Content uploaded by Mohammad Shokati Amghani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammad Shokati Amghani on Jan 31, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mohammad Shokati Amghani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammad Shokati Amghani on Jan 22, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Factors affecting the livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers in Iran
Mohammad Shokati Amghani
a,*
, Mohammad Sadegh Sabouri
b
, Jafar Baghernejad
b
,
Abbas Norozi
c
a
Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Agriculture Extension and Education, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
c
Imam Khomaini Higher Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Sustainable livelihood framework
Livelihood assets
Small-scale farming
Smallholders
Sustainability
ABSTRACT
To advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, it’s essential to implement practices that
improve the livelihoods sustainability. Achieving this goal requires identifying Factors affecting the livelihood
sustainability of smallholder farmers (LSOSF). For this purpose, this study, conducted during 2023–2024. A
statistical sample of 500 smallholders from Alborz, Guilan, Hormozgan, and Yazd provinces in Iran was selected
using a multistage sampling method. The survey indicated an average farming unit had three able-bodied
household members aged between 18 and 65, with none engaged in formal education. The head of household
had an average of 10.53 years of formal education, ranging from 2 to 18 years. Household health status revealed
an average of 1.69 healthy family members per unit. Annual savings for the farmers were approximately 100
million rials, about one-fth of their total annual income. Regarding social networks, 55% of respondents had
moderate to low condence in assistance from neighbors and relatives during hardship. Structural equation
modeling (SEM) was used to examine factors inuencing LSOSF. Results indicated technical, economic, social,
and environmental factors had positive and signicant impacts on LSOSF. Among technical factors, agricultural
land quality, land use conservation, land aggregation, and cropping patterns were identied as the most inu-
ential, with land use conservation having the greatest impact. Key factors such as soil erosion prevention,
mitigation of land subsidence from groundwater extraction, and development of agricultural processing in-
dustries are crucial for LSOSF. This study provides a foundation for developing strategies to enhance smallholder
farmers’ livelihoods and well-being.
1. Introduction
A signicant proportion of the global population, particularly
smallholder farmers, relies on agriculture for their livelihoods (Fischer
and Qaim, 2012). Eradicating poverty, a central objective of the Sus-
tainable Development Goals (SDGs), is crucial for achieving other
development targets (Reddy et al., 2023). Rural communities encounter
unique challenges due to their socio-cultural, economic, political, and
geographical contexts (Baghernejad et al., 2023). On the other hand,
climate change, environmental degradation, and resource extraction
have increased risks for smallholders, particularly in the face of dimin-
ishing government support for agriculture (Choobchian et al., 2024;
Savari and Rouzaneh, 2024; Natarajan et al., 2022; Dupre et al., 2022;
Taylor, 2014). Hence, climate change constitutes a global threat that
poses signicant risks to sustainable livelihoods and requires immediate
attention (Savari et al., 2024c). In recent years, numerous review papers
have highlighted the relationship between climate change and sustain-
able livelihoods (Albugami et al., 2024). The Sustainable Livelihood
Framework (SLF) is a prominent model for examining rural poverty and
livelihood sustainability due to its multidimensional approach, encom-
passing economic, social, political, cultural, and environmental factors.
Variations in the intensity and combination of these factors result in
differing levels of rural livelihood sustainability (Shi et al., 2023;
Horner, 2020; Horner and Hulme, 2019; Scoones, 2013; Solesbury,
2003). Livelihoods encompass a diverse range of skills, resources, and
activities that enable individuals to fulll their basic needs and maintain
their overall well-being (Kabir et al., 2012). Accordingly, sustainable
livelihood security has been dened as a livelihood option encompass-
ing a secure environment, a viable economy, and social equity, with a
particular emphasis on environmental, economic, and social
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.shokati@modares.ac.ir (M.S. Amghani), Ms.sabouri@iau-garmsar.ac.ir (M.S. Sabouri), jafar.baghernejad@yahoo.com (J. Baghernejad),
anorozi66@yahoo.com (A. Norozi).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environmental-and-sustainability-indicators
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100601
Received 5 October 2024; Received in revised form 2 January 2025; Accepted 20 January 2025
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
Available online 20 January 2025
2665-9727/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
dimensions. Chambers and Conway (1992) proposed that this concept
should prioritize capability, equity, and sustainability (Chambers, 2014;
DFID, 1999). The Rural Sustainable Livelihood Index comprises three
principal indices: the environmental index (factors such as forest cover
(Savari et al., 2024a), soil and water quality, air pollution, and
groundwater discharge), the economic productivity index (land and
labor productivity, market surplus, and input-output ratio), and the
social equity index (equitable distribution of land, assets, and income,
population above the poverty line, and women’s literacy rates).
Collectively, these indices provide a framework for evaluating envi-
ronmental health, economic performance, and social equity (Singh and
Hiremath, 2010). Smallholder farmers, who cultivate limited plots of
land and produce relatively modest yields, are comparatively
under-resourced and more vulnerable within agricultural supply chains
than commercial-scale farmers. They frequently depend on family labor
and participate in the informal economy (WIEGO, 2024). Various factors
inuencing rural livelihood security can be categorized into ve di-
mensions (Table 1): economic, social, human, environmental, and
physical. The economic dimension encompasses income level, employ-
ment stability, income diversication, and access to crop insurance. The
social dimension includes migration patterns, social networks, in-
teractions with agricultural experts, and cooperative memberships. The
human dimension considers factors such as educational attainment,
employment status, age, motivation, collaboration in agricultural
practices, and attitudes toward rural living. The environmental dimen-
sion focuses on access to water resources, soil quality, and climatic
conditions. Finally, the physical dimension addresses farm mechaniza-
tion, market accessibility, transportation infrastructure, and broader
rural development initiatives (Nourozi and Hayati, 2015).
Furthermore, Keshavarz and Karami (2011) identied several crit-
ical factors affecting farmers’ livelihood sustainability, which are sum-
marized in Table 2.
A recent study by Sharinia (2021) identied several critical factors
inuencing livelihood sustainability in Iran. These factors are detailed in
Table 3.
Development practitioners typically aim to achieve primary objec-
tives when supporting smallholder farmers (Farrington et al., 1999); (a)
fostering economic growth tailored to smallholder conditions, or (b)
reducing smallholder vulnerability.
The goal selection depends on the specic opportunities and chal-
lenges faced by farmers in a particular region. Strategies aimed at
fostering economic growth are most effective in areas with well-
Table 1
Structural factors inuencing the sustainable livelihood security of farm
households (Nourozi and Hayati, 2015).
Human-made structures Social structures Economic
structures
Education level of
household head
Immigration status Income level
Employment status of
household members
Social relations Employment
stability
Age of household head The level of communication
between farmers agricultural
experts and promoters
Income
diversication
Motivation for progress Membership in cooperatives Product
insuranceAttitude toward staying in
the village
Village associations and
organizations
Household members’
cooperation in
agricultural activities
Livelihood sustainability from the farmer’s perspective
Physical structures Environmental structures
Farm mechanization level Access to water sources
Access to the market Soil condition
Suitable transportation facilities Climate type
Village development level
Table 2
Structures affecting the livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers.
Number Structure Variables
1 Human capital Education level
Household head age
Health status of the family
The amount of extension training
2 Social capital Intra-social communication
Extra social communication
Social links
3 Financial
capital
Household liquidity amount
Annual household income
The amount of government facilities received
The amount of compensation received in the form of
insurance
4 Physical
capital
Size of agricultural land
Farm buildings and facilities
Farm irrigation equipment and facilities
Quantity of small and large livestock
5 Natural capital Quality of agricultural lands
Soil quality
Water quality level
Access to water sources
Source: Keshavarz and Karami (2011).
Table 3
Factors affecting the sustainability of rural livelihoods.
Criteria Index
Services Access to healthcare services, health centers, clean drinking
water, waste collection and disposal centers, health insurance
for work and well-being, gyms, playgrounds, sports services,
local commercial centers and retail, temporary markets,
weekly markets, and so on.
Infrastructural Access to basic piped water, gas, telephone, and electricity,
transportation, quality of dirt, gravel, and asphalt roads,
development of road communication infrastructure, water
purication systems, and production tools.
Rural credits Rural credits, savings, improving income, increasing income
diversication and opportunities, creating new job
opportunities, reducing unemployment, access to bank
branches, covering ongoing and consumption expenses,
securing nancial resources for damage compensation, grants
from government agencies, increasing the number of loans,
and access to nancial resources.
Social and
cultural
Regular credit payments and income, recreational and
entertainment facilities, village parks, community involvement
for a peaceful and safe environment, promotion of literacy and
skills, access to educational centers, increased administrative
buildings, the establishment of educational institutions,
increased knowledge, access to religious facilities such as
houses of clerics, quranic houses, mosques, and the
construction of libraries.
Technological Coverage of radio and television waves, internet access,
availability of social and technical resources, communication,
handicrafts, processing industries, and complementary
industries.
