Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Land consolidation success in paddy fields of northern Iran: An assessment T

based on farmers’ satisfaction
⁎ ⁎
Mohammad Sadegh Allahyaria, , Christos A. Damalasb, , Zahra Daghighi Masoulehc,

D
Mehrdad Ghorbania
a
Department of Agricultural Management and Development, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
b
Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, Greece
c
Department of Agricultural Economics, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran 19395-4697, Iran

TE
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Land consolidation (LC) promotes the economic development of rural areas, creating a sustainable future in
Economic benefit agricultural production, but its success relies largely upon farmers’ satisfaction and adoption. However, factors
Farmers’ behavior affecting the success of LC are not well understood. This study analyzed farmers’ satisfaction by a LC project in
Land use paddy fields of Masal County in Guilan Province of northern Iran. Data were collected through a structured
Sustainable development C
questionnaire from 385 farmers. Most farmers were small-scale farmers with up to 3 lots, but a significant
proportion (26.5%) had more than 5 lots. Older farmers, farmers with increased family workforce, income, and
number of parcels had higher level of satisfaction and were more positive towards LC. Factor analysis sum-
marized farmers’ satisfaction by LC in four factors, namely, i) economic efficiency (related to production cost and
revenue) (16.93% of the variance), ii) working conditions (related to physical conditions and working schedules)
(16.73% of the variance), iii) technical efficiency (related to better use of resources and inputs) (12.34% of the
A
variance), and iv) land productivity (related to intensification of land use) (9.04% of the variance), which all
together explained 54.9% of the total variance of effective factors in farmers’ satisfaction. Based on these four
factors, most farmers (64.8%) were highly satisfied by LC and were named enthusiastic, while the remaining
farmers (35.2%) expressed moderate satisfaction and were more cautious (named conservatives) than the first
group. Findings provide insights into farmers’ behavior when participating in LC projects and are expected to
R

provide a basis for easy implementation of future LC projects. The government should create awareness of the
economic benefits of LC to farmers and provide damage compensation especially for small-scale farmers in cases
where the consolidated lands are not given in due time and therefore farmers miss one or two planting seasons.
ET

1. Introduction
Land consolidation (LC) is an important measure to achieve dy-
namic balance of arable land, ensure the security of food supply, and
contribute to sustainable use of land resource (Zhang et al., 2014;
Hiironen and Riekkinen, 2016; Luo and Timothy, 2017). It combines
the fragmentized land in one property or part of a property in a manner
R
academic community has paid more attention to rural LC than in the
past, focusing on its potential (Yin et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2013).
The most common benefits of an optimal LC project are: greater
efficiency in land use and productivity through allocation of a farm in
few parcels close to the farmstead (Jiang et al., 2017), which provides
considerable economic benefits to the farmers (Hiironen and Riekkinen,
2016). In addition, LC reduces the amount of unused land in-between

that reduces the number of its parts. In other words, LC is a spatial land
management tool that aims to resolve the land fragmentation problem
(Pašakarnis and Maliene, 2010). Thus, LC eliminates land fragmenta-
tion in favor of land productivity and improve rural production and
living conditions (Du et al., 2018), through a process of concentration
of plots or rejuvenation of abandoned land, which is usually accom-
panied by construction of new roads, irrigation facilities, and other
auxiliary services (Moradi et al., 2013; Long, 2014). Recently, the
the parcels. Moreover, positive ecological effects occur because large
parcels may allow the use of improved production methods
(Golichenari et al., 2014), thus decreasing adverse environmental ef-
fects of farming, such as nitrite and phosphate production, as well as
improving water resource planning. A recent study from China noted
much positive impact of LC on multifunctionality of agriculture, despite
a slightly impaired ecological benefit in some provinces (Guo et al.,
2015). Participatory rural LC has achieved great success and

