* Corresponding author’s email:[email protected] * Correspondingauthor’s Department of Agricultural Extension andEducation,UniversityofTehran, Karaj,Iran. Mojtaba Sookhtanlo,HesamedinGholami Farmers inMashhadCounty, Iran Drought Risk Vulnerability Parametersamong Wheat Accepted: 14 April 2013 Received: 19March2013, degree Vulnerability, Riskaversion farmers, Drought, Wheat Keywords:
Archive of SID ISSN:2159-5860 (Online) ISSN: 2159-5852(Print) Available onlineon:www.ijamad.com International Journalof Agricultural ManagementandDevelopment(IJAMAD)
Abstract have hadthehighestvulnerabilitylevel. for crops,salepricesofcropsandthetypelandownership), specting economicvulnerability, riskneutralfarmers(ininsuring highest vulnerabilitylevelunderdroughtconditions. While re- and typeofcultivation;riskaversefarmershavehadthe technical vulnerability;irrigationmethod,cultivationmethod farming activitiesanddependencyongovernmentin social vulnerabilityindicators;educationlevel,collaboratively First Rulewereappliedrespectively. Findingsrevealedthatin degree, formulaofMe-Barand Valdes andmethodofSafety Delphi technique.Formeasuringvulnerabilityandriskaversion of 2009-2011. Vulnerability parametersweredeterminedby degree intheMashhadCounty(Iran)betweendroughtyears farmers categorizedinaccordancewiththeirriskaversion parameters (economic,socialandtechnical)amongwheat Iran. So,thisstudywasinvestigatedthreeriskvulnerability quirements forplanningandreducingimpactsofdroughtin I with theirriskaversiondegreeisoneofthenecessaryre- dentification andanalysisoffarmers’ vulnerabilityassociated * and SeyyedRezaEs’haghi www.SID.ir 227 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 228 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 2010, Keshavarz Ojha, 2006,Barbier essa, 2010, Wilhelmi erable thattheyear2011 wasthe13 strategy isprovedtobeineffective. Itisconsid- sources aremobilizedinthatparticularregion. state ofemergency isdeclaredandthusallre- drought occursindifferent partsofthecountry, a based oncrisismanagement.Forexample,when current droughtmanagementstrategiesinIranare In Iran,droughtisare-currentphenomenonand nomic, social,andenvironmentalconsequences. drought anditsvulnerabilityto as acombinationoflocation’s exposureto dicators indrought.Droughtriskisbestdefined tic visionforidentifyingofriskvulnerabilityin- natural disastersandprovidesanewrealis- come agriculturalcrisessuchasdroughtor ing interestinhowfarmerscopewithandover- 2011) 2005, BrondizioandMoran,2008, Ajijola studies eters butthisstillhasbeenconsideredbyrare rectly influenceddroughtvulnerabilityparam- their riskaversion(internalfactors)havedi- as farmers’ characteristicsincludinglevelsof is agrowingappreciationthatotherfactorssuch et al., (Hoddinott andQuisumbing2003,Hoogeveen (loans), cropsinsurance, technicalassistance level, accesstogovernmental andbankcredits ers’ incomes,farming landssize,education riety ofresourcessuchas landownership,farm- depending onownershiporaccesstoawideva- sions ofagriculturalandruralsectors most ofthesocioeconomicandtechnicaldimen- County, northeastofIran,andthishasimpacted year thatdroughthadbeenoccurredinMashhad ceptable levelofwell-beingamongfarmers exposure touninsuredriskleadinganunac- vulnerable todrought within alocalityandsameareaarenotevenly tors onfarmers’ vulnerability. However, people graphical situationsandrainfalllevelaskeyfac- et al., Province, 2011) culture Organization ofKhorasan-e-Razavi However, thistypeofdroughtmanagement isaslow-onsetdisasterthathaseco- Drought . Farmers’ capacitiestocopewithdrought, 2005) 2011) (Hoogeveen . Manystudies and vulnerabilityisidentifiedasthe INTRODUCTION . Therefore, thisstudyisanabid- Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. et al et al Archiveet al. of SID et al (Slegers 2008) ., 2011) ., 2005,Franke , 2008,Mongi ., 2002,Kapoorand (Gwimbi 2009,Der- highlight geo- th continuous (The Agri- . So,there (Ajijola et al., et al. et al. , , and Zarafshani(20102011) Cyr 2006) parameters ofsocial,economicandtechnical. al. Eakin receives anaveragerainfall of256mm county withanarid-semi-arid andaridclimate Khorasan-e-Razavi agricultural statisticsand informationoffice of vated landofthecountyis56615km This countyconsistsof591villages. The