Physical Shelters including housing facilities and clothing, street
lighting, housing area and infrastructure, residential unit
rooms, materials used in housing, encouraging villagers to
renovate homes, transportation accessibility, construction of
new pathways, access to pathways, beautication of pathways,
adherence to technical standards in pathways, appropriate
widening, suitable slope, and maintaining rural roadways.
Environmental Preservation of natural resources such as land, energy, and
water, rational use of human-made resources, preservation of
ecosystems and their restoration potential, availability of
natural resources like land, forests, and water, awareness of
expanding green spaces in villages, knowledge about
preserving pastures for future generations, awareness and
reduction of environmental degradation, and awareness about
water conservation.
Source: (Sharinia, 2021)
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
2
established production and commercial systems that facilitate market
integration. While vulnerability reduction is often prioritized in mar-
ginal areas; however, these regions may also possess the potential for
pursuing growth-oriented approaches appropriate to the poor.
While substantial research on sustainable livelihoods has emerged in
recent years, there remains a gap in comprehensive studies focused on
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods. Some research has addressed the sus-
tainable livelihoods of women entrepreneurs (Hendratmi et al., 2024),
while other studies have investigated the factors inuencing the liveli-
hoods of rural households (Guo et al., 2023) or the relationship between
climate change and sustainable livelihoods (Albugami et al., 2024).
Notably, smallholder farmers contribute to producing one-third of the
world’s food (Ricciardi et al., 2018). Therefore, considering the unique
characteristics of smallholder farming systems and their signicant
impact on ensuring food security for communities, it is crucial to
conduct focused studies on the sustainability of their livelihoods and the
factors affecting them. Such studies would provide valuable insights for
developing policies and strategies to enhance smallholder farming.
Therefore, based on the sustainable livelihoods framework, this study
seeks to address this research gap by examining the factors affecting the
livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers in Iran, to improve their
quality of life.
If policymakers in sustainable rural development and agriculture do
not adequately consider the factors affecting the sustainability of
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods, the resulting policies are likely to be
ineffective (Slovic, 2016). To address this challenge, it becomes imper-
ative to systematically identify these factors, examine their character-
istics and intensity, and assess the nature of their impact, whether direct
or indirect. This understanding is essential for the formulation and
implementation of policies that effectively support the sustainability of
smallholder farmers’ livelihoods (Al Dirani et al., 2021). Hence, the
present study examines the sustainability of the smallholder farmers’
livelihoods in several provinces of Alborz, Guilan, Hormozgan, and Yazd
in Iran. In a case study approach, the research analyzes various factors
inuencing livelihood sustainability within the target community,
aiming to provide a comprehensive and systematic perspective on how
enhancing livelihood sustainability contributes to improving overall
quality of life. Accordingly, the study adopts the Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework (SLF) as a comprehensive analytical model, integrating
diverse factors across the primary components of livelihood capital.
Besides, it explores key factors shaping the sustainability of smallholder
farmers’ livelihoods, considering types of livelihood assets, household
vulnerability factors, livelihood strategies, evolving processes and
structures, and livelihood outcomes. Since the early 1990s, the Sus-
tainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) (DFID, 1999) and SLF (UNDP,
2017) have gained prominence in both academic and practical eld-
work, especially in the rural global South. The United Nations Devel-
opment Programme (UNDP) was an early proponent, establishing a unit
within the Poverty Division in 1995, with the Sustainable Livelihoods
Programme continuing until the late 2000s. The Strategic Plan
(2014–2017) underscores the importance of livelihoods by emphasizing
assets and vulnerabilities as critical areas of focus (UNDP, 2017). The
Sustainable Livelihoods approach was initially developed by Chambers
and Conway in 1991 and subsequently rened by DFID in 1999. Sub-
sequent contributions by Norton and Foster (2001) and Thennakoon
(2004) further enhanced the framework’s applicability and relevance.
Indicators and income-generating activities within this approach are
derived from ten UNDP environmental projects, with necessary adjust-
ments for the specic requirements of individual projects (Fig. 1).
2. Review of related literature
2.1. Sustainable livelihoods
The concept of sustainable livelihoods was pioneered by Robert
Chambers and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of
Sussex. This concept encompasses diverse aspects of individual, house-
hold, and community life. Achieving sustainable livelihoods involves
safeguarding human well-being by implementing strategies that
improve health, education, and opportunities while ensuring a sustain-
able environment and a decent standard of living (Chen and Cai, 2025).
The objectives of the sustainable livelihoods concept encompass poverty
reduction, social protection, combating social exclusion, promoting
human rights, and safeguarding natural resources, which serve as the
foundation for livelihoods worldwide. Livelihoods refer to the means of
living, encompassing capabilities, assets, and activities essential for
survival (Liu et al., 2022; Serrat, 2017; Motiee Langroodi et al., 2011).
This concept emerged as an analytical approach to understanding
poverty and rural development, forming the basis for the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach (SLA). It aims to address the limitations of earlier
top-down development approaches, often failing to account for the
complex and dynamic nature of poverty and livelihoods (Miani et al.,
2023). Notably, the SLA emphasizes the analysis of assets, vulnerabil-
ities, strategies, and institutions within a given context. This resonates
with the growing recognition that effective development interventions
should be context-specic and responsive to the needs and capacities of
local communities. Over time, the SLA has been adopted by a wide range
of development practitioners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and researchers focused on poverty alleviation and sustainable devel-
opment, particularly in rural areas (Su et al., 2019). Therefore,
Fig. 1. The DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) as a conceptual framework.
(Source: Redrawn from UNDP, 2017)
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
3
sustainable livelihoods are achieved when individuals and communities
can withstand and recover from shocks and stresses while maintaining
or enhancing their capabilities and assets for both present and future
generations, without compromising the natural resource base (Scoones,
2013).
Scholars in the eld have proposed various denitions of sustainable
livelihoods. For instance, Ashley and Carney (1999) conceptualize sus-
tainable livelihoods as encompassing the capabilities, assets, and ac-
tivities necessary for subsistence, emphasizing their capacity to
withstand and recover from shocks, while simultaneously enhancing
capabilities and assets without depleting natural resources. Besides, Ellis
(2000) provides a complementary perspective, dening livelihoods as a
composite of human, physical, social, and nancial capital, which is
accessed through institutional and social frameworks. These inter-
connected elements collectively shape the livelihood outcomes of in-
dividuals and households (Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2010). While the
concept of sustainable livelihood does not discriminate between social
classes, its origins lie in understanding rural households resilience to
crises such as drought, oods, food shortages, and agricultural pests and
diseases. However, the Overseas Development Institute advocates for a
broader perspective on poverty reduction through the sustainable live-
lihoods approach (Savari et al., 2024b; Valdes-Rodriguez and
Perez-Vazquez, 2011). Ellis (2000)emphasizes the signicance of access
to assets and activities, shaped by social factors such as gender, literacy,
class, ethnicity, beliefs, and institutions, in shaping livelihoods. This
people-centered paradigm, grounded in local knowledge and economic
practices, aligns with sustainable development principles by prioritizing
resources and opportunities for future generations (DFID, 1999). Hence,
synthesizing these perspectives, livelihoods can be referred to as
encompassing nancial and social assets, capabilities, and activities
essential for a sustainable way of life. Such livelihoods must preserve
and enhance future capabilities and assets, safeguard natural resources,
and manage shocks and stresses effectively (Xu et al., 2015). Notably,
SLF provides a structured approach to analyzing the factors inuencing
livelihood opportunities. Therefore, the framework recognizes the
variability in access to livelihood assets among households and un-
derscores the importance of developing these assets to improve liveli-
hood prospects. The SLF emphasizes the interaction of various elements
within the framework to create a comprehensive understanding of sus-
tainable livelihoods (Serrat, 2017; DFID, 1999).
In other words, SLF has emerged as a pivotal tool for analyzing
household livelihoods (Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2010; Liu et al., 2022),
gaining prominence in both research and policy domains (Natarajan
et al., 2022). Its value lies in guiding researchers and development
practitioners toward effective poverty reduction and development ini-
tiatives by fostering a comprehensive understanding of people’s assets,
capital, and their transformation into desired outcomes (Mbaiwa, 2011).
Besides, Chambers and Conway (1992) explored the interconnections
between capabilities, assets, and livelihood sustainability, while the SLF
emphasizes the preservation and enhancement of these resources for
present and future generations, alongside the safeguarding natural
capital (Che-Soh & Omar, 2012). Among the various frameworks pro-
posed, the Department for International Development’s (DFID)
ve-component model (1999) stands out as a comprehensive analytical
structure. This model provides a systematic tool for examining the fac-
tors that constrain or enhance livelihood opportunities and their in-
terrelationships (Krantz, 2001). The concept of sustainable living was
articulated in DFID’s strategic document called "White Papers for Inter-
national Development" (1997). This document highlights poverty reduc-
tion in developing countries as the central goal of the institution,
achievable through the promotion of sustainable livelihoods. Conse-
quently, sustainable livelihoods have been conceptualized not as an
ultimate goal but as a means to achieve poverty alleviation (DFID,
1999). Existing literature frequently highlights the positive impact of
diversifying livelihoods, particularly through non-agricultural activities
(Bires and Raj, 2020). The application of SLA and SLF in rural
development and agriculture has led to more people-centered, sustain-
able, and context-specic initiatives. This paradigm shift has facilitated
a transition from top-down approaches to participatory efforts that
prioritize the unique characteristics and requirements of rural commu-
nities (Nyaupane, 2011).
