Analysis of the Relationship between Livelihoods and Resilience of Rural Areas against Drought (Case Study: Villages of Ardabil)

جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی

Article 9, Volume 7, Issue 4 - Serial Number 28, January 2019, Pages 147-164   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/geo.v0i0.71754

Authors

Bahram Imani^* ; Ali Mohamadi Mashkool

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

Abstract

Introduction

One of the basic concepts of sustainable livelihood is resilience against injury. This concept, which refers to the complexities and conditions that affect people's life, is a way to improve the understanding of rural people’s livelihood in the context of ​​vulnerability to the incidents they are exposed to (Udaykumara & Shrestha, 2011). Reducing the vulnerability of villagers by increasing the level of resilience and improving flexibility against natural disasters like drought can characterize management, planning and development efforts, which is made possible by improving resilience. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to measure the indicators of livelihood and resilience and explain their relationship. The research is an attempt the question as to whether there is a significant relationship between different types of livelihood and resilience capitals of rural areas in the study area.
Finally, the research contributes to coping with this natural hazard and promoting sustainable livelihood in the study area by suggesting some approaches.

Materials and Methods

This research was applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in nature, which was carried out quantitatively. The study area encompasses 64 rural districts in the central district of Ardabil County. Among these 64 villages, 46 villages are administrated by their own rural administration and the rest by the rural administrations of surrounding villages. Thirty-six villages with a total population of 8,151 households were sampled by the stratified randomization. The sample size was estimated to be 367 by the Cochran formula. The dispersion of the sample across the villages was proportional to the number of households in each village. The sample was taken by the systematic randomization method. Data were collected by documentary and field studies. Livelihood was analyzed by five indicators within 46 items and resilience was analyzed by five indicators within 30 items, derived from the review of the literature. The face validity of the questionnaire was examined by a panel of experts who confirmed it after making some modifications. To estimate the reliability of the questionnaire, 30 questionnaires were administered in the study site as a pre-test, and the total reliability was estimated to be 0.89. Data were analyzed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to measure the normality of research variables, a single-sample t-test to examine the villagers' view about the indicators of livelihood capital, Pearson’s correlation coefficient to check the relationship between livelihood capital variables and resilience against drought, and the Topsis technique to find out the resilience of the rural people.

Results and Discussion

In this study, Pearson correlation coefficient was used to study the relationship between livelihood capital and resilient against drought. The results showed a positive and significant relationship between livelihoods and resilience with a correlation coefficient of 0.33 and a confidence level of 0.99. Also, the strongest correlation was observed between human capital and resilience (0.41) and the weakest correlation (0.27) between physical capital and resilience. In order to study the villagers' viewpoint about livelihood, a single sample t-test was used. The average natural capital index was 2.63, economic capital was 2.87, human capital was 3.16, physical capital was 2.69 and social capital was 4.14. The significance level of all indices was less than the test error level (5%). The rural people perceive that the human capital is in a more optimal condition than the other indicators, but they assess the capital, economic and physical capitals to be non-optimal. This, according to them, is a reason for lower resilience against drought. In order to determine the resilience of the studied villages, the Topsis decision technique was used. The results showed that Sham Asbi, Anzab Ali, and Gurjan villages were more resilient than the other villages. The resilience of all villages was estimated to be 0.341. So, according to its distance from the ideal value, we can say that this level is not at an optimal level.

Conclusion

The findings indicated that the livelihood of the studied communities is not in a good condition and this is influential on their resilience in dealing with drought so that most studied villages are also far from the ideal in terms of resilience. This requires adopting a livelihood diversity approach as a desirable approach to promote the resilience of villagers against drought. By its holistic view on rural development and the use of a specific methodology for the development of rural livelihoods by empowering rural communities, this approach can contribute to planning and management for the improvement of resilience in rural areas. In other words, any enhancement of the studied capitals in the studied villages will increase resilience against drought. So, it can be said that livelihood is the basis of and a requirement for resilience. One of the most influential aspects of livelihood and resilience of villagers is their access to financial capitals, which affect the life of villagers depending on their type, amount, and nature. The lack of the economic and financial capitals will degrade the livelihood of rural people, resulting in their vulnerability and poverty and, consequentlyسرمایه‌های معیشتی, the loss of resilience to natural and environmental hazards. Therefore, to improve this situation and promote the studied variables and indicators, it is necessary to adopt such approaches as increasing non-agricultural incomes, diversifying agricultural activities, creating employment, and job diversity in rural area by identifying their potentials, and considering natural resources and attempting to maintain and empower their environmental and natural capabilities.