culti- each categoryofriskaversiondegree. gree andcategorizethemaccordingtoit. social andtechnicalvulnerabilityindicators. interests areasfollows: degree intheMashhadCounty(Iran).Particular vulnerable farmersregardingtheirriskaversion purpose ofthisstudywastoidentifythemost uncertainty conditions(drought).So,themain on farmers’ capacitiestorespondstressand ogy, technicalassistance,creditandinsurance) considered importanceofadaptation(technol- farmers’ accesstoresourcesanduseofthem method, householdextensionpackagesand outputs, lowincomelevel,credits,irrigation ing size,andfarmprofit,loans,sellingofcrop use, farmers’ riskmitigationpractices,landhold- mercialization practices,inputandmachinery crop andlivestockmanagementpractices,com- duction andlossestoclimatehazardspests, hold humanresourcesandincomesources,pro- farmers. The varietyofinformationonhouse- on povertyandvulnerabilitylevelamongrural impact ofriskattitudes(levelaversion) sea level. The area ofthiscountyis1490km Province. This county is992–1184 metersabove populous countyin is locatedinNorthEastofIranandthemost County istheMashhadCity. This Countythat Razavi Province,Iran. The capitalofMashhad County (ruralareas)locatedinKhorasan-e- support programs and information,socialnetworking,public - To determinewheatfarmers’ vulnerabilityin - To calculatewheatfarmers’ riskaversionde- - To calculatewheatfarmers’ vulnerability. - To identifywheatfarmersbasedoneconomic, This studywasconductedintheMashhad (2011), Keshavarz MATERIALSMETHODS AND et al are categorizedinthisstudythree . (2006),Deressa(2010), Ajijola (Scoones 1998;Ellis2000;St. Province, 2009) et al. Khorasan-e-Razavi (2011) examined the and . Wheat is . Wheat www.SID.ir Sharafi 2 . This (The et 2 . Table 1: Sample size in each district (Mashhad County)
Districts (Bakhsh)
Central
Razaviyeh Ahmadabad
Torghabeh district Total
stages.
farmers. This study is conducted in two main two in conducted is farmers. study This
technique) to calculate vulnerability level of level vulnerability calculate to technique)
was obtained through the first stage (Delphi stage first the through obtained was
third part consisted of vulnerability indicators vulnerability of consisted part third
(according to formula of Safety First Rule). Rule). First The Safety of formula to (according
second part consisted of risk aversion indicators aversion risk of consisted part second
personal and professional characteristics. characteristics. The professional and personal
The first part was to collect data about farmers' about data collect to was part first The
ond questionnaire was consisted of three parts. three of consisted was questionnaire ond
Mashhad County by Delphi technique. technique. sec- The Delphi by County Mashhad
and technical vulnerability indicators in the in indicators vulnerability technical and
determine the most important socioeconomic important most the determine
first questionnaire included open questions to questions open included questionnaire first
were designed and used to gathering data. data. gathering The to used and designed were
mined 293 wheat farmers (Table farmers wheat 293 mined 1).
Cochran's test the size of sample was deter- was sample of size the test Cochran's
applied to access the respondents and using and respondents the access to applied
Razaviyeh) and and Razaviyeh) Torghabeh (capital: Torghabeh).
Central (capital: Mashhad), Razaviyeh (capital: Razaviyeh Mashhad), (capital: Central
(Figure 1): 1): (Figure Malekabad), (capital: Ahmadabad
into four districts (Bakhsh), with their capitals their with (Bakhsh), districts four into
the year 2009-2011. divided year is the County Mashhad
gion was severely affected by drought during affected drought by severely was gion
who live in in live who
sample of this study consisted of wheat farmers wheat of consisted study this of sample
the dominant crop in the region, so the statistical the so region, the in crop dominant the
Twointerview of methods and questionnaires
Awas sampling random stratified proportional Mashhad
Figure 1: Area ofstudy(MashhadCounty, Khorasan-e-RazaviProvince,Iran) Drought risk vulnerability parameters / Mojtaba Sookhtanlo et al. et Sookhtanlo Mojtaba / parameters vulnerability risk Drought
