0.277 216 Bilehsavar 0.237 300 Khansar 0.348 49 Tuyserkan 0.306 133 Javanrud 0.277 217 Sardasht 0.236 301 Abumusa 0.348 50 Boyinzahra 0.305 134 Semirom 0.276 218 Hajiabad 0.234 302 Hashtrud 0.347 51 Takestan 0.305 135 Bardeskan 0.276 219 Mehran 0.233 303 Lenjan 0.347 52 Azadshahr 0.305 136 Chenaran 0.276 220 Kuhrang 0.232 304 Meybod 0.347 53 Omidiyeh 0.304 137 Selseleh 0.276 221 Sarayan 0.232 305 Mobarakeh 0.346 54 Firuzabad 0.304 138 Darrehshahr 0.275 222 Zahak 0.228 306 Jolfa 0.345 55 Qasr-e- 0.304 139 Khonj 0.275 223 Darab 0.228 307 Firuzkuh 0.345 56 Kangavar 0.304 140 Larestan 0.275 224 Baghmalek 0.222 308 Shahr-e-Kord 0.345 57 Mahneshan 0.303 141 Kamyaran 0.275 225 Darmiyan 0.214 309 Bonab 0.344 58 Faridan 0.302 142 Abdanan 0.274 226 Izeh 0.213 310 Shiraz 0.344 59 Genaveh 0.302 143 Tangestan 0.273 227 Jiroft 0.212 311 Mehriz 0.344 60 Kerman 0.302 144 Dashti 0.273 228 Delfan 0.211 312 Bandar Anzali 0.343 61 Rudsar 0.302 145 Kangan 0.273 229 Masjed 0.205 313 Babolsar 0.343 62 Razan 0.302 146 Jajarm 0.273 230 Manujan 0.199 314 Borujen 0.342 63 Ahar 0.300 147 Divandarreh 0.273 231 Bahmaee 0.199 315 Shahreza 0.341 64 Parsabad 0.300 148 Mahabad 0.272 232 Rezvan- 0.194 316 Gharb Shirin Soleyman shahr Tonkabon 0.341 65 Tarom 0.300 149 Qayenat 0.272 233 Zahedan 0.193 317 Gonbad-e-Kavus 0.340 66 Abadeh 0.300 150 Ijerud 0.272 234 Rudbar-e- 0.193 318 Jonub Qom 0.339 67 Kazerun 0.300 151 Maragheh 0.338 68 Miandoab 0.299 152 Mahallat 0.338 69 Nazarabad 0.299 153 Eslamabad- 0.272 235 Baft 0.191 319 Bastak 0.272 236 Tavalesh 0.190 320 Eqlid 0.271 237 Konarak 0.187 321 e-Gharb Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 15 R. Shaykh Baygloo Marand 0.337 70 Faruj 0.299 154 Ravansar 0.271 238 Salas-e- 0.187 322 Robatkarim 0.337 71 Aliabad 0.299 155 Shahindezh 0.270 239 Kahnuj 0.186 323 Varamin 0.337 72 Galugah 0.299 156 Taybad 0.270 240 Lali 0.171 324 Hamedan 0.337 73 Bostanabad 0.298 157 Rashtkhar 0.270 241 Sarbisheh 0.169 325 Bandar Gaz 0.336 74 Naqadeh 0.298 158 Ravar 0.270 242 Chabahar 0.168 326 Mashhad 0.335 75 Jahrom 0.298 159 Shirvan & 0.269 243 Bardsir 0.163 327 Babajani Chardavel Rudbar 0.335 76 Saqqez 0.298 160 Ardal 0.268 244 Anbarabad 0.158 328 Nur 0.335 77 Dorud 0.298 161 Khaf 0.268 245 Ghaleh- 0.149 329 Ganj Tafresh 0.335 78 Bukan 0.297 162 Malayer 0.335 79 Shushtar 0.297 163 Sanandaj 0.333 80 Lamerd 0.297 Amlash 0.333 81 Marvdasht 0.297 Sarab 0.332 82 Torkaman Savojbolagh 0.332 Varamin 0.337 Hamedan Bandar Gaz Khodaban- 0.268 246 Iranshahr 0.142 330 Neyriz 0.268 247 Nahbandan 0.139 331 164 Paveh 0.268 248 Neekshahr 0.139 332 165 Birjand 0.267 249 Jask 0.129 333 0.296 166 Gotvand 0.267 250 Saravan 0.126 334 83 Ramyan 0.296 167 Sepidan 0.266 251 Khash 0.122 335 72 Galugah 0.299 156 Taybad 0.270 240 Lali 0.171 324 0.337 73 Bostanabad 0.298 157 Rashtkhar 0.270 241 Sarbisheh 0.169 325 0.336 74 Naqadeh 0.298 158 Ravar 0.270 242 Chabahar 0.168 326 Mashhad 0.335 75 Jahrom 0.298 159 Shirvan & 0.269 243 Bardsir 0.163 327 Rudbar 0.335 76 Saqqez 0.298 160 Ardal 0.268 244 Anbarabad 0.158 328 Nur 0.335 77 Dorud 0.298 161 Khaf 0.268 245 Ghaleh- 0.149 329 Tafresh 0.335 78 Bukan 0.297 162 Khodaban- 0.268 246 Iranshahr 0.142 330 deh Chardavel Ganj deh Malayer 0.335 79 Shushtar 0.297 163 Neyriz 0.268 247 Nahbandan 0.139 331 Sanandaj 0.333 80 Lamerd 0.297 164 Paveh 0.268 248 Neekshahr 0.139 332 Amlash 0.333 81 Marvdasht 0.297 165 Birjand 0.267 249 Jask 0.129 333 Sarab 0.332 82 Torkaman 0.296 166 Gotvand 0.267 250 Saravan 0.126 334 Savojbolagh 0.332 83 Ramyan 0.296 167 Sepidan 0.266 251 Khash 0.122 335 Dargaz 0.332 84 Azna 0.296 168 Sarvabad 0.266 252 Sarbaz 0.119 336 Table 5. Ranking of sub-provinces of Iran based on composite score of development (global priorities) alternative. In the last step, composite scores of development (global priorities) of the sub-provinces were calculated by a weighted sum of the type using the Expert Choice software. The sub-provinces of Iran were ranked based on these scores which are shown in Table 5. It was also arbitrarily defined 6 classes for summarizing development level of sub-provinces according to their composite score of development as presented in Table 6. Composite score Development level <0.200 Very Low Table 6. Development classes of sub-provinces of Iran 16 Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) 0.200-0.249 Low 0.250-0.299 Low- Medium 0.300-0.349 Medium-High 0.350-0.399 > 0.4000 High Very High Based on this classification, from 336 sub-provinces of Iran, the development level of only 6 sub-provinces including Shemiranat, Tehran, Ramsar, Gorgan, Sari and Karaj is very high; 40 sub-provinces are in high level of development; 105, 136, 26 and 23 sub-provinces stilt in the levels of medium-high, low- medium, low and very low, respectively. The numbers of indicators whose values are below national average in very low level sub-provinces