Keywords

Livelihoods; Resilience; natural hazards; drought; Ardabil city

References

اصغری لفمجانی، صادق؛ ایزدی، علی؛1396. واکاوی نقش محصولات استراتژیک در معیشت پایدار روستایی، مطالعه موردی: تولید زعفران در دهستان رشتخوار. زراعت و فناوری زعفران، جلد5، شماره 3، 293-273.

اصغری لفمجانی، صادق؛ پورجعفرآبادی، مهدیه؛ پورابراهیمی، فاطمه؛1395. نقش محصولات استراتژیک در معیشت خانوارهای روستایی، مطالعه موردی: کشت پسته در شهرستان سیرجان. تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال31، شماره2، 61-50.

برقی، حمید؛ هاشمی، صدیقه؛ جعفری، نسرین؛1396. سنجش تاب‌آوری محیطی رستاهای در معرض خطر زلزله، مورد مطالعه: دهستان معجزات شهرستان زنجان. پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، سال شش، شماره یک، 97-81.

پیرمرادیان، نادر؛ شمس‌نیا، سید امیر؛ بوستانی، فردین؛1387. ارزیابی دوره بازگشت خشکسالی با استفاده از شاخص استاندارد شده بارش در استان فارس. دانش نوین کشاورزی، سال 4. شماره 13، 21-7

حیدری ساربان، وکیل؛ مجنونی توتاخانه، علی؛ 1395. نقش تنوع معیشتی در تاب‌آوری خانوارهای روستایی پیرامون دریاچه ارومیه در برابر خشکسالی. تحلیل فضایی مخاطرات محیطی، سال3، شماره4، 70-49.

رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ رضایی، محمدرضا؛ عسگری، علی؛ پرهیزگار، اکبر؛ شایان، سیاوش؛ 1390. تبیین مفهومی تاب‌آوری و شاخص‌سازی آن در مدیریت سوانح اجتماع محور. برنامه ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره15، شماره 4، 41-19.

رکن الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا؛ موسوی، سیدمحمد؛ پورطاهری، مهدی؛ فرج زاده، منوچهر؛ 1393. تحلیل نقش تنوع معیشتی در تاب‌آوری خانوارهای روستایی در شرایط خشکسالی، مطالعه موردی: مناطق در معرض خشکسالی استان اصفهان. پژوهش‌های روستایی، دوره 5، شماره 3. 662-639.

سالنامه آماری؛1395. استان اردبیل، مرکز آمار ایران.

سبحانی، بهروز؛ غفاری گیلانده، عطا؛ گل دوست، اکبر؛1394. پایش خشکسالی در استان اردبیل با استفاده از شاخص فازی SEPI توسعه یافته بر اساس منطق فازی. تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، سال 15، شماره 36، 72-51.

سجاسی قیداری، حمداله؛ صادقلو، طاهره، شکوری‌فرد، اسماعیل؛ 1395. سنجش سطح دارایی‌های معیشتی در مناطق روستایی با رویکرد معیشت پایدار، مطالعه موردی، روستاهای شهرستان تایباد. پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی روستایی، سال5، شماره1216-197.

سلمانی، محمد؛ رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ پورطاهری، مهدی؛ ویسی، فرزاد؛1390. نقش مهاجرت فصلی نیروی کار در معیشت خانوارهای روستایی، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان سروآباد- استان کردستان. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، شماره77، 127-111.

صادقلو، طاهره؛ سجاسی قیداری، حمداله؛ 1393. اولویت‌بندی عوامل مؤثر بر افزایش تاب‌آوری کشاورزان در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی با تأکید بر خشکسالی، مطالعه موردی، کشاورزان روستاهای شهرستان ایجرود. جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی، سال 10، شماره2، 153-129.

صالحی، اسماعیل؛ آقابابایی، محمدتقی؛ سرمدی، هاجر؛ فرزادبهتاش، محمدرضا؛1390. بررسی میزان تاب‌آوری محیطی با استفاده از مدل شبکه علیت. محیط‌شناسی، سال 37، شماره 59، 112-99.

صحنه، بهمن؛ 1390. بازگشت مهاجران به روستاها و نقش آن در معیشت پایداری روستایی، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان آق قلا، استان گلستان. پایان‌نامه دکترا، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران.