2.2. Smallholder farming
Smallholder farming represents a mixed agricultural system rooted
in traditional cultivation practices, primarily managed by household
members. This system involves the production of a variety of crops and
livestock, with smallholder farmers typically cultivating less than 1 ha of
land. These farmers account for 95% of the total cultivated area and
produce over 90% of their agricultural output for self-consumption
(Taffesse et al., 2012). For this study, smallholder farmers are dened
as those operating agricultural units consisting of less than 10 ha of
arable land and less than 2 ha of orchards. These operational units are
typically managed by farming households engaged in a combination of
agricultural, horticultural, livestock, and other related activities.
Notably, smallholder farming systems constitute a signicant portion of
the agricultural workforce in developing countries, including Iran.
Globally, there were over 570 million agricultural holdings in 2021, a
gure that increased to 656 million in 2020 but is projected to decline to
624 million by 2030 (Erenstein et al., 2021). Most of these holdings are
family-based and operate on a small scale. Lipton (2005) dened
smallholder farms as agricultural units where households and family
labor are primarily employed, with limited capital and assets, and
typically less than 2 ha in size. Globally, small farms (less than 2 ha)
account for approximately 12% of agricultural land, while family farms
collectively manage about 75% of the world’s agricultural land.
Notably, the average size of agricultural holdings in most low- and
middle-income countries has decreased signicantly between 1960 and
2000. Conversely, in some upper-middle-income countries and nearly
all high-income countries, the average size of holdings has increased
during the same period (Lowder et al., 2016). Smallholder farmers in
rural areas of low-income countries represent more than two-thirds of
the world’s poor and food-insecure population (IFAD, 2011; FAO, Ifad,
& WFP, 2015). As depicted in Fig. 2, smallholder farms contribute to
approximately one-third of the global food supply (Ricciardi et al.,
2018).
Hence, Smallholder farmers play a crucial role in global food pro-
duction, providing approximately 80% of rural livelihoods in devel-
oping countries, making them the most vulnerable rural population
(ILO, 2019). These farmers predominantly depend on family labor to
cultivate small plots of land, often less than 2 ha (Rapsomanikis, 2015).
Many reside in marginal areas and depend on rain-fed agriculture,
which is highly susceptible to the impacts of unreliable irrigation sys-
tems. This lack of consistent irrigation exacerbates their vulnerability, as
erratic rainfall patterns lead to unstable and reduced crop yields (Ubisi
et al., 2020). In this context, the concept of sustainable livelihoods has
garnered considerable attention within rural development discourse. It
emerged from a shift in perspectives regarding poverty, participation,
and sustainable development (Sen, 1981; Swift, 1989; Chambers and
Conway, 1992). Livelihood insecurity has been identied as a key
consequence of rural poverty (Chambers et al., 1981; Sen, 1981). Studies
on vulnerability highlight that smallholder farmers are not only more
exposed to environmental shocks but also demonstrate lower resilience
to livelihood shocks (Downing, 1991). These ndings underscore the
critical need to identify the factors inuencing the sustainability of
smallholder livelihoods.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Description of study area
As depicted in Fig. 3, this study encompasses four provinces in Iran,
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
4
selected based on their diverse climatic conditions and average agri-
cultural land size. Specically, Alborz Province represents a cold
climate, Yazd Province a hot and arid climate, Hormozgan Province a
hot and humid climate, and Guilan Province a temperate and humid
climate.
Alborz Province, covering approximately 5142 km
2
, is located be-
tween 35◦31
′
and 36◦21
′
north latitude and 50◦10
′
and 51◦30
′
east
longitude, bordered by Mazandaran, Tehran, Markazi, and Qazvin
Provinces. This area consists of 7 counties and 356 inhabited localities.
Besides, Guilan Province, with an area of 14,711 km
2
, lies between
36◦33
′
and 38◦27
′
north latitude and 48◦32
′
and 50◦36
′
east longitude,
sharing borders with Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea, and several Iranian
provinces. The population of this province was 2,530,696 in 2016.
Moreover, Hormozgan Province, a major tourism and economic hub at
the northern entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, spans about 68,000 km
2
(similar in size to Georgia) and includes Bandar Abbas as its capital.
Yazd Province, located in the central part of Iran with an area of around
72,156 km
2
, is known for its arid climate and limited agricultural water
resources, bordered by Isfahan, Khorasan, Fars, and Kerman Provinces,
this province consists 7 counties focusing on agricultural production
mainly in Khatam and Abarkuh counties.
Fig. 2. Smallholder farms are responsible for producing nearly one-third of the global food supply.
Fig. 3. Study area.
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
5
3.2. Study type
Given the nature and type of research, the overall perspective of this
study is quantitative. It is classied as applied research, with eld
research being employed due to the level of control over variables.
Additionally, in terms of data collection methods and generalizability,
the study follows a descriptive-analytical design. Within the descriptive
research framework, a survey method was utilized. The research in-
strument was a questionnaire developed by the researcher, whose val-
idity was assessed, reviewed, and revised by a group of faculty members
from the Department of Agricultural Extension and Education at Tarbiat
Modares University.
3.3. Sample statistical population of the study
A sample size of 500 people was estimated using Cochran’s formula,
as detailed in Table 3. The degree of accuracy (d) was calculated as 0.03
of the range between the smallest and largest average farm sizes across
the four studied provinces: Alborz, Guilan, Hormozgan, and Yazd. The
farm size ranged from 0.8 ha in Guilan to 3.5 ha in Hormozgan (Cochran,
1977). It is important to note that simple random sampling with pro-
portionate allocation was employed to select household heads for this
study. A multi-stage sampling technique was also applied, starting with
the selection of provinces, followed by counties, and then villages. The
sampling process from the population of smallholder farmers was as
follows:
Stage 1: Several provinces were selected based on a four-fold cli-
matic classication model, dividing the country into cold, hot and
dry, hot and humid, and temperate and humid zones. Provinces
within each zone were ranked by the average size of agricultural
holdings. One province with the smallest average farm size was
selected from each zone: Alborz (cold), Yazd (hot and dry), Hor-
mozgan (hot and humid), and Guilan (temperate and humid).
Stage 2: Following the selection of provinces, counties, and villages
were identied for the study. Reports from the Ministry of Cultural
Heritage, Tourism, and Handicrafts highlighted villages recognized
as national and global handicraft villages by the ministry and
UNESCO. Additionally, villages identied as tourism destinations by
the Deputy Ministry of Rural Development and Deprived Areas were
included. In total, 20 counties and 27 villages were chosen for the
study, as outlined in Table 4.
The sample size was estimated to be 500 people using the Cochran
formula, as shown in equation (1).
n=N(t.s)2
Nd2+ ( t.s)2
n=481096 (1.96 ×1.13)2
(481096 ×.082)+ (1.96 ×1.13)2=500
Eq. 1
The measurement accuracy (d) was set at three percent of the range
between the smallest and largest average size of agricultural operating
units across the four studied provinces: Alborz, Guilan, Hormozgan, and
Yazd (0.8 ha in Guilan to 3.5 ha in Hormozgan) (Barlett et al., 2001;
Cochran, 1977). It is noteworthy that the sampling method used in this
study to select household heads was a simple random sampling with
proportional allocation. Therefore, it is also worth mentioning that this
study was conducted from 2023 to 2024 to identify the factors affecting
the livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers.
Table 4
Selected villages are categorized based on province and city.
Region Statistical population
number (people)
Statistical population
(percentage)
Samples
number
(people)
County Selected village Selection reason Samples
number
(people)
Alborz 30281 6 50 Taleghan Karkabood Tourism 13
Savojblagh Warde Tourism 11
Savojblagh Senj Tourism 26
Guilan 304978 63 301 Roodsar Damash Tourism 7
shaft Imamzadeh
Ibrahim
Tourism 10
shaft Jirdeh National Handicrafts Village 32
Rasht Hajibakande Tourism 16
Rasht Imamzadeh
Hashem
Tourism 51
Khammam Fesheke National Handicrafts Village 42
Rezvanshahr Arde National Handicrafts Village 15
Astara Anbaran National Handicrafts Village 46
Roodser Hasnaksera Tourism 14
Roodser Qasemabad Global Handicrafts Village 63
Masal Sharma National Handicrafts Village 5
Hormozgan 69842 15 72 Lengeh
Bandar
Geshe Bandar Handicraft index village 5
Lengeh
Bandar
Hamiran Handicraft index village 12
Minab Bahmani Handicraft index village 12
Hajiabad Tazarj Tourism 7
Bandar Abbas Sarkh paeen Tourism 2
Bastak Tadrooye Tourism 34
Yazd 75995 16 77 Mehriz Manshad Tourism 2
Khatam Chahak Tourism 21
Abarkooh Faraghe Tourism 7
Abarkooh Asadabad Index village for conversion and
complementary industries
6
Khatam Karkhangan Tourism 10
Bafgh Mobarake Index village for conversion and
complementary industries
23
Meibod Mehr abad Index village for conversion and
complementary industries
7
Total 481096 100% 500 20 counties 27 villages 500
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
6
3.4. Statistical tools
In this study, two statistical tools were utilized: descriptive statistics
and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the main char-
acteristics of the dataset. These include measures such as mean, median,
mode, standard deviation, variance, range, and percentiles. These sta-
tistics helped to understand the central tendency, variability, and dis-
tribution of the data. For example, the survey revealed an average of
three able-bodied household members per farming unit, with heads of
households having an average of 10.53 years of formal education, and
household health status indicating an average of 1.69 healthy family
members per unit.
