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

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

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

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

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