population
Archive of SIDStatistical County. re- selected The
2574 1320 1086
5940
960 Reference: StatisticalCentreofIran(2012).
Sample size
125
293
65
53 50
same. These indicators used to design the next the design to used same. indicators These
tors, so the indicators could not be weighted the weighted be not could indicators the so tors,
must express the relative importance of indica- of importance relative the express must
phasized in the questionnaire that, weighing that, questionnaire the in phasized
tance) to 10 (the highest importance). It was em- was It importance). highest (the 10 to tance)
weigh the indicators from 0 (the lowest impor- lowest (the 0 from indicators the weigh
farmers’ experts. could by They vulnerability
importance) (W importance)
a section for determining the weight (relative weight the determining for section a
nomic, social and technical indicators and also and indicators technical and social nomic,
tionnaire was consisted of final confirmed eco- confirmed final of consisted was tionnaire
confirmed by them. In the third step, the ques- the step, third the In them. by confirmed
were edited to send again to the experts to be to experts the to again send to edited were
tionnaire including the primary indicators which indicators primary the including tionnaire
Acquired data were used to design another ques- another design to used were data Acquired
technical indicators with the most frequency. most the with indicators technical
categorize common major social, economic and economic social, major common categorize
questionnaire data were used to determine and determine to used were data questionnaire
tributed among experts. In the next step, first step, next the In experts. among tributed
ability indicators at Mashhad County) were dis- were County) Mashhad at indicators ability
important socioeconomic and technical vulner- technical and socioeconomic important
open-ended questions (i.e. determine the most the determine (i.e. questions open-ended
area of study. of area Aincluding questionnaire primary
programs or activities related to drought in the in drought to related activities or programs
extension experts who were directly engaged in engaged directly were who experts extension
ple who had field research about drought or drought about research field had who ple
naires and their data was used. peo- used. was were data They their and naires
among which, 31 experts resend the question- the resend experts 31 which, among
perts to us. Finally 45 experts were chosen were experts 45 Finally us. to perts
in the research process to introduce other ex- other introduce to process research the in
words, we asked the experts who were known were who experts the asked we words,
experts related to the study objectives. In other In objectives. study the to related experts
2010)
ies ies
the study region as used in many previous stud- previous many in used as region study the
and weigh major indicators of vulnerability in vulnerability of indicators major weigh and
cludes usage of the Delphi technique to identify to technique Delphi the of usage cludes
First stage (Delphi technique): in- stage technique): This (Delphi stage First
(Kaly and Pratt 2000; Dercon 2004; Deressa 2004; Dercon 2000; Pratt and (Kaly
. Snowball method was used to determine to used was method Snowball .
i =1… n) of each indicator in indicator each of n) =1… www.SID.ir 229 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 230 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. fined as: (2001), Ajetomobi andBinuomote(2006) and Bernard(1988),SekarRamasamy the familyinworkingof agriculture). dard rateinIran). least caloriesupplyinone yearinRial(thestan- lowing: activities)) three yearsofagriculturalandnon-agricultural of thefarmer(j)’s annualincome(inthepast income offarmer(j),Sj:Thestandard deviation Critical incomeleveloffarmer(j),Ej:Expected applied inthisstudy. Inthisformula: the studiedregion,mentionedformulawas and lackofvalidcategorizeddatabasesin accurate dataneededforothercommonmethods degree offarmers.Becauselackaccessto studies inordertodeterminetherisk-aversion Ajijola Rule formulawasused. and Valdez(2005) amount wasdeterminedbymethodof social, economicandtechnicalvulnerability neutral andrisktaker).Furthermore,farmers’ them inthreegroups(namelyriskadverse, ers’ riskaversiondegreeandalsocategorizes Safety FirstRulewasusedtocalculatethefarm- another questionnairewasused.Formulaof sion degreeandvulnerabilitylevel):Inthisstage stage questionnaire. DMG =( The weightedcropdamagevariablewasde- - CHI: Number ofchildren(activemembers - FAM: The household'sfarmsize(Hectare). - 7955936: The percapitacostofsupplyingthe The partsoftheaboveformulasareasfol- (R j:Risk-aversiondegree offarmer(j),E*j: R j=[E*j–Ej]/[Sj],1,2…,n To calculateriskaversiondegreeSafetyFirst Second stage(determiningfarmers'riskaver- E* =7955936(FAM -CHI/2)+DPT –
Risk- aversion coefficient 0.1 ≤ R j ≤ 1 -0.1 ≤ R j ≤ 0.1 -1 ≤ R j ≤ -0.1 Total et al. Σ E = VP (1+DMG) – TC k i (2011) DMG (UAR +UAR') Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. .