Inferential statistics were used to make inferences or generalizations
about the population based on the sample data. Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the factors inuencing the
sustainable livelihoods of smallholder farmers. SEM is a powerful sta-
tistical technique that combines factor analysis and multiple regression
analysis to understand the structural relationships between observed
and latent variables. The results indicated that technical, economic,
social, and environmental factors had positive and signicant impacts
on the livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers (LSOSF). Among
these, technical factors, particularly agricultural land use conservation,
emerged as the most inuential driver.
3.5. Measures
Data were collected through personal interviews using question-
naires designed after thoroughly examining the current literature. The
questionnaire consisted of factors inuencing farmers’ livelihoods ((TF),
(EF), (SF), and (EVF)) including 16 indicators (Table 5).
4. Results
Findings regarding the respondents’ ages revealed an average age of
approximately 43 years among the studied farmers. The majority
(23.2%) fell within the under-30 age group, while the least frequent age
group (12.6%) was above 60 years old. The youngest and older farmers
were 23 and 65 years old, respectively. Concerning their primary source
of livelihood, over 60.6% (303) of the farmers’ families relied on agri-
culture, while 39.4% (197) earned through non-agricultural activities.
The average total income of the studied farmers from both agriculture
and non-agricultural sectors was 190 million and 310 million rials,
respectively. This indicates that the average income from the non-
agricultural sector was approximately 63% higher than that from
agriculture.
4.1. Livelihood assets of smallholder farmers
1. Human capital; An analysis of the total number of household labor
force members aged between 18 and 65, who were healthy and not
enrolled in education, revealed an average of approximately 3 in-
dividuals. Further analysis of the number of years of education of the
household head showed an average of 10.53 years, with a maximum
of 18 years and a minimum of 2 years. Moreover, an examination of
the health status of household members indicated that 1.69 members
per household were in good or fair health.
2. Natural capital; Results of the assessment of agricultural land
quality, as presented in Table 6, showed that the highest average
agricultural land size was 10.34 ha, corresponding to the medium
quality category. Whereas, the lowest average, at 2.10 ha, was
associated with the poor and very poor-quality categories.
3. Financial Capital
Based on the research ndings, the average annual savings of the
studied farmers represented approximately one-fth of their total
annual income, which averaged 500 million rials. Specically, the
average annual savings amounted to 100 million rials. A total of 306
farmers (61.2%) reported annual savings within the range of 50–100
million rials. Results from examining the total amount of loans received
by household heads over the past ve years indicated an average annual
loan receipt of 100 million rials. Furthermore, the minimum and
maximum loan amounts received were 90 million rials and 2500 million
rials, respectively.
Table 5
Indicators affecting smallholder farmers’ livelihoods.
Capital Index Symbol How to assess Type
of
effect
Technical
Factor (TF)
Agricultural
land quality
TF1 Improving the fertility
of agricultural lands
þ
Agricultural
land use
conservation
TF2 Preventing the change
in agricultural land
use
þ
-
Aggregation of
agricultural
land
TF3 Prevention of
fragmentation and
dispersion of
agricultural lands
þ
-
Cropping
pattern
TF4 Implementing the
cultivation pattern
regularly and with
detailed planning
þ
-
Economic
Factor (EF)
Productivity EF1 Improving the
productivity of
production factors
þ
Production
support
EF2 Granting low-interest
and long-term
facilities to farmers
and ranchers
þ
Non-
Agricultural
economy
EF3 Development of non-
agricultural
entrepreneurship
þ
Market EF4 Regulation of the
agricultural products
market
þ
-
Social Factor
(SF)
Population SF1 Rural population
control (birth rate
control)
þ
Social capital SF2 Promotion of social
solidarity among the
village people
þ
Participation SF3 Involvement of
villagers in various
village matters
þ
-
Empathy SF4 Improving
interpersonal trust
among villagers
þ
Environmental
Factor (EVF)
Conservation
of natural
resources
EVF1 Preventing the
erosion of pastures by
balancing the
capacity of pastures
and livestock
þ
-
Compatibility EVF2 Adaptation to climate
change
þ
-
Control EVF3 Control and
containment of
natural hazards
þ
-
Conservation
agriculture
EVF4 Prevent soil erosion þ
-
Table 6
The quality of agricultural lands in the studied areas.
Land quality Average (ha) Min (ha) Max (ha)
Very fertile 5.26 1 14
Relatively fertile 1.07 0 3
Medium 10.34 1 28
Relatively weak 2.10 0 6
Very poor 2.10 0 6
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
7
4.2. The ability of household heads to access bank loans
An assessment of household heads’ ability to access bank loans, as
presented in Table 7, revealed that approximately 61% exhibited mod-
erate to low levels of access.
4.3. The ability of the household head to receive loans from relatives and
friends
An examination of household heads’ ability to receive loans from
relatives and friends revealed that approximately 60% exhibited me-
dium to low levels of access, as presented in Table 8.
4. Social capital
Approximately 55% of household heads, as indicated in Table 9,
responded negatively to the statement "I have neighbors, villagers,
friends, and relatives who can help me in times of difculty or stress."
This suggests a moderate to low level of perceived social support within
their networks.
The results indicated that approximately 60% of respondents re-
ported having moderate to high levels of relationships with family
members, neighbors, and other village inhabitants (Table 10).
Table 11 presents the results of an analysis examining the relation-
ships between household members and formal employees, as well as
village council members and the village head. The ndings indicate that
approximately 60% of these relationships were rated as moderate to
high.
The research ndings revealed that, on average, household heads
had approximately three relatives or friends who were either govern-
ment employees or held positions in local government (village council or
village head). Additionally, household heads were members of an
average of three village groups or organizations for a period of three
years. As shown in Table 12, collaboration between household heads
and non-governmental organizations was also prevalent, with 60%
reporting moderate to high levels of engagement.
5. Physical capital
The average total value of xed assets was approximately 750
million rials. Furthermore, the minimum and maximum values of these
assets within the study population were 500 million and 1000 million
rials, respectively. Additionally, an analysis of the total value of pro-
ductive equipment and assets owned by households, including tractors,
combines, and other production machinery revealed an average value of
760 million rials. The minimum and maximum values for these assets
within the study population were 500 million and 1000 million rials,
respectively. Moreover, an examination of the total value of livestock,
poultry, and aquatic animals owned by households, such as cattle,
sheep, goats, chickens, bees, silkworms, and sh, indicated an average
value of 740 million rials. Notably, the minimum and maximum values
for these assets within the study population were 500 million and 1000
million rials, respectively. The ndings presented in Table 13 indicate
that approximately 29% of households resided in brick houses.
The results of the housing age assessment revealed an average
Table 7
The household’s ability to receive bank loans.
Ability Level Frequency Percentage
Very Hard 114 22.8%
Relatively Hard 130 26%
Average 63 12.6%
Relatively Easy 96 19.2%
Very Easy 97 19.4%
Total Sum 500 100%
Table 8
The household’s ability to receive bank loans.
Ability Level Frequency Percentage
Very Hard 116 23.2%
Relatively Hard 100 20%
Average 85 17%
Relatively Easy 112 22.4%
Very Easy 87 17.4%
Total Sum 500 100%
Table 9
The Level of people’s belief in neighborly support during times of hardship and
pressure.
Level of belief Frequency Percentage
Very Low 95 19
Low 104 20.8
Average 78 15.6
High 104 20.8
Very High 119 23.8
Total 500 100
Table 10
Relationship types between family members, neighbors, and other villagers.
Relationship type Frequency Percentage
Very Bad 100 20
Relatively Bad 103 20.6
Average 105 21
Relatively Good 87 17.4
Very Good 105 21
Total 500 100
Table 11
The relationships between household members and formal employees, as well as
village council members and the village head.
Relationship type Frequency Percentage
Very Bad 110 22
Relatively Bad 88 17.6
Average 99 19.8
Relatively Good 107 21.4
Very Good 96 19.2
Total 500 100
Table 12
The level of cooperation of household heads with NGOs in the village.
Level of Cooperation Frequency Percentage
Very Low 106 21
Low 86 17
Average 112 22
High 101 20
Very High 95 19
Total 500 100
Table 13
Households housing type.