including Manujan, Bahmaee, Rezvanshahr, Zahedan, Rudbar-e-Jonub, Baft, Tavalesh, Konarak, Salas-eBabajani, Kahnuj, Lali, Sarbisheh, Chabahar, Bardsir, Anbarabad, Ghaleh-Ganj, Iranshahr, Nahbandan, Neekshahr, Jask, Saravan, Khash and Sarbaz are 48, 40, 32, 41, 49, 34, 38, 49, 44, 46, 40, 38, 50, 39, 47, 48, 49, 42, 50, 48, 53, 51 and 52, respectively. This calls for adopting proper strategies for the overall development in these regions. Figure 2 presents the spatial distribution of development classes. Spatial distribution of sub-provinces illustrates that becoming distant from the center of country, development level gets worse. It is noteworthy that most of the highly backward sub-provinces are concentrated in the southeast of Iran, (provinces of Kerman, South Khorasan and especially Sistan & Baluchestan). Coefficient of Variation calculated for each group of indicators is as follows: agriculture: 0.531, health: 0.500, education: 0.438, Infrastructures: 0.387, economic: 0.359, social-cultural attributes: 0.294, and housing: 0.226. Therefore, inequalities in the indicators of agriculture, health and education are more critical in comparison to other dimensions of development. We may attribute the high amount of CV in agriculture, to some extent, to natural resources and climatic diversity of regions. So, in the regions with low agricultural potentials, other capabilities should be developed. However, reduction in disparities is crucial to accelerate the integrated regional and national development in Iran. Highly backward and backward sub-provinces have to be assisted so Figure 2. Classification of sub-provinces of Iran based on overall development level Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 17 R. Shaykh Baygloo that their potential is properly tapped enabling them to attain higher level of development. These regions require concerted planned efforts to overcome obstacles to growth and also to reduce some of the disadvantages of adverse natural factors. 5. Conclusions Regional inequalities represent a continuing development challenge in most countries. So, proper identification of backward regions is crucial for forming the reliable basis of national and regional development strategies to increase the overall growth rate and decrease intra- regional and inter-regional disparities; therefore, it is very necessary to comprehensively assess the status of regional development with regard to different dimensions of development. Regarding strong evidences about regional inequalities in Iran, the aim of this study was evaluating regional development and regional inequalities in Iran. The evaluation procedure consists of the following steps: determining indicators of regional development, weighting indicators, evaluating development level of sub-provinces of Iran by rating scale AHP, and calculating coefficient of variation for different dimensions of development. This study proposed possible indicators which might be effective in measuring development level in Iran. In order to determine these indicators, relevant regional and national literature was reviewed and a list of possible indicators was drawn up. This list comprised those indicators which are most commonly mentioned in different regional indicator systems published in Iran. Fifty-four indicators were identified which were organized into the dimensions of economic development, agriculture, education, health, housing, infrastructure, and socio-cultural attributes. The multi-criteria analysis approach was applied to evaluate regional development and rank sub-provinces of Iran in respect of different dimensions of development. Among various MCDM methods, AHP was selected; but, because of some limitations of traditional AHP for comparison of large number of alternatives, rating scale AHP was applied to calculate the composite score of regional development. Based 18 on the composite scores (global priorities), the development level of sub-provinces was classified into six categories: very high, high, medium-high, low-medium, low, and very low, so that 6, 40, 105, 136, 26 and 23 sub-provinces stilt in these categories, respectively. Analysis of Coefficient of Variation (CV) was also applied to reveal regional inequalities about different dimensions of development. It shows that inequalities in the indicators of agriculture, health and education are more critical in comparison to other dimensions of development. Overall, Results show a clear uneven development among sub-provinces. It is rather disturbing to a see large number of subprovinces stilt in below medium categories. The present analysis highlights the fact that in spite of Iran’s regional policy based on reducing the development gap between different regions and creating a relative balance in regional development, yet this country witnesses uneven