Measuring the Livelihood Properties in Rural Areas Using a Sustainable Livelihood Approach (Case Study: Rural Areas of Taybad County)

Document Type : علمی


1 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 Assistant Prof, in Geography & Rural Planning, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran


Extended Abstract
Rural areas are environments that consist of different multiple sources and villagers use many assets and resources that shape their livelihood procedure. However, in most cases, incomplete and unconscious usage of sources is more destructive than uncontrolled industrial exploitation. For this reason, nowadays, rural poverty due to excessive pressure on resources, is considered as one of the unsustainable factors in the use of resources. Therefore, supporting poor villagers should not be the only main way for helping them meaning that their life style should be changed. In this regard, rural assets and capital could be the basic founders for achieving the goals of sustainable rural livelihood. Therefore, in this study, it had been tried to investigate and address the villagers’ assets and belongings. This research tries to measure the level of livelihood in rural areas of Taybad flat and Karat Dehestans of Taybad Countys and also find the answer for the following questions: are rural peoples' asserts and capital similar in all parts of the case study area or not? Which part of asserts has more share in rural livelihood? And finally, which one of the villages has a better situation compared to others?
The methods used for this study is a combination of descriptive and analytical methods including the library (documents) and field study (questionnaire) methods. Therefore, generally, in order to measure the level of livelihood assets from rural communities’ perspective, in the first step, the livelihood assets dimensions have been determined which include social, human, natural, physical, financial, and institutional dimensions. Moreower, 23 indicators were identified for these dimensions. In next step, these dimensions and indicators had been inserted into a Likret scale questionnaire designed for householders and rural local managers. In order to measure the questionnaire's reliability, Cronbach's formula was used. The total reliability of the questionnaire is 0.884. Statistical community had been chosen from rural of Taybad flat and Karat Dehestans of Taybad Countys. The unit of analysis is rural points and rural households. Totally, 94 households were determined as a samples size of 5079 households from 16 villages by using of Cochran formula. However, after modifying the share of each rural point, the sample increased to 162 households. A stratified sampling method used for selecting the samples. In this method, in addition to population, rural point geographic distribution had also been considered as a criterion. In order to analyze the gathered data based on research questions and goals, descriptive and inferential statistics had been used and VIKOR as a multi criteria decision making technique for ranking the rural point had also been applied.
The results of the study indicated that there is a significant difference between the villages in terms of their assets. Results of Friedman statistical test showed that social capital with a mean rating of 3.59 is the superior asset in the case study area, which is the sign of high integrity, solidarity, and social cohesion among rural communities. Human assets with a low average rating (mean= 1.11), are known as weak assets in the case study area. These results confirmed the results of Jome Poor and Ahmadi (1390) study about inequality of rural livelihood assets. Finally, the VIKOR decision making techniques for ranking the case study villages based on livelihood assets showed that Poshte and Rahne villages are in a better condition in comparison with the other villages; Poshte and Rahne villages were ranked in the first and last positions, respectively.
The results indicate inequality and lack of balance between rural livelihoods in terms of their assets. The findings of prioritization of rural livelihoods in terms of assets represent the difference between assets in rural areas. These results are similar to Alba's (1390) results and represent the difference in sustainable livelihoods between rural areas. Hence, according to the rankings of VIKOR in terms of assets regarding the studied areas, it can be concluded that Taybad villages share more assets and were ranked in the top positions because of being close to Taybad and using more facilities. Thus, it is crucial to consider the present differences in assets and investments in the planning process for these villages. In addition, major efforts should be done in order to strengthen other weak assets.


1. Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early Experience. Department for International Development (DFID), Russell Press Ltd., Nottingham, London.
2. Cahn, M. (2002). The business of living: Rural micro-enterprise and sustainable livelihoods (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
3. Carney, D. (1999). Livelihood approaches compared: A brief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of DFID, CARE, Oxfam, and UNDP. London: Department for International Development (DFID).
4. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. (IDS Discussion Paper No. 296), Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (UK). ‏
5. Chen, H., Shivakoti, G., Zhu, T., & Maddox, D. (2012). Livelihood sustainability and community based co-management of forest resources in China: Changes and improvement. Environmental Management, 49(1), 219–228.
6. Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press. ‏
7. DfID, U. K. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID. ‏
8. Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving themes in rural developments 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 437-448. Experience, Nottingham: Russell Press Ltd
9. Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C., & Turton, C. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods in practice: Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Retrieved 2014, July. 19, from http: nrp/42.html.
10. Fouracre, P. (2001). Transport and sustainable rural livelihoods. Retrieved 2014, June. 19, from
11. Gangwar, L. S., Saran, S., & Kumar, S. (2013). Integrated Poultry-Fish farming system for sustainable rural livelihood security in Kuma on hills of Uttarakhand. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 26(1), 181-188.
12. Kassa, K., and Eshetu, Z., (2014). Situation analysis of rural livelihoods and socioeconomic dynamics for sustainable rural development: The Case of Legehida Woreda district. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, 3(3), 201-208
13. Moseki, R., Motsholapheko, C. V., & Donald, L. K. (2013). Rural livelihoods and household adaptation to desiccation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Water and Climate Chang, 4, 300-316.
14. NZAID. (2002). Policy statement. New Zealand: New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID).
15. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514-529.
16. Pasteur, K. (2001). Changing organizations for sustainable livelihoods: A map to guide change. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
17. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (IDS Working Paper No. 72), Publisher: Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
18. Shen, F. (2009). Tourism and sustainable livelihoods approach: Application within the Chinese context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lincoln University, USA.
19. Shen, F., Hughey, k., & Simmons, D. (2009). Connecting livelihoods approach and tourism: A review of the literature toward integrative thinking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lincoln university.
20. Tang, Q.; Bennett, S.J.; Xu, Y.; Li, Y. (2013). Agricultural practices and sustainable livelihood: Rural transformation within the Loees Plateau, China. Applied Geography, 41(1), 15-23.
21. Alba, A. (1390/2011). Analysis the impact of border cooperation on sustainable rural livelihood in Saravan County (Unpublished master's thesis). Zabol University, Zabol, Iran. [In Persian]
22. Badri, A., Faraji Sabokbar, H. A., Javedan, M., & Sharafi, H., (1391/2012). Ranking the sustainability of rural areas by VIKOR (Case study: Rural of Fasa County, Fars province). Geography and Development, 10(26), 1-19. [In Persian]
23. Jome Poor, M., & Ahmadi, Sh. (1390/2011). The impact of tourism on sustainable rural livelihood (Case study: Baraghan village, Savojbolagh). Journal of Rural Researches, 2(1), 36-37. [In Persian]
24. Jome Poor, M., & Kioomars, N. (1391/2012). Effects of tourism assets and activities on the livelihoods of people living within tourism: A case study of Ziarat village. Journal of Tourism Management Studies, 7(17), 87-119. [In Persian]
25. Zahedi, Sh. A., & Najafi, Gh.A. (1385/2006). The concept of sustainable development. Teacher Quarterly, 10(49), 43-76. [In Persian]
26. Sojasi Qeidari, H., Sadeghloo, T., & Palooch, M. (1392/2013). Prioritization of sustainable rural livelihood development strategies: Combination of fuzzy Topsis (Case study: Khodabande, Iran). Journal of Rural Development, 2(1), 85-110. [In Persian]
27. Carney, D. (1998, July). Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Paper presented at the DFID Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference, London, Published: London, Department for International Development.
28. Balgis, O. E. (2004, June). Sustainable livelihood approach for assessing community’s resilience to climate variability and change: A case study from Sudan. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Climate Impacts Assessment (SICCIA), Grainau, Germany.