Table 2: Status of the respondents, by the risk- aversion degree. i ) /(
Archive ofused thismethodintheir SID Σ Randhir (1991),Parikh k i )
Status of wheat farmers Me-Bar and
Risk neutral
Risk averse
Risk taker
- of Iran inpreviousstudies(forexamplethe and itssuccessfulapplicationinotherregionsof ing othercommonmethodsinthestudiedregion ering thelackofreliableresourcesdataand tors isaffecting droughtvulnerability. Consid- formula basedonsubjectiveassessmentoffac- should bemeasuredquantitatively. Mentioned itative conceptforwhichcomparingsocieties Valdez (2005)statedthatvulnerabilityisaqual- nerability parametersinthisstudy. Me-Barand sessment ofsocio-economicandtechnicalvul- (2005) wasconsideredtobeappropriateforas- formula suggestedbyMe-Barand Valdez year (IRR). weighted average. due tolossesandabnormalincidentsasa non-agricultural activities(IRR). tivities otherthanwheatcultivation(IRR). formal institutions(IRR). Province and n) /2,C rameter amount, Wi= each parameterweight) sum oftotalvulnerabilityweight,Pi=eachpa- assessment. So, thisformulawasappliedforvulnerability method forthecountryconditionwasproved. Province) theapplicabilityandefficiency ofthis factor parameters) to eachparameter(10), n: The numberof each (V= eachfarmervulnerabilityamount,C Information whichisaprerequisiteforapply- Among vulnerabilityassessmentmethods,a - - DMG: The proportionoffarmer’s damage - Total valueofwheatproduction(IRR). - UAR': The beneficiaries’ annualincomefrom - UAR: The farmers’ annualincomefromac- - DPT: Farmer’s debtamounttoformalandin- C Also, inthisformula: V =1/C (W TC: Total wheatproductioncostinthesame Sharafi andZarafshani(2011) 0 = ∑W max : The maximumweightthatcanbelong 0 i < W 0 , ∑W ∑ (P Keshavarz max i
Frequency i = (W W × n i )
178 293
52 63 max × n)/2,C et al . (2011)
percent in Kermanshah
100
18 21 61 0 www.SID.ir = (W in Fars max 0 × = was calculatedaccordingtoSafetyFirstRule Risk-Aversion degree ofrespondents ing amongtherespondentswere31to40years. 1.14 hectaresandthemostexperiencesoffarm- The averageareaofeachfarmerfarmlandswas related tothefarmerswhohad47hectares. extent offarmlands,thehighestfrequencywas between 21to30years. Also, bylookingtothe wheat cultivationamongtherespondentswere higher thandiploma. The mostexperiencesof only 9%ofstatisticalpopulationhadadegree also 21%ofwheatfarmerswereilliterateand level whichconstituted33%ofthesampleand farmers educationlevelwassecondary were women. The mostfrequencyofthewheat Personal andprofessional characteristics
Social parameter indicators
Social esteem Membership in rural associations / organizations Dependency to government Attending in extension education programs Education level Farming collaborative activities Family members collaboration The level of related to farming religious believe Participation in rural development programs Total
Economic parameter indicators
Insuring crops Extension agents’ economic advices Farmers’ incomes Amount of liquidity Pre-sale crops to middlemen Sale price of crops Land ownership type Farming lands Size Access to governmental and bank credits Total In thetable(2),risk-aversioncoefficient (Rj) Among farmers,84.5%weremenand15.5
Table 3: The amount and weight of economic parameter indicators in three farmers' groups
Table 4: Amount and weight of social parameter indicators in farmers groups Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. Archive of SID RESULTS
(loans)
weight (W
indicators
Indicators
Weight of
4.93 5.10 4.77 5.52 5.35 6.06 4.81 3.82 4.64
6.12 5.46 4.95 4.65 3.75 5.24 4.82 4.60 5.41
(W
45
45
i
) mental andbankcredits(loans)(W tive activities(W social parameterindicators(farmingcollabora- (W economic parameterindicators(insuringcrops Indicators weightofparameters: weight (∑W dicators ofanyparameter, totalvulnerability the tables(3,4and5).First,formeasuringin- nical parametersofvulnerabilityareshownin Parameters ofvulnerability tral and18%wererisktaker. spondents wereriskaverse,23%neu- formula. Basedonthefindings,61%ofre- nomic advices(W ∑W Findings showedthatexpertsbelieved Findings relatedtoeconomic,socialandtech-
i i
) =6.12), regionalextensionexpertswitheco- Indicators amountinfarmersgroups(P Indicators amountinfarmersgroups(P
farmers (P i
farmers (P
Risk taker = (W
Risk taker
2.63 1.98 3.27 1.65 2.29 2.21 2.50 1.85 1.90
1.98 2.08 2.12 2.65 2.67 1.77 1.54 1.63 3.25
-
- max i ) wascalculated. × n)/2=(109)45
i1
i1 i
)
) =6.06), attendinginextension i =5.46), andaccesstogovern-
farmers (P
Risk neutral
farmers (P
Risk neutral
2.63 2.40 2.65 3.15 1.94 1.67 2.15 2.13 2.25
3.49 1.78 1.54 2.03 1.71 2.89 2.75 1.57 2.68
-
-
i2
i2
)
)
farmers (P
farmers (P
Risk averse
Risk averse www.SID.ir