development across different regions, so that some regions suffer from lack of basic services and facilities. Spatial distribution of sub-provinces with regards development level shows that an intensive system of core and periphery exists in the country. So, it is necessary to reduce regional disparities in Iran to pave way for greater national integration, increase in economic growth and political stability. Backward sub-provinces require considerable attention and efforts to enable them to come out of their chronic backwardness. These sub-provinces should be given high priority for regional planning and there should be an in-depth study of their problems both natural and man-made; their growth potential should be identified and appropriate strategies evolved. In this way, the factors hindering growth should be removed paving way for fuller utilization of potentiality of a region for future development. It should be stressed that most of the low-level subprovinces are located in the southeastern region of Iran; so, extraordinary focus ought to be on this region to improve development level in both qualitative and quantitative aspects. For future work we recommend a time-series analysis of the data that could be the basis for the evalua- Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran Socio-Spatial Studies (Summer & Autumn 2017) tion of the process dynamics towards or away from balanced regional development. Currently, due to a lack of data, a reliable time-series analysis is impossible. References 1- Song, S., G.S. Chu and R. Chao, 2000. Intercity Regional Disparity in China, China Economic Review, 11(3): 246 – 261. 2- Hu, D., 2002. Trade, rural–urban migration, and regional income disparity in developing countries: a spatial general equilibrium model inspired by the case of China. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 32(3): 311-338. 3- Fedorov, L., 2002. Regional Inequality and Regional Polarization in Russia, 1990–99. World Development, 30(3): 443-456. 20- Dawson, J.I., 2001. Latvia’s Russian minority: balancing the imperatives of regional development and environmental justice. Political Geography, 20: 787–815. 21- Higniz, B. and D. Savi, 1997. Regional policy making in a changing world. Translators group, Regional planning and Logistics office, Tehran: The organization of plan and budget, center of economical and social documents and publications, p: 83. 22- Matsumoto, M., 2008. Redistribution and regional development under tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 64: 480–487. 23- Fedyuk, V. and A. Bychenko, 2009. Regional Development in Sweden and Ukraine, Razumkov Centre. National Security & Defence, 1: 48-50. 24- Ziari, K., 2004. Schools, Theoies and Models of plan & regional planning. University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran, p: 118. 25- Cameron, L., 2002. Growth with or without Equity: The Distributional Impact of Indonesian Development. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 16 (2): 1-17. 26- Noorbakhsh, F., 2002. Human development and regional disparities in Iran: a policy model. Journal of International Development, 14: 927–949. 27- Plan and Budget Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran and United Nations, 1999. Human Development Report of the Islamic Republic of Iran 1999. Plan and Budget Organization of the Government of Iran and the United Nations, Tehran, pp: 20-141. 28- Afrakhteh, H., 2006. The problems of regional development and border cities: A case study of Zahedan, Iran. Cities, 23(6): 423–432. 29- Amir Ahmadi, H., 1986. Regional planning in Iran. The Journal of Developing Area 20(3): 501-530. 30- Sheikhi, M., 1998. Regional planning in Iran, necessities, problems and some proposals. Etellat-e-Siasi Eghtesadi, Tehran, pp: 121–122. 31- Sheikhi, M., 2001. Regional planning in Iran (1981– 2001). Urban Management Quarterly, 6: PP 18-26. 32- Management and Planning Organization of Iran, 2005. Law of the Fourth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2005-2009. Published by Management and Planning Organization, Deputy for Administrative, Financial and Human Resources Affairs, Center for Documentation, Museum and Publication, Tehran, Iran, p: 136. 33- UNDP, 2007. Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, 3rd ed. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of United Nations, New York. 34- Yu, L., X. Hou, M. Gao and P. Shi, 2010. Assessment of coastal zone sustainable development: A case study of Yantai, China. Ecological Indicators, 10: 1218–1225. 35- Czira´ky, D., J. Sambt, J. Rovan and J. Puljiz, 2006. Regional development assessment: A structural equation approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 174: 427–442. 36- Korhonen, P. and M. Soismaa, 1980. An interactive multiple criteria approach to ranking alternatives. EURO IV, Cambridge, England, pp: 22-25. 