Type of Housing Frequency Percentage
Thatched 123 24.6
Stone 120 24
Brick 143 28.6
Earthquake-resistant Concrete 114 22.8
Total 500 100
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
8
housing age of approximately 15 years. Moreover, the minimum and
maximum housing ages in the studied rural areas were 1 and 35 years,
respectively. Additionally, it was found that the average housing area
was around 167 m
2
the minimum and maximum housing areas were
recorded as 65 and 400 m
2
, respectively.
4.4. Household vulnerability factors
Table 14 presents the results of the household vulnerability assess-
ment. The ndings indicated that the primary vulnerabilities faced by
the study participants were associated with natural hazards such as
oods, earthquakes, and Land subsidence, followed by seasonal
uctuations.
4.5. Household livelihood strategies
As for the number of income sources in the households under study,
results indicated that household heads possessed an average of three
income streams. Furthermore, an examination of household capacity for
freely selecting a livelihood source and the exibility to transition be-
tween different livelihood activities revealed that approximately 63% of
them possessed a moderate to high level of capability (Table 15).
4.6. Changing processes and structures
An examination of evolving processes and structures within local
governance, as presented in Table 16, indicated that local organizations
play a pivotal role in local governance. Additionally, 41.6% of the study
participants conrmed that members of their households are involved in
rural cooperatives in various forms.
4.7. Livelihood outcomes
An examination of livelihood outcomes in the study areas, as pre-
sented in Table 17, revealed that non-agricultural activities head to
satisfactory results. Approximately 57% of respondents reported mod-
erate to high improvements in their living standards.
4.8. The sustainability of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods
Table 18 presents the ndings of an assessment of smallholder
farmers’ livelihood sustainability across various dimensions. In terms of
economic sustainability, Guilan Province ranked highest with a com-
posite index of 0.108, followed by Hormozgan Province (0.023), Alborz
Province (−0.034), and Yazd Province (−0.094). Regarding social sus-
tainability, Hormozgan Province achieved the highest ranking with a
value of 0.130, while Alborz Province ranked lowest with a value of
−0.030. For environmental sustainability, Guilan Province again
demonstrated the highest performance with a value of 0.194, whereas
Yazd Province ranked lowest with a value of −0.118. Finally, in terms of
institutional sustainability, Hormozgan Province ranked highest with a
value of 0.0133, while Guilan Province ranked lowest with a value of
−0.0192.
As depicted in Fig. 4, the economic sustainability of smallholder
farmers’ livelihoods demonstrated a higher level than other livelihood
Table 14
The context of household vulnerability.
Question Very
Low
Low Average High Very
High
To what extent is your household’s
livelihood limited by natural
factors?
105 95 104 110 86
Number of shocks and crises
affecting household members?
97 111 92 99 101
To what extent do seasonal
uctuations impact your
household’s livelihood?
82 95 116 109 98
How much are your household’s
livelihood activities exposed to
market contraction and
uctuations?
96 120 99 89 96
Table 15
Households ability to freely choose livelihood sources and capability to shift
between livelihood activities.
Level of Ability Frequency Percentage
Very Low 99 20
Low 86 17
Average 112 22
High 95 19
Very High 108 22
Total 500 100
Table 16
Changing processes and structures.
Question Very
Low
Low Average High Very
High
To what extent do your household
members participate in
decisions about the
development of rural
industries?
101 101 106 99 93
To what extent do your household
members participate in local
governance?
103 108 101 81 107
To what extent do your household
members participate in rural
cooperatives?
80 112 100 91 117
What is the role of local
organizations in local
governance in your village?
76 87 112 107 118
Table 17
Livelihood outcomes in the study areas.
Question Very
Low
Low Average High Very
High
Improvement in the living
standards of your household
100 113 86 98 103
Increase in job opportunities
available to your household
members
97 110 99 91 103
Sustainable utilization of natural
resources belonging to the
household
95 99 92 101 113
Environmental optimization in
your household’s living area
101 125 82 78 114
Inuence of cultural heritage in
your area (e.g., qanats, wind
catchers, etc.)
124 96 77 91 113
Level of coordination in
relationships among household
members
95 99 92 101 113
Table 18
Livelihood sustainability levels of smallholder farmers across different
dimensions.
Index/Region Alborz Guilan Hormozgan Yazd
Economical Sustainability −0.0346 0.1085 0.023 −0.0943
Social Sustainability −0.0344 −0.0105 0.0129 0.0028
Environmental Sustainability −0.016 0.1941 −0.066 −0.1181
Institutional Sustainability −0.0072 −0.0192 0.0133 0.0132
Composite Index −0.092 0.273 −0.017 −0.196
Composite Index Priority 3 1 2 4
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
9
dimensions, while social sustainability exhibited the weakest
performance.
4.9. Factors affecting the sustainability of smallholder farmers’
livelihoods
To identify the inuencing factors on the sustainability of livelihoods
for smallholder farmers, the statements presented as inuential factors
were prioritized and categorized. Based on the research ndings pre-
sented in Table 19, the mean, standard deviation, and coefcient of
variation were calculated for each statement identied as a factor
inuencing the sustainability of rural livelihoods. Farmer perspectives
revealed that the most critical factors for ensuring the sustainability of
their livelihoods were, in descending order of perceived importance as
following order; preventing soil erosion (coefcient of variation 0.426),
preventing land subsidence due to excessive groundwater extraction
(coefcient of variation 0.441), developing agricultural processing and
value-added industries (coefcient of variation 0.443), and controlling
and combating various pandemics (such as COVID-19, SARS, etc.) (co-
efcient of variation 0.443).
Subsequently, to examine the factors affecting the sustainability of
the livelihoods of smallholder farmers, a quantitative approach and SEM
were employed, using Partial Least Squares (PLS) with the Smart PLS
approach. Therefore, the evaluation of the measurement model of the
study was conducted in three stages: (1) unidimensionality, (2) validity
and reliability, and (3) diagnostic validity. Regarding the unidimen-
sionality aspect, the standardized factor loadings (λ) for the selected
indicators were greater than 0.5 and statistically signicant at the 1%
level (P <0.01). This provides sufcient evidence to conrm the uni-
dimensionality of the selected indicators. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the selected indicators were appropriately chosen to measure the
research constructs and exhibit adequate accuracy (Table 5).
Regarding the reliability and validity aspect, an examination of the
research instrument revealed that the composite reliability (CR) of all
constructs in the proposed research model exceeded 0.60, and their
Cronbach’s alpha coefcients were also higher than 0.70. Additionally,
the average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs in the proposed
research model was greater than 0.50. Therefore, all latent variables in
the proposed research model exhibited satisfactory reliability and val-
idity (Table 20).
Regarding discriminant validity, Table 21 demonstrates that the
square root of AVE for each research construct, ranging from 0.727 to
0.818, consistently exceeded the correlations observed between these
constructs, which ranged from 0.460 to 0.710. This nding provides
strong evidence for discriminant validity, conrming that each construct
within the proposed research model measures a unique concept and is
sufciently distinct from the others.
To assess the model’s t, a range of t indices were employed, as
presented in Table 22. Based on the reported values and established
thresholds for these indices, the model demonstrated an adequate t for
the observed data.
Following the validation of the measurement model in the preceding
sections, SEM was employed to empirically test the research hypotheses
within the framework of the proposed theoretical model. The path
model, depicting standardized factor loadings and their signicance
levels, is presented in Figs. 5 and 6.
Hypothesis testing: This section presents the results of the nal
impact of variables on the livelihood sustainability of smallholder
farmers. Bootstrapping was employed to test the research hypotheses.
The ndings indicate that all hypotheses were supported based on the
predicted relationships. Moreover, the results revealed that the research
variables could explain 63.8% of the variance in sustainable livelihoods
(Table 23).
In the aforementioned table, a path coefcient is considered statis-
tically signicant at the 95% condence level if its corresponding t-
statistic exceeds 1.96 in absolute value. When this criterion is met, the
associated hypothesis is accepted.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the factors inuencing the livelihood sus-
tainability of smallholder farmers. The ndings of this study could
contribute to improving the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods. The
results indicated that 39.4% of the study participants relied on non-farm
activities as their primary source of livelihood. Furthermore, the average
total income from non-agricultural sources (310 million rials) was 1.63
times greater than the income generated from agricultural activities
(190 million rials). Notably, the outcomes associated with non-
agricultural activities were reported to be satisfactory, with approxi-
mately 57% of respondents indicating a moderate to high improvement
in their living standards as a result of these activities. Furthermore, the
Fig. 4. The sustainability of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in
different dimensions.
Table 19
Prioritization of factors affecting the sustainability of smallholder farmers’
livelihoods.
Factors Mean Standard
Deviation
Coefcient of
Variation
Priority
Soil erosion prevention 3.32 1.415 0.426 1
Preventing Land subsidence
due to excessive
groundwater extraction
3.18 1.401 0.441 2
Development of agricultural
processing and
complementary industries
3.07 1.360 0.443 3
Control and response to
epidemic diseases (e.g.,
COVID-19, SARS, etc.)