2.56 1.84 2.62 1.60 3.43 2.76 1.97
2.51
2.11
2.87 1.59 2.17 2.47 1.63 1.80 3.26 2.04 2.74 i =5.41)),
-
-
i3
i3 i i )
) )
) 231 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 232 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. level (W and harvestingtimes(P technical parameterindicators(planting,saving (P indicators (dependencytogovernment amount ofliquidity(2.65)),thesocialparameter (3.25), pre-salecropstomiddlemen(2.67)and cess togovernmentalandbankcredits(loans) farmers, theeconomicparameterindicators(ac- ability: Indicators amountinparametersofvulner- target regions. order toexplainparametersofvulnerabilityin tively werethemostimportantindicatorsin (rain-fed /watery)(P oration offamilymembers(P 6.06), irrigationmethod(W cators (cultivationtype(rain-fed/watery)(W education programs(W method (traditional/mechanized)(P highest scores. respectively werethreeindicatorswhichhad pests anddiseasescontrol(W
Technical parameter indicators
Cultivation type (rain-fed/ watery) Cultivation pattern (spring / autumn) Cultivation method (traditional/ mechanized) Use of drought resistant varieties Irrigation method Planting, saving and harvesting times Use of chemical fertilizers Weeds, pests and diseases control Tillage implements Total Considering thefindingsamongrisktaker Among riskneutralfarmers,theeconomicpa- i1 =3.27), socialesteem(P
Table 5: The amount and weight of technical parameter indicators in groups of wheat farmers .
Vulnerability amount
Economic vulnerability Social vulnerability Technical vulnerability Total vulnerability i =5.35)) andtechnicalparameterindi-
Archive of SID Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. i1 i1 =3.03) andcultivation
Total 6: total vulnerability amounts in farmers groups. =3.05), cultivationtype i =5.52) andeducation i1 ii =5.65) andweeds, =2.63) andcollab- i1 i =5.29)), respec- =2.50)) andthe i1 =2.96)),
Indicators
weight i =
6.06 4.84 5.12 4.94 5.65 4.71 4.55 5.29 3.84
(W
45
i
) eter indicators(Irrigationmethod(P tivities (P type (rain-fed/watery)(P method (P technical parameterindicators(irrigation ship type(P sale priceofcrops(P (P cultivation method(traditional/mechanized) (P rameter indicators(Landownershiptype among riskaversefarmers,theeconomicpa- had thehighestintensityduringdrought. Also tery) (P cation level(P indicators. ers havehadthehighestvulnerabilityinthese rank andmeansthatduringdrought,thesefarm- programs (P cators (participationinruraldevelopment (P government (P (P to governmentalandbankcredits(loans) tional/ mechanized)(P rameter indicators(insuringcrops(P
Risk taker
farmers i3 i2 i3 i3
2.13 2.25 2.59 6.97 =2.74)), thesocialparameterindicators(edu- =3.26), insuringcrops(P =2.65) andsocialesteem(P =3.02) andcultivationtype(rain-fed/wa- Indicators amountinfarmersgroups(P
farmers (P
Risk taker i3 =3.00)), respectivelyhadthehighest
3.03 1.90 2.96 2.51 2.46 3.05 2.19 2.64 2.36 i3 farmers groups i2 i2
- =3.42), cultivationmethod(tradi- i 3=2.76) anddependencyto
Risk neutral =2.75)), thesocialparameterindi- =3.15), dependencytogovernment i3 i3
farmers =3.43), farmingcollaborativeac- =2.62)) andt
2.34 2.32 2.83 7.49
i1
)
farmers (P
Risk neutral i2 =2.89) andlandowner- i3 =3.02) andcultivation
2.37 2.13 2.98 2.59
2.90 2.97 3.19 3.22
3.11 i3
- =3.00)), respectively
Risk averse he techn i3
farmers =2.87) andaccess
2.30 2.38 2.90 7.58 i2
i2
) =2.63)) andthe
farmers (P
Risk averse ical param- www.SID.ir i2 i3
3.00 2.46 3.02 2.73 3.42 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.63 =3.49), =3.42),
-
i3 i )
) Farmers groups
Risk taker farmers
Risk neu farmers
Risk averse farmers farmers iscalculated: example, economicvulnerabilityinriskaverse plied tocalculatetotalvulnerabilityamount.For Total vulnerability risk averse,theyhardly adopt thenewadvises vulnerability. Although mostofthefarmersare tive appropriatemechanisms toreducetheir ers arebeingextremelystressed tofindalterna- of thefarmersarevulnerable. Therefore, farm- that iscritical. As theresultspointedout,most mitigation totheseverecontinuousimpactsof that itisaharshrealityofIranagricultureand The lengthofdroughtinstudiedregionimplies drought vulnerabilityinMashhadCounty(Iran). nerable groups andrisktakerfarmersweretheleastvul- risk aversefarmerswerethemostvulnerable taker farmers. Also intechnicalvulnerability, and thelowestvulnerabilitywasamongrisk vulnerability wasamongriskaversefarmers With respecttosocialvulnerability, thehighest and thelowestwasamongrisktakerfarmers. vulnerability wasamongriskneutralfarmers 95.63/45 =2.13 2.08) +(4.95×2.12)+…+(5.423.25)= V =1/C Formula ofMe-Barand Valdez (2005)wasap- This paperdescribesaninvestigationof According totable6,thehighesteconomic
tral groups.