37- Legasto, A., 1978. A multiple-objective policy model: Results of an application to a developing country. Management Sciences, 24(5): 498-509. 38- Martic´, M. and G. Savic´, 2001. An application of DEA for comparative analysis and ranking of regions in Serbia with regards to social-economic development. European Journal of Operational Research, 132: 343-356. 39- UNDP (United Nations Development Program), 1990. Human Development Report, New York: Oxford University Press. 40- Sanusi, Y.A., 2008. Application of human development index to measurement of deprivations among urban households in Minna, Nigeria. Habitat International, 32: 384–398. 41- Dopfer, K., 1979. The New Political Economy of Development: Integrated Theory and Asian Experiment. Macmillan, Melbourne. 42- Bossel, H., 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg. 43- Clarke, M. and M.N. Islam, 2003. Measuring social welfare: application of social choice theory. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32: 1–15. 44- Wang, X. and E. Triantaphyllou, 2008. Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega, 36: 45 – 63. 45- Papadopoulos, A. and A. Karagiannidis, 2008. Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems. Omega, 36: 766 – 776. 46- Önüt, S., T. Efendigil and S.S. Kara, 2010. A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 1973–1980. 47- Nader, M.R., B.A. Salloum and N. Karam, 2008. Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran 19 R. Shaykh Baygloo Environment and sustainable development indicators in Lebanon: a practical municipal level approach. Ecological Indicators, 8: 771–777. 48- Spangenberg, J.H., S. Pfahl and K. Deller, 2002. Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecol. Indic., 2: 61–77. 49- Sen, A., 1995. Inequality Reexamined. Harvard University Press, Harvard. 50-Anand, S. and A. Sen, 1997. Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. Human Development Papers, UNDP, New York. 51-Atkinson, A.B., 2003. Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1): 51–65. 52- Bourguignon, F. and S. R. Chakravarty, 2003. The measurement of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economic Inequality, 1(1): 25–49. 53- Kolm, S.C., 1977. Multidimensional egalitarianisms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(1): 1–13. 54-Maasoumi, E., 1986. The measurement and decomposition of multidimensional inequality. Econometrica, 54 (4): 771–779. [55] Anderson, G., I. Crawford and A. Leicester, 2010. Welfare rankings from multivariate data, a nonparametric approach. J. Public Econ., doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.08.003. 56-Grusky, D.B. and R. Kanbur, 2006. Poverty and inequality: studies in social inequality. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 57-World Bank (2001). World Development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. 58- Sen, A., 2006. Conceptualizing and measuring poverty. In D.B. Grusky and S. M. Ravi Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty and inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 59-Saaty, T.L., 1980. Analytical hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980. 60- Chamodrakas, I., D. Batis and D. Martakos, 2010. Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 490–498. 61- Berrittella, M., A. Certa, M. Enea and P. Zito, 2008. An analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of transport policies to reduce climate change impacts. Available online: FEEM Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Research Paper Series http:// www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/ WPapers/default.htm 62-Tsaur, S.H., T.Y. Chang, and C.H. Yen, 2002. The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management, 23: 107–115. 63-Wang, Y.M., J. Liu and T.M.S. Elhag, 2008. An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54: 513–525. 64- Lee, S., K. Lee and I.W. Kang, 2005. Efficiency analysis of controls in EDI applications. Information & Man- 20 agement, 42(3): 425–439. 65-Liberatore, M.J., 1987. An extension of the analytic hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1): 12–18. 66- Liberatore, M.J., R.L. Nydick, and P.M. Sanchez, 1992. The evaluation of research papers or how to get an academic committee to agree on something. Interfaces, 22(2): 92–100. 67-Singh, R.K., H.R. Murty, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Dikshit, 2007. Development of composite sustainability performance index for steel industry. Ecological Indicators, 7(3): 565–588. 68-Tam, M.C.Y. and V.M. Rao Tummala, 2001. An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system. Omega, 29(2): 171–182. 69- Memar Zadeh, G.A., 1995. Human development report. Organization of planning and budget, Tehran, p: 185. Shabestan Architectural and Urban Studies Research Center, Iran