صلاحی، برومند؛1388. بررسی خشکسالی‌های استان اردبیل با استفاده از شاخص‌های آماری و سینوپتیکی. همایش بحران آب و ضرورت احیای حقابه استان اردبیل، کد مقاله: ARRW01_009.

غلامی، مصیب؛ علی‌بیگی، امیرحسین؛ 1393. شناسایی روش‌های بومی مدیریت خشکسالی، مطالعه موردی: شهرستان سرپل ذهاب. پژوهش‌های روستایی، دوره5، شماره3، 638-611.

فنی، زهره؛ معصومی، لیلا؛ 1395. بررسی و سنجش راهبردهای تاب‌آوری در سبک زندگی، مطالعه موردی: محله شکوفه شمالی منطقه 19 تهران. جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی، سال5، شماره20، 95-83.

قدیری معصوم، مجتبی؛ رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ جمعه‌پور، محمود؛ باغبانی، حمیدرضا؛ 1394. سطح‌بندی سرمایه معیشتی در روستاهای گردشگری کوهستانی، مطالعه موردی: دهستان بالا طالقان در شهرستان طالقان. اقتصاد فضا و توسعه روستایی، سال4، شماره2، 18-1.

کاظمی ثانی عطالله، نسرین؛ 1394. ارزیابی اثربخشی استراتژی‌های مقابله در برابر خشکسالی. دانش پیشگیری و مدیریت بحران، دوره5، شماره2، 118-109.

کلانتری، خلیل؛1394. مدل‌های کمی در برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، شهری و روستایی، چاپ سوم، انتشارات فرهنگ صبا.

نیکمرد نمین، سارا؛ برک‌پور، ناصر؛ عبدالهی، مجید؛ 1393. کاهش خطرات زلزله با تأکید بر عوامل اجتماعی رویکرد تاب‌آوری، نمونه موردی، منطقه 22 تهران. مدیریت شهری، شماره 37، 34-19.

Amaratunga. D & Haigh R., 2011. Post-Disaster Reconstruction of The Built Environment - Building for Resilience, Wiley-Blackwell, U.K.

Caldwell, K., Boyd.,2009. Coping and Resilience in Farming Families Affected by Drought, Rural and Remote Health 9: 1088, Available at: science.naturalnews.com, (September 2012).

Carpenter, S. R., 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what”? Ecosystems, No. 4, 765– 781.

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606.

De has.,2007. Remittances, Migration and Social Development, a Conceptual Review of the Literature, Social Policy and Development Programme, No. 37, 2-8.

Eliis, F.,2003. Rural Livelihood and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Gaillard, J. C.,2007. Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(4), 522-44

Hazelton, V., Harrison, J. & Kennan, W.,2007. New Technologies in the Formation of Personal and Public Relations in Duhe, New Media and Public 24- Relations. Peter Lang Publishing Inc. New York, U.S.A, Available at: http:// books. google. com/ books? id= n6hy FnSRk EwC&pg.

Maguire, b.& hagen.,2007. disasters and communities: understanding social resilience, the austrlian journal of emergency management, vol22, 16-20.

Manyena, S. B. (2009). The concept of resilience revisited”, Disasters 30 (4) 433–450.

Molen, M.K., 2011. Drought and Ecosystem Carbon Cycling, Agricaltural and Forest Meteorology, 151(7), 765- 773.

Nelson Valerie, Lamboll Richard 2 and Arendse Adele., 2008. Climate Change Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Development, Discussion Paper, DSADFID Policy Forum.

Pulwarty, R & Verdin, J.,2013. Crafting early warning information systems: the case of drought J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies (second ed.), United Nations University Press, 124–147.

Shen, F.,2009. Tourism and Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Application within the Chinese context, Ph.D. thesis, Lincoln University.

Singh, P. K& Hiremath, B.N.,2010. Sustainable livelihood security index in a developing country: A tool for development planning. Ecological Indicators, No.10, 442–451.

Tang, Q.; Bennett, S.J.; Yong, X. & Yang, L., 2013. Agricultural practices and sustainable livelihoods: Rural transformation within the Loess Plateau, China, Applied Geography, vol. 41, 15-2.

Udayakumara, E.P.N. and Shrestha, R.P.,2011. Assessing livelihood for improvement: Samanalawewa reservoir environs, Sri Lanka, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 18(4), 366-376.

Vento, J.Ph., Reddy, V.R. & Umapathy, D., 2010, Coping with Drought in Irrigated South India: Farmers’ adjustments in NagarjunaSagar, Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, 1434-1442.