Access to governmental and bank credits (loans) Pre-sale crops to middlemen Amount of liquidity
Insuring crops Sale price of crops Land ownership type
Land ownership type Insuring crops Access to governmental and bank credits (loans) 0
Economic vulnerability ∑ (P DISCUSSION i W Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. i ) =(6.12×1.98)+(5.45× Archive of SID Table 7: A summary of indicators priority in farmers groups.
Dependency to government Social esteem Family members collaboration
Attending in extension edu- cation programs Dependency to government Social esteem
Education level Farming collaborative activities Dependency to government
Social vulnerability farmers groups shown intable7. farmers. Someotherparts offindingsare can besaidthattheyare themostvulnerable named socialandtechnical parameters.So,it most vulnerablegroupintwoparameters most vulnerablegroup,becausetheywerethe nomic parameter. Riskaversefarmerswerethe were theonlymostvulnerablegroupineco- nical parameters,whileriskneutralfarmers parameters namedeconomic,socialandtech- the leastvulnerabilityinallthree findings revealedthatrisktakerfarmershad not beenappropriateforthesegroups.Insum, rial, educationalandsupportprogramshave agers inthestudiedregionandthusmanage- been consideredbypolicymakersandman- drought ondifferent farmers'groupshavenot ability level.Inotherwords,variouseffects of farmers’ riskaversiondegreeandtheirvulner- made isthattherearelationshipbetween these groupswouldbeinefficient. ity parametersandthusunspecificsupportsfrom completely haddifferent andgeneralvulnerabil- taker, riskneutralandaverse,theywould we categorizedtheminthreegroupsnamedrisk various riskaversiondegreeisdifferent, sowhen and amountofvulnerabilityamongfarmerswith they currentlydo.Findingsimplythatthekind ers shouldsignificantlyactdifferent fromwhat with potentialrisks. This meansthatpolicymak- The interestingconclusionwhichcouldbe
Planting, saving and harvesting times Cultivation type (rain-fed / watery) Cultivation method (traditional/ mecha- nized)
Tillage implements Weeds, pests and disease control Irrigation method
Irrigation method Cultivation method (traditional /mecha- nized) Cultivation type (rain-fed / watery)
Technical vulnerability www.SID.ir 233 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 234 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. phasized by three farmersgroups,itcanbesaidthatasem- et al crops insurancefund rural banks,moregovernmentalattentionto on farmerslivelihoodlevel,establishingsmall granting gratuitousorlowinterestloansbased nomic vulnerability, mechanismssuchas age andreducenegativeimpactsofdroughteco- drought reliefprograms should bebasedonthe able. The resultsofthisstudycanimplythat mon diseasesduringdrought isrecommend- and helpingfarmerstocontrol pestsandcom- such asdraining,pressuredirrigationsystems for sustainabledevelopmentofwaterresources water requirements,providinginfrastructures conditions assubstitutionsforcropswithhigh farmers andalsocompatiblewithcontinental species whicharesuitableforeachgroupof identification andpromotionofvarieties effects ontheirtechnical vulnerability. Hence, tion type(rain-fed/watery)havehadthemost method (traditional / mechanized)andcultiva- averse farmers,irrigationmethod,cultivation trol andirrigationmethodamongrisk neutral farmers,weeds,pestsanddiseasescon- on theirtechnicalvulnerability. Among risk tional/ mechanized)havehadthemosteffect fed/watery) andcultivationmethod(tradi- and harvestingtimes,cultivationtype(rain- cators forrisktakerfarmers,planting,saving nomic vulnerability. to governmenthavehadthemosteffect oneco- (2010) Nelson andEscalante(2004) Zarafshani (2011) ency togovernment(consistentwith revealed thatamongrisktakerfarmers,depend- regarded ashighpriorityactions. oping andenrichinglocalcreditfundsshouldbe farmers whichisconsistentwith teem andeducationlevelamongriskaverse grams, dependencytogovernmentandsociales- farmers, attendinginextensioneducationpro- on socialvulnerability. Among riskneutral members’ collaborationhavehadthemosteffect tent with Considering thecommonindicatorsinall With respecttotechnicalvulnerabilityindi- With respecttosocialvulnerability, findings . (2003),Sengestam(2009) , farmingcollaborativeactivities(consis- Iglesias Vásquez-León et al Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. ), socialesteemandfamily