3.10 1.373 0.443 4
Control of rural population
(controlling birth rates)
3.14 1.410 0.449 5
Regular and well-planned
implementation of crop
patterns
3.16 1.428 0.453 6
Creating employment
opportunities for rural
youth
2.97 1.482 0.500 48
Improving literacy levels of
rural household members
2.97 1.487 0.501 49
Improving the productivity of
production factors
2.90 1.469 0.506 50
Development of non-
agricultural
entrepreneurship
2.83 1.449 0.511 51
Improving the quality of water
for agricultural lands (e.g.,
controlling salinization)
2.84 1.483 0.522 52
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
10
analysis of household ability to independently choose livelihood sources
and their exibility in transitioning between different livelihood activ-
ities revealed that approximately 63% exhibited a moderate to high
capacity. This nding aligns with International Labor Organization
(ILO) statistics on the contribution of agriculture to global employment.
Due to increasing challenges in exploiting primary production resources,
agriculture has become insufcient to sustain the livelihoods of the
target population. Consequently, the agricultural contribution to global
employment declined from 40% in 2000 to 28% in 2020 (ILOSTAT,
2021). In Iran, according to the Statistical Centre data, the agricultural
sector was the only division to experience a negative growth rate
(−3.9%) during the rst nine months of 2020 (Statistical Centre of Iran,
2024). The diminishing role of agriculture and its inability to support
sustainable livelihoods is increasingly recognized as a critical global
rural development issue. Agriculture alone is no longer sufcient to
sustain rural livelihoods (Shabanali Fami et al., 2021). As a result,
fostering the development of rural non-farm economies has become
Table 20
Results of conrmatory factor analysis for the measurement model.
Latent variables indicator λT value CR AVE
α
Technical Factors TF1 0.789 20.125 0.853 0.592 0.772
TF2 0.796 20.970
TF3 0.726 16.517
TF4 0.767 19.819
Economic Factors EF1 0.857 47.954 0.815 0.528 0.711
EF2 0.643 9.484
EF3 0.688 11.662
EF4 0.703 11.682
Social Factors SF1 0.818 27.986 0.884 0.656 0.825
SF2 0.831 31.158
SF3 0.742 16.263
SF4 0.845 35.977
Environmental Factors EVF1 0.799 21.369 0.890 0.669 0.835
EVF2 0.870 29.292
EVF3 0.821 19.119
EVF4 0.780 15.494
Sustainable Livelihood Social sustainability (SS) 0.699 14.085 0.852 0.537 0.782
Environmental sustainability (ENS) 0.780 17.705
Economic sustainability (ES) 0.828 31.419
Institutional sustainability (IS) 0.706 15.759
CR: Composite Reliability AVE: Average Variance Extracted
α
: Cronbach’s alpha
Table 21
Correlations with square roots of the AVE.
Factors EF EVF SF SL TF
Economic Factors 0.727
Environmental Factors 0.507 0.818
Social Factors 0.693 0.710 0.810
Sustainable Livelihood 0.687 0.640 0.736 0.733
Technical Factors 0.658 0.460 0.567 0.674 0.770
Table 22
Model t indices for the structural model.
RMS-Theta NFI D-G2 D-G1 SRMR Fit index
≤0.12 >0.90 >0.05 >0.05 <0.1 Predicted index
0.07 0.99 0.387 0.325 0.08 Estimated index
Fig. 5. Path model with standardized factor loadings.
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
11
essential for revitalizing rural areas and substituting the reliance on
limited local resources (Black and Cobbinah, 2018). Further analysis of
the total loans received by household heads over the past ve years
showed an average annual loan of 100 million rials. Moreover, the
minimum and maximum loans received were 90 million and 2500
million rials, respectively, which is a relatively small amount. The
ndings of other studies corroborate this result. Limited access to credit
is a major barrier to agricultural technology adoption among small-
holder farmers in low- and middle-income countries (Balana et al., 2022;
Khandker and Koolwal, 2016; Abate et al., 2016; Guirkinger and
Boucher, 2008; Carter and Olinto, 2003; Fernandez-Cornejo and
McBride, 2002; Feder and Umali, 1993; Feder et al., 1990). Besides, the
prioritization of factors inuencing the livelihood sustainability of
smallholder farmers identied soil conservation, prevention of land
subsidence caused by excessive groundwater withdrawal, the develop-
ment of agricultural processing and value-added industries, and the
control of pandemics (e.g., COVID-19, SARS) as the most critical factors
(Shokati Amghani et al., 2022). Meanwhile, other researchers, such as
Lee, emphasize that climate change and similar environmental factors
also have a direct impact on the livelihood sustainability of smallholder
farmers. For example, landslides are frequent natural disasters that pose
a signicant risk to the livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Wang et al.,
2024; Wang et al., 2024; Wang and Feng, 2023; Waldman et al., 2017;
Bowman, 2022). Consequently, smallholder farmers who rely heavily on
agriculture for their livelihoods will experience signicant disruption (Li
et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2021). Furthermore, SEM results indicated that
the model explained 63.8% of the variance in sustainable livelihoods,
highlighting the collective inuence of these factors. Moreover, SEM
analysis identied that technical factors such as agricultural land
quality, agricultural land use conservation, land aggregation, and
cropping patterns exhibited the strongest inuence on sustainable live-
lihoods. These ndings align with previous studies, which similarly
highlighted the signicance of these factors in shaping sustainable
agricultural practices and livelihoods (Nourozi and Hayati, 2015; Pour
et al., 2018; Davis, 2000; Russell and Gilson, 2006). Agricultural land
use conservation was identied as having the most signicant impact
among the analyzed factors. This is largely because land degradation can
severely hinder agricultural production by decreasing ecosystem ser-
vices, including those supporting sustainable livelihoods (Savari and
Khaleghi, 2024; Paz et al., 2020). Consequently, the sustainability of
livelihoods and land use has emerged as a critical global concern in the
face of substantial environmental, social, and economic challenges. The
rapid pace of urbanization, coupled with increasing demands for food,
energy, and natural resources, has exerted signicant pressure on rural
landscapes and ecosystems. Achieving sustainability in rural regions is
imperative, as it not only improves conditions within these areas but
also plays a key role in addressing critical global issues such as climate
change, biodiversity loss, and poverty eradication (Liu et al., 2023;
Savari et al., 2023). Therefore, to mitigate conicting land use demands
and reduce increasing land consumption, the development and imple-
mentation of effective land-use management instruments are essential
(Ackerschott et al., 2023; Savari and Khaleghi, 2023). Furthermore,
studies indicate that improvements in technical and physical factors,
such as infrastructure, transportation networks, agricultural land
development, and rural and agricultural hygiene, can signicantly
enhance farmers’ livelihoods while reducing their vulnerability to
external shocks. Additionally, recent trends have increasingly empha-
sized technical factors when evaluating technology adoption among
smallholder farmers, with a focus on employing quantitative approaches
before implementation (e.g., Kotu et al., 2022; Jourdain et al., 2020;
Kassie et al., 2017; Waldman et al., 2017; Lunduka et al., 2012).
6. Conclusion
The livelihood sustainability of smallholder farmers is inuenced by
numerous factors, including social capital, income, savings, educational
attainment of household heads, agricultural land development, and
Fig. 6. Path model with t values.
Table 23
Direct effect on sustainable livelihood.
Determinant Direct effect T value Hypotheses R
2
TF 0.326 4.770 conrmed 63.8
EF 0.185 2.052 conrmed
SF 0.220 1.966 conrmed
EVF 0.225 2.898 conrmed
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
12
partial and overall land productivity. Accordingly, this study highlights
the need for targeted government interventions to enhance the liveli-
hood sustainability of smallholder farmers through the promotion of
non-agricultural activities (Shokati Amghani et al., 2023). This can be
achieved through agricultural extension programs aimed at increasing
awareness of various opportunities to improve livelihoods. Such pro-
grams should focus on equipping farmers with the knowledge and skills
necessary to adopt effective and efcient strategies for improving their
livelihoods. From a policy perspective, the ndings of this study provide
essential insights for designing interventions to support rural livelihood
sustainability in Iran. Therefore, the following policy interventions are
proposed in this study:
•Involving farmers in rural employment programs to diversify income
sources and reduce dependence on agriculture;
•Identifying farmers vulnerable to climate change and supporting
them in establishing and developing rural non-farm businesses as
alternative livelihoods;
•Establishing non-agricultural extension units within agricultural,
cultural heritage, tourism, and handicraft organizations to comple-
ment agricultural extension services
•Developing rural infrastructure and public facilities to attract in-
vestors and foster rural non-farm entrepreneurship;
•Reorienting government support toward smallholder farmers
through credit facilities aimed at increasing production, strength-
ening and empowering smallholder agricultural units, and promot-
ing economic balance between agricultural and non-agricultural
sectors;
•Developing infrastructure and basic services: Strengthening rural
infrastructure is essential for enhancing both agricultural and non-
agricultural livelihoods. Key measures include improving the elec-
tricity supply in rural centers, facilitating the issuance of industrial
electricity licenses (three-phase) for rural industrialists, upgrading
roads within rural settlements and between farms, expanding
internet access in rural areas, and establishing well-equipped ware-
houses and cold storage facilities in central rural hubs. These facil-
ities are critical for preserving both agricultural and non-agricultural
products, thereby reducing post-harvest losses and supporting mar-
ket access.
