Document Type : Original Article
1. Introduction
Drought is a silent and inevitable phenomenon that gradually affects the environment and ultimately evolves into a natural disaster (Sarvestani et al., 2018). Each year, it inflicts substantial economic losses amounting to millions of dollarson agricultural communities worldwide (Parhizkar et al., 2021). Given the increasing significance of drought and its profound impacts on the livelihoods of rural households, understanding their coping and adaptive mechanisms has become more crucial than ever. Such understanding not only enhances household resilience but also provides valuable guidance for policymakers and support institutions in designing and implementing effective risk management and climate adaptation programs.
Adopting an integrative approach, this study seeks to offer a comprehensive and accurate depiction of local realities and capacities in confronting drought, thereby laying the groundwork for sustainable and impactful initiatives aimed at empowering rural communities. Accordingly, the present research explores the livelihood strategies employed by rural households in response to climate-induced shocks resulting from drought. With a holistic perspective, it aims to identify the key determinants and both indigenous and innovative coping strategies that enable rural households to withstand such climatic challenges. In this context, the study specifically focuses on examining the major impacts of drought on rural livelihoods and the effective livelihood mechanisms adopted by households in the Gasht Rural District to mitigate and adapt to climate-related shocks.
2. Materials and Methods
This study employed a descriptive–analytical research approach with an applied orientation. The required data were collected through a researcher-designed questionnaire developed to examine the impacts of drought and the livelihood strategies adopted by rural households in response to climate-induced shocks.
The statistical population consisted of heads of farming households residing in 20 villages of the Gasht Rural District, located in Saravan County. Based on local records and data obtained from the village councils, the total number of farming households in these villages was estimated at 922. Using Cochran’s formula, and considering a 95% confidence level with a 5% margin of error, the sample size was determined to be 288 household heads.
For sampling, twenty villages with similar geographical and cultural characteristics were purposefully selected. Within each village, the number of samples was determined proportionally to the population of farming households, and household heads were then chosen through simple random sampling.
Data analysis involved both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Descriptive statistics were used to present the demographic characteristics of respondents and to analyze the frequency distribution of variables. To assess the effects of drought on household livelihoods and to identify the most significant coping strategies, the McKinnon–Haug–Michel test and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were employed. Accordingly, the data analysis process encompassed data collection, organization, statistical processing, and the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings, ensuring that the results were comprehensive, reliable, and aligned with the objectives of the study.
3. Results and Discussion
The pattern of rural households’ responses to drought revealed a tendency toward engaging in supplementary or alternative livelihood activities, or even abandoning agricultural practices altogether. In contrast, the adoption of technical and sustainable agricultural methods was found to be of lower priority.
Analysis of the coping strategies employed by rural households indicated that their predominant response to the consequences of drought was primarily livelihood-oriented and exit-based, rather than adaptive within the agricultural sector. The highest frequencies were associated with activities such as fuel smuggling and engagement in non-agricultural employment, followed by strategies like commodity smuggling and reducing irrigation frequency.
Conversely, the use of technical or agronomic adaptation measures, including crop pattern modification, application of modern irrigation systems, or flood spreading and water harvesting techniques, ranked considerably lower among the households studied. These findings highlight the limited adoption of sustainable agricultural adaptations and suggest that under conditions of prolonged drought, rural households in the study area tend to rely more heavily on short-term income diversification strategies rather than long-term agricultural resilience practices.
4. Conclusions
The analytical results indicate that the economic impacts of drought including a decline in cultivated area, reduced income, increased indebtedness, and lower agricultural and livestock production have exerted the greatest pressure on household livelihoods. The reduction in cultivated area, which ranked first in terms of economic severity, clearly reflects the acute limitation of water resources and the inefficiency of traditional irrigation systems in coping with new climatic conditions.
From a social perspective, rural poverty, migration, and declining quality of life emerged as the most significant consequences. Rural poverty, identified as the leading social impact, has not only deteriorated the living standards of households but has also contributed to social fragmentation, reduced community participation, and, in some cases, ethnic and tribal tensions.
In the environmental dimension, the findings revealed that declining surface and groundwater resources, rangeland degradation, soil erosion, and reduced air quality are among the most pressing and concerning outcomes of drought. The severity of natural resource degradation and the loss of vegetation cover have undermined both the ecological regeneration capacity and the livelihood sustainability of local communities.
5. Acknowledgment & Funding
· The manuscript did not receive a grant from any organization.
· The authors are thankful to all interview participants for supporting this research.
6. Conflict of Interest
· The authors declare no conflict of interest.