Archive of SID (Hazell, 2004) . (2009) , inordertoman- et al ) anddependency Vásquez-León . (2003) and , anddevel- Sharafi and Deressa and 9- Gwimbi,P. (2009).Cottonfarmers’ vulnerability de/ Papers/dp05_08.pdf. 05-08: 1-19,availablefrom:http://cofe.uni-konstanz. sity ofKonstanz.Journal of EconomicLiterature, M.G. (2005).Incrementalriskvulnerability. Univer- 8- Franke,G.,Richard,C.S.,&Subrahmanyam, ton, DC.USA. in MultipleRegionsandSectorsProgram, Washing- ment ofImpactsand Adaptation toClimateChange Argentina. AIACC Working Paper29, social Bojórquez-Tapia, L.(2006). A comparison ofthe 7- Eakin, H., Webhe, M.,Ávila,C., Torres, G.S.,& 165854/unrestricted/thesis.pdf. //upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-10232010- versity ofPretoria,availablefrom:http: Economics, ExtensionandRuralDevelopment.Uni- ronmental economics,Departmentof Agricultural farmers’ adaptationstrategies.Ph.D thesisinenvi- bility ofEthiopianagriculturetoclimatechangeand 6- Deressa, T.T. (2010). Assessment ofthe vulnera- nomics. 74(2),309-329. from ruralethiopia.JournalofDevelopmentEco- 5- Dercon,S.(2004).GrowthandShocks:Evidence 363(1498), 1803-1809. actions oftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences, small farmersinthe Amazon. Philosophical Trans- dimensions ofclimatechange:thevulnerability 4- Brondizio,E.S.,&Moran,E.F. (2008).Human Management, 43,790-803. strategies innorthernBurkinaFaso.Environmental mate variabilityinthesahel:Farmers’ adaptation M., &Some,B.(2008).Humanvulnerabilitytocli- 3- Barbier, B., Yacouba, H.,Karambiri,Zorome, opment and Agricultural Economics,3(12),581-587. among ruralfarmersinOgunState.JournalofDevel- (2011). Impactofriskattitudesonpovertylevel 2- Ajijola, S.,Egbetokun,O.A.,&Ogunbayo,I.E. 5 (6),562-565. ern Nigeria.InternationalJournalofPoultryScience, aversion amongpoultryeggproducersinsouthwest- 1- Ajetomobi, J.O.,&Binuomote,S.O.(2006).Risk tional programs. plan moreeffective contentfortheireduca- nerability assessmenthelpsextensionagentsto risk aversion.Furthermore,anup-to-datevul- bility amongfarmers'groupsintermoftheir rate ofsocio-economicandtechnicalvulnera- vulnerability ofgrainfarmersinMexicoand REFERENCES 47-55, Assess- www.SID.ir 20- Parikh, A., &Bernard, A. (1988).Impactofrisk 31(3), 273-287. tion. EuropeanReviewof Agricultural Economics, relative riskaversionLocation-Scale objectivefunc- exploring theLocation-Scalecondition: A constant 19- Nelson,C.H.,&Escalante,C.L.(2004). Toward Technology, 4(6),371-381. zania. African JournalofEnvironmentalScienceand to climatechangeandvariabilityinsemi-arid Tan- Vulnerability andadaptationofrainfedagriculture 18- Mongi,H.,Majule, A.E., &Lyimo, J.G.(2010). Journal of Archaeological Science,32,813-825. ability oftheancientMayasocietytonaturalthreats. 17- Me-Bar, Y., & Valdez, F. (2005).Onthevulner- cation Journal. case study. Iranian Agricultural ExtensionandEdu- (2011). Droughtvulnerabilityoffarmhouseholds:a 16- Keshavarz,M.,Karami,E.,&Zamani,G. Rural Management,2(1),67-83. surance. SagePublications.InternationalJournalof bility inruralareas:potentialdemandformicroin- 15- Kapoor, S.,&RajKumar, O.(2006). Vulnera- 88-89. Vanuatu. PhaseII.SOPAC Technical Report306, dices andprofilesforFiji,Samoa, Tuvalu and nerability index:developmentandprovisionalin- 14- Kaly, U.,&Pratt,C.