•Training: The development of non-agricultural employment oppor-
tunities requires robust extension and training programs. Technical
and vocational training are particularly vital for equipping rural
populations with the skills necessary to pursue non-agricultural
employment. Both government and non-governmental educational
institutions play a pivotal role in delivering these programs. Voca-
tional training certicates, in particular, can facilitate access to
essential resources such as licenses and loans, thereby fostering an
enabling environment for entrepreneurship and innovation in rural
areas.
Several limitations should be considered in interpreting the study’s
ndings. First, the use of random sampling may have introduced biases
in sample representativeness. Second, data collection during the COVID-
19 pandemic necessitated the use of electronic questionnaires, poten-
tially affecting data quality and completeness. Third, the absence of
comprehensive, longitudinal data on smallholder farmers’ income, ex-
penses, and loans limited the study’s scope. Fourth, the geographic focus
on four Iranian provinces restricts the generalizability of ndings to
other regions. Also, the cross-sectional research design prevented the
analysis of changes over time.
To enhance the sustainability of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods,
policymakers should prioritize the factors identied in this research. Key
strategies should include improving agricultural land quality and con-
servation, mitigating soil erosion and land subsidence, and promoting
agricultural processing industries. Additionally, strengthening tech-
nical, economic, social, and environmental support systems will be
crucial. Efforts to enhance social support networks and household
health, alongside providing education and nancial resources, will
further empower smallholder farmers. Implementing these targeted
policies will not only improve the livelihoods of farmers in Iran but also
contribute to broader sustainable development objectives.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohammad Shokati Amghani: Writing – review & editing, Writing
– original draft, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Meth-
odology, Data curation, Conceptualization. Mohammad Sadegh Sab-
ouri: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Resources. Jafar
Baghernejad: Investigation, Formal analysis. Abbas Norozi: Writing –
review & editing, Resources.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Abate, G.T., Rashid, S., Borzaga, C., Getnet, K., 2016. Rural nance and agricultural
technology adoption in Ethiopia: does the institutional design of lending
organizations matter? World Dev. 84, 235–253.
Ackerschott, A., Kohlhase, E., Vollmer, A., H¨
orisch, J., von Wehrden, H., 2023. Steering
of land use in the context of sustainable development: a systematic review of
economic instruments. Land Use Pol. 129, 106620.
Al Dirani, A., Abebe, G.K., Bahn, R.A., Martiniello, G., Bashour, I., 2021. Exploring
climate change adaptation practices and household food security in the Middle
Eastern context: a case of small family farms in Central Bekaa, Lebanon. Food Secur.
13 (4), 1029–1047.
Ashley, C., Carney, D., 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience.
London: Dep. Int. Dev. 7 (1).
Baghernejad, J., Sabouri, M.S., Shokati Amghani, M., Norozi, A., 2023. Developing
strategies for stabilizing the livelihood of smallholder farmers through non-farm
activities: the application of the SWOT-AHP-TOWS analysis. Front. Sustain. Food
Syst. 7, 1199368.
Balana, B.B., Mekonnen, D., Haile, B., Hagos, F., Yimam, S., Ringler, C., 2022. Demand
and supply constraints of credit in smallholder farming: evidence from Ethiopia and
Tanzania. World Dev. 159, 106033.
Barlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., Higgins, C.C., 2001. Organizational research: determining
appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform J. 19 (1),
43.
Bires, Z., Raj, S., 2020. Tourism as a pathway to livelihood diversication: evidence from
biosphere reserves, Ethiopia. Tourism Manag. 81, 104159.
Black, R., Cobbinah, P.B., 2018. Local attitudes towards tourism and conservation in
rural Botswana and Rwanda. J. Ecotourism 17 (1), 79–105.
Bowman, E.T., 2022. Small landslides–frequent, costly and manageable. In: Landslide
Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, pp. 439–477.
Carter, M.R., Olinto, P., 2003. Getting institutions “right” for whom? Credit constraints
and the impact of property rights on the quantity and composition of investment.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85 (1), 173–186.
Chambers, R., 2014. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Routledge.
Chambers, R., Conway, G., 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for
the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper, No. 296. Brighton.
Chambers, R., Longhurst, R., Pacey, A., 1981. Seasonal Dimensions to Rural Poverty.
Frances Pinter.
Che-Soh, M., Omar, S., 2012. Small is big: the charms of indigenous knowledge for
sustainable livelihood. Environ. Behav. Stud. Proc. - Soc. Behav. Sci. 36, 602–610.
Chen, Q., Cai, L.A., 2025. Self-fullling prophecy in livelihood sustainability: rural
tourism in Pingqian Village, China. Tourism Manag. 106, 104988.
Choobchian, S., Ghorbannejad, M., Amghani, M.S., Azadi, H., 2024. Barriers to the
deployment of renewable energy technologies. In: Reclaiming Eden. Jenny Stanford
Publishing, pp. 111–144.
Cochran, W.G., 1977. Sampling Techniques, third ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Davis, A., 2000. Transport and sustainable rural livelihoods in Zambia: a case study.
Retrieved from. www.transport-links.org.
DfID, U.K., 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, vol. 445. DFID, London,
p. 710.
Downing, A., 1991. An alternative approach to theme: a systemic-functional perspective.
Word 42 (2), 119–143.
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
13
Dupre, S.I., Harvey, C.A., Holland, M.B., 2022. The impact of coffee leaf rust on
migration by smallholder coffee farmers in Guatemala. World Dev. 156, 105918.
Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York, NY.
Erenstein, O., Chamberlin, J., Sonder, K., 2021. Farms worldwide: 2020 and 2030
outlook. Outlook Agric. 50 (3), 221–229.
FAO, Ifad, & WFP, 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the
2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. FAO, Rome.
Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C., Turton, C., 1999. Sustainable Livelihhods in
Practice: Early Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas, vol. 42. Odi, London,
pp. 1–2.
Feder, G., Umali, D.L., 1993. The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 43 (3–4), 215–239.
Feder, G., Lau, L.J., Lin, J.Y., Luo, X., 1990. The relationship between credit and
productivity in Chinese agriculture: a microeconomic model of disequilibrium. Am.
J. Agric. Econ. 72 (5), 1151–1157.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., McBride, W.D., 2002. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops.
Fischer, E., Qaim, M., 2012. Linking smallholders to markets: determinants and impacts
of farmer collective action in Kenya. World Dev. 40 (6), 1255–1268.
Guirkinger, C., Boucher, S.R., 2008. Credit constraints and productivity in Peruvian
agriculture. Agric. Econ. 39 (3), 295–308.
Horner, R., 2020. Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of
international development. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44 (3), 415–436.
Horner, R., Hulme, D., 2019. From international to global development: new geographies
of 21st century development. Dev. Change 50 (2), 347–378.
IFAD, 2011. Rural poverty report 2011. New Realities, New Challenges: New
Opportunities for Tomorrow’s Generation.
ILO (International Labour Organisation), 2019. Decent work for food security and
resilient rural livelihoods. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_dialo
gue/—sector/documents/publication/wcms_437170.pdf.
ILOSTAT, 2021. The leading source of labor statistics. https://ilostat.ilo.org/.
Jourdain, D., Lairez, J., Strifer, B., Affholder, F., 2020. Farmers’ preference for cropping
systems and the development of sustainable intensication: a choice experiment
approach. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 101, 417–437.
Kabir, M.S., Hou, X., Akther, R., Wang, J., Wang, L., 2012. Impact of small
entrepreneurship on sustainable livelihood assets of rural poor women in
Bangladesh. Int. J. Econ. Finance 4 (3), 265–280.
Kassie, G.T., Abdulai, A., Greene, W.H., Shiferaw, B., Abate, T., Tarekegne, A.,
Sutcliffe, C., 2017. Modeling preference and willingness to pay for drought tolerance
(DT) in maize in rural Zimbabwe. World Dev. 94, 465–477.
Keshavarz, M., Karami, E., 2011. Stabilization of rural livelihoods: the challenge of the
agricultural extension system in drought conditions. The 4th Science Congress of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension and Education of Iran. University of
Tehran [In persian].
Khandker, S.R., Koolwal, G.B., 2016. How has microcredit supported agriculture?
Evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. Agric. Econ. 47 (2), 157–168.
Kotu, B.H., Oyinbo, O., Hoeschle-Zeledon, I., Nurudeen, A.R., Kizito, F., Boyubie, B.,
2022. Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensication attributes in
maize production: evidence from Ghana. World Dev. 152, 105789.
Krantz, L., 2001. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach to Poverty Reduction, vol. 44.
SIDA. Division for Policy and Socio-Economic Analysis.
Li, Y., Fan, P., Liu, Y., 2019. What makes better village development in traditional
agricultural areas of China? Evidence from long-term observation of typical villages.
Habitat Int. 83, 111–124.