(2000).Environmentalvul- Technological HazardsResearch,26(2),153- ranean. SpringerNetherlands. Advances inNaturaland agement andpolicydevelopmentintheMediter- in agricultureandwatersupplysystems:Droughtman- F., & Wilhite, D. A. (2009).Copingwithdroughtrisk 13- Iglesias, A., Garrote,L.,Cancelliere, A., Cubillo, Washington, DC. USA. Human DevelopmentNetwork. The World Bank, ity andvulnerablegroups.SocialProtectionUnit, S. (2005). A guidetotheanalysisofrisk,vulnerabil- 12- Hoogeveen,J., Tesliuc, E., Vakis, R.,&Dercon, ton D.C.USA. Network. TheWorldDevelopment Bank. Washing- Series, 0324,1-59.SocialProtectionUnit,Human sessments. SocialProtectionDiscussionPaper ods formicroeconometricriskandvulnerabilityas- 11- Hoddinott,J.,&Quisumbing, A. (2003).Meth- 39, 385-395. ment ofcatastrophicrisk.EnvironmentandPolicy, 10- Hazell,P. (2004).Climatechangeandmanage- Risk Studies,2(2),81-92. impact andinfluencingfactors.JournalofDisaster to climatechangeinGokweDistrict(Zimbabwe):
Archive of SID Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. 159. Razavi Province,10,1-12. Agricultural JihadOrganization ofKhorasan-e- of newsandInformationScience, Publicrelationsof Razavi Province.(2011). The eighthleaf.Magazine 31- The Agriculture organization ofKhorasan-e- Economic Affairs. Pp,1-164. statistic annalsin2009,DepartmentofPlanningand of Khorasan-e-RazaviProvince.(2009). Agricultural 30- The Agricultural statistics andinformationoffice /AtRiskReview.pdf noes/06upgrade/SocialKateG/Attachments%20Used 5. Available from:http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volca- Published by The BerkeleyElectronicPress,2(2),1- Homeland SecurityandEmergency Management. people’s vulnerability, anddisasters.Journalof 29- St.Cyr, J.F. (2006). At risk:naturalhazards, rasan andtheirpopulations. housing census,administrativeunitsofrazavikho- 28- StatisticalCentreofIran.(2012).Populationand 72, 2106-2123. arid central Tanzania. Journalof Arid Environments, Farmers’ perceptionsofrainfalland droughtinsemi- 27- Slegers,M.F.W. (2008).Ifonlyitwouldrain: 106-120. (InFarsi). javanrood). Arid regions geographicstudies,1(1), wheat (casestudy:sarpol-e-zahab,islamabad,and tion andmanagementforfarmerswhomcultivating ment ofvulnerabilityinrespectdroughtmitiga- 26- Sharafi,L.,&Zarafshani,K.(2010). The assess- nal ofruralresearch,1(4),129-154.InFarsi. Kermanshah, Sahne,andRavansartownships).Jour- towards drought(Caseofstudy: Wheat farmersin and socialvulnerabilityassessmentamongfarmers 25- Sharafi,L.,&Zarafshani,K.(2011). Economic opment, 40,154-176. bility todroughtinNicaragua?.CommunityDevel- role doesitplayforgender-differentiated vulnera- 24- Sengestam,L.(2009).Divisionofcapitals- What cial andEconomicDevelopment,3(2),208-215. analysis ofrainfedtanksinSouthIndia.JournalSo- Sekar,23- I.,Ramasamy, C.(2001).Riskandresource Brighton. England,72,1-18. studies, IDS Working paper. UniversityofSussex. A frameworkforanalysis,InstituteofDevelopment 22- Scoones,I.(1998).Sustainablerurallivelihoods: Journal of Agricultural Economics,46(1),57-63. decisions in Tankfed farmsofSouthIndia.Indian 21- Randhir, T.O. (1991).Influenceofriskoninput nomics, 2(2),167–78. on HYV adoptiononBangladesh. Agricultural Eco- www.SID.ir 235 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. 236 International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 3(4): 227-236, December, 2013. case study. NaturalHazards,25,37-58. ing vulnerabilitytoagriculturaldrought:aNebraska 33- Wilhelmi, O.V., & Wilhite, D.A.(2002). Assess- 13, 159-173. US-Mexico border. GlobalEnvironmentalChange, ability: agricultureandranchingonbothsidesofthe (2003). A comparativeassessmentofclimate vulner- 32- Vásquez-León, M., West, C.T., &Finan, T.J.
Archive of SID Drought riskvulnerabilityparameters/MojtabaSookhtanloetal. www.SID.ir