Lipton, M., 2005. The family farm in a globalizing world: the role of crop science in
alleviating poverty. Intl Food Policy Res. Inst. 40.
Liu, Y., Shi, H., Su, Z., Kumail, T., 2022. Sustainability and risks of rural household
livelihoods in ethnic tourist villages: evidence from China. Sustainability 14 (9),
5409.
Liu, L., Liu, B., Song, W., Yu, H., 2023. The relationship between rural sustainability and
land use: a bibliometric review. Land 12 (8), 1617.
Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J., Raney, T., 2016. The number, size, and distribution of farms,
smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29.
Lunduka, R., Fisher, M., Snapp, S., 2012. Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed
attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? Food
Pol. 37 (5), 504–510.
Mbaiwa, J.E., 2011. Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by
tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Manag. 32 (5),
1050–1060.
Mbaiwa, J.E., Stronza, A.L., 2010. The effects of tourism development on rural
livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Sustain. Tourism 18 (5), 635–656.
Miani, A.M., Dehkordi, M.K., Siamian, N., Lassois, L., Tan, R., Azadi, H., 2023. Toward
sustainable rural livelihoods approach: application of grounded theory in Ghazni
province, Afghanistan. Appl. Geogr. 154, 102915.
Motiee Langroodi, S.H., Ghadiri Masuom, M., Rezvani, M.R., Nazari, A., Sahneh, B.,
2011. Effect of return migrants to rural residents in improving livelihoods: (the case
study: township of aq qala). Human Geogr. Res. 43 (4), 67–84 [In persian].
Natarajan, N., Newsham, A., Rigg, J., Suhardiman, D., 2022. A sustainable livelihoods
framework for the 21st century. World Dev. 155, 105898.
Norton, A., Foster, M., 2001. The Potential of Using Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches
in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, vol. 148. Overseas Development Institute,
London.
Nourozi, M., Hayati, D., 2015. Factors affecting sustainable rural livelihoods as perceived
by farmers in kermanshah province. Iran. Agric. Ext. Educ. J. 11 (1), 127–144 [In
persian].
Nyaupane, G.P., 2011. Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. Ann.
Tourism Res. 38 (4), 1344–1366.
Paz, D.B., Henderson, K., Loreau, M., 2020. Agricultural land use and the sustainability
of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Model. 437, 109312.
Pour, M.D., Barati, A.A., Azadi, H., Scheffran, J., 2018. Revealing the role of livelihood
assets in livelihood strategies: towards enhancing conservation and livelihood
development in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecol. Indicat. 94, 336–347.
Rapsomanikis, G., 2015. Small farms big picture: smallholder agriculture and structural
transformation. Development 58, 242–255.
Reddy, V., Behera, B., Datta, P., Timsina, J., Rahut, D., Aryal, J.P., 2023. Food &
Nutrition Security in the Global South: Policies, Technologies & Institutions.
Ricciardi, V., Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L., Chookolingo, B., 2018. How much
of the world’s food do smallholders produce? Global Food Secur. 17, 64–72.
Russell, S., Gilson, L., 2006. Are health services protecting the livelihoods of the urban
poor in Sri Lanka? Findings from two low-income areas of Colombo. Soc. Sci. Med.
63 (7), 1732–1744.
Savari, M., Khaleghi, B., 2023. The role of social capital in forest conservation: an
approach to deal with deforestation. Sci. Total Environ. 896, 165216.
Savari, M., Khaleghi, B., 2024. Factors inuencing the application of forest conservation
behavior among rural communities in Iran. Environ. Sustain. Indicat. 21, 100325.
Savari, M., Rouzaneh, D., 2024. Redening maladaptation to climate change: a
conceptual examination of the unintended consequences of adaptation strategies on
ecological-human systems. Front. Forests Global Change 7, 1506295.
Savari, M., Sheheytavi, A., Amghani, M.S., 2023. Factors underpinning Iranian farmers’
intention to conserve biodiversity at the farm level. J. Nat. Conserv. 73, 126419.
Savari, M., Damaneh, H.E., Damaneh, H.E., 2024a. Discover the determining factors of
the use of mangrove forests conservation behaviors. J. Nat. Conserv., 126768
Savari, M., Khaleghi, B., Sheheytavi, A., 2024b. Iranian farmers’ response to the drought
crisis: how can the consequences of drought be reduced? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc.
114, 104910.
Savari, M., Damaneh, H.E., Damaneh, H.E., 2024c. Managing the effects of drought
through the use of risk reduction strategy in the agricultural sector of Iran. Clim. Risk
Manag., 100619
Scoones, I., 2013. Livelihood’s perspectives and rural development. In: Critical
Perspectives in Rural Development Studies. Routledge, pp. 159–184.
Sen, A., 1981. Issues in the measurement of poverty. In: Measurement in Public Choice.
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 144–166.
Serrat, O., 2017. Knowledge Solutions: Tools, Methods, and Approaches to Drive
Organizational Performance. Springer Nature, p. 1140.
Shabanali Fami, H., Shokati Amghani, M., Savari, M., Mohammadzadeh Nasrabadi, M.,
Moetaghed, M., 2021. The role of non-farming activities in the sustainability of
peasant farming systems: a case in osku county. Int. J. Agric. Manag. Dev. 11 (2),
297–312.
Sharinia, Z., 2021. Analysis of factors affecting livelihood sustainability in rural areas of
Sari County. serd 10 (35), 213–236 [In persian].
Shi, C., He, Y., Li, H., 2023. How does ecological poverty alleviation contribute to
improving residents’ sustainable livelihoods? —evidence from Zhejiang Province,
China. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 41, 418–430.
Shokati Amghani, M., Savari, M., Choobchian, S., 2022. Vulnerability assessment of
Iran’s rural-farmer households during COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health 10,
994922.
Shokati Amghani, M., Mojtahedi, M., Savari, M., 2023. An economic effect assessment of
extension services of agricultural extension model sites for the irrigated wheat
production in Iran. Sci. Rep. 13 (1), 16947.
Singh, P.K., Hiremath, B.N., 2010. Sustainable livelihood security index in a developing
country: a tool for development planning. Ecol. Indicat. 10 (2), 442–451.
Slovic, P., 2016. Perception of risk. In: The Perception of Risk. Routledge, pp. 220–231.
Solesbury, W., 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID
Policy, vol. 217. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Statistical Centre of Iran. https://old.sci.org.ir/english, 2024 [In persian].
Su, M.M., Wall, G., Wang, Y., Jin, M., 2019. Livelihood sustainability in a rural tourism
destination-Hetu Town, Anhui Province, China. Tourism Manag. 71, 272–281.
Swift, J., 1989. Why are rural people vulnerable to famine? IDS Bull. 20 (2), 8–15.
Taffesse, A.S., Dorosh, P., Gemessa, S.A., 2012. Crop production in Ethiopia: regional
patterns and trends. In: Dorosh, Paul A., Rashid, Shahidur (Eds.), Food and
Agriculture in Ethiopia: Progress and Policy Challenges, pp. 53–83.
Taylor, M., 2014. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods,
Agrarian Change and the Conicts of Development. Routledge.
Thennakoon, S., 2004. Rural livelihood strategies and the ve capitals: a comparative
study in selected villages of Sri Lanka. In: Proceedings of the 18th European
Conference on Modern South Asian Studies. July, Lund, Sweden, pp. 6–9.
Ubisi, N.R., Kolanisi, U., Jiri, O., 2020. The role of indigenous knowledge systems in rural
smallholder farmers’ response to climate change: case study of Nkomazi local
municipality, Mpumalanga, South Africa. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 55 (2), 273–284.
UNDP, 2017. Application of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework in Development
Projects. UNDP, New York, NY, USA. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/les/zskgke
326/les/migration/latinamerica/UNDP_RBLAC_Livelihoods-Guidance-Note
_EN-210July2017.pdf.
Valdes-Rodriguez, O.A., P´
erez-V´
azquez, A., 2011. Sustainable livelihoods: an analysis of
the methodology. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 14 (1), 91–99.
Waldman, K.B., Ortega, D.L., Richardson, R.B., Snapp, S.S., 2017. Estimating demand for
perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 131, 222–230.
Wang, J., Feng, J., 2023. Determinants of heterogeneous farmers’ joint adaptation
strategies to irrigation-induced landslides on the Loess Plateau, China. Clim. Risk
Manag. 41, 100540.
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
14
Wang, J., Wang, H., Wu, Z., 2024. Factors inuencing farmers’ adaptation willingness
under landslide risks: using an extended sustainable livelihood framework. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduc. 107, 104512.
Weigo. https://www.wiego.org/, 2024.
Xu, D., Zhang, J., Rasul, G., Liu, S., Xie, F., Cao, M., Liu, E., 2015. Household livelihood
strategies and dependence on agriculture in the mountainous settlements in the
Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China. Sustainability 7 (5), 4850–4869.
Yang, X., Guo, S., Deng, X., Xu, D., 2021. Livelihood adaptation of rural households
under livelihood stress: evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Agriculture 11 (6),
506. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11060506.
M.S. Amghani et al.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 26 (2025) 100601
15