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: allahyari@iaurasht.ac.ir (M.S. Allahyari), chris.damalas@yahoo.gr, cdamalas@agro.duth.gr (C.A. Damalas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.035
Received 25 November 2017; Received in revised form 11 January 2018; Accepted 21 January 2018
Available online 21 February 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Allahyari et al.
TE
contributed positively to slowing rural depopulation (Cay et al., 2010;
Hartvigsen, 2014; Li et al., 2014). LC and on-farm improvement is
considered an ongoing project of the under-construction projects in the
agricultural sector in Iran. This project, in which the traditional paddy
fields are modernized, formally started in the late 1980s in the country
and so far, over 76,000 ha of paddy fields in Guilan Province have been
C
consolidated and improved. Mechanization, increasing production per
unit area, reducing costs and, most importantly, cultivation of a second
crop after rice are the benefits of implementing LC in paddy fields
(Islamic Republic News Agency, 2017). Differences after implementa-
A
tion of the development and renovation project in paddy fields of
Guilan lands are shown in Fig. 1.
In recent years, a number of studies have been conducted to assess
the situation of agricultural LC. Abdollahzadeh et al. (2016) in-
vestigated the effect of LC projects on agricultural sustainability. The
R
results showed that there was a significant difference between farmers
with consolidated land and farmers with traditional land in terms of
ecological and economic dimensions. Traditional land showed higher
ecological sustainability than consolidated land, while the latter was
better than traditional land in economic dimensions. In addition, Long
ET
(2014) attempted to probe the mechanism of pushing forward rural
spatial restructuring in China by carrying out LC and achieving urban-
rural integration development in the future. Also, based on the results
of Ebrahimi et al. (2012), the effects of LC can be summarized in five
factors: social, instructional, environmental, economic, and institu-
tional. Cay et al. (2010) compared the effects of different land re-
allocation models on the success of LC projects. Based on this research,
LC projects are implemented not only for reallocation of land, but are
R
also grouped together with other activities, such as irrigation, drainage,
road systems, land levelling and improvements.
Although the results generally indicate that as a legislative instru-
ment LC has been quite successful in most cases, it must be noted that
the objectives, methodologies, and procedures of LC can differ sig-
nificantly between countries and cultures, owing to particular place-
based environmental, historical, social, and political conditions
(Eichenauer and Joeris, 1994; Bonfanti et al., 1997; Borec, 2000;
Crecente et al., 2002; Iscan, 2010; Lisec et al., 2014). There is, there-
fore, a need for a wider empirical base of studies that will help un-
derstand LC performance in different contexts. Public performance
evaluation theories indicate that production and service should be
evaluated based upon public satisfaction and provision of high-perfor-
mance services. The performance evaluation of LC is no exception.
Imbalances between supply and demand in rural LC can be addressed
96
Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101
Fig. 1. Differences after development of a renovation project.
D
scientifically, beginning with an understanding of household satisfac-
tion and internal impact assessments, the results of which can be used
to improve rural community satisfaction and promote sustainable de-
velopment.
Despite attempts initiated to boost agricultural production through
LC, several LC projects failed to make satisfactory progress due to re-
sistance of the landowners, interpersonal disputes, and weak land
revenue administration. There is widespread acceptance that the suc-
cess of LC depends largely on farmers’ satisfaction and adoption
(Yaslioglu et al., 2009; Kupidura et al., 2014; Lisec et al., 2014). In
particular, small farmers and land tenants can be afraid of losing their
job and ultimately be evicted due to extensive farm mechanization fa-
cilitated by LC (Niroula and Thapa, 2005). Hence, assessing LC success
factors is a crucial step to improve the acceptance of this project. The
main purpose of this study was to analyze the level of satisfaction and
success of land consolidation and renovation project from the point of
view of paddy farmers in Masal County of Guilan Province. The findings
are expected to provide useful insights into farmers’ behavior when
participating in LC and serve as a basis for easy implementation of
future LC projects.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study location and selection of sample
The study was conducted in Masal County of Guilan Province in
northern Iran. Guilan Province is characterized by rice cultivation,
which is favored by water availability and soil fertility combined with
the temperate climate of the province. Apart from rice, other major
agricultural products in this province are peanuts, tea, olives, fruits, and
vegetables. Due to high rice cultivation, the province is considered the
center of rice production in the country (Fahmideh et al., 2017). Masal
County, one of the northern counties of the Caspian Sea in North of
Iran, is located in northwest of Guilan Province. The county is sub-
divided into two districts: the Central District and the Shanderman
District with four rural districts and 98 villages. The study population
comprised of all paddy farmers amounting to 8134 people according to
the latest report of Jihad-e Agriculture Office (Agricultural Organiza-
tion) of Masal County. According to the table for determining the least
sample size from a given population (Bartlett et al., 2001), 385 farmers
were selected for the study, using a multistage cluster sampling method
from four sub-districts of Masal County: Masal, Taskooh, Shanderman,
and Sheikhneshin.
M.S. Allahyari et al. Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101

2.2. Data collection Table 1

Farmers’ socio-demographic characteristics.
A questionnaire that was designed by the authors was used as the
Characteristic Frequency Percentage Mean SD
primary means of data collection from the selected sample of farmers.
The questionnaire contained two different parts. The first part included Gender
questions about the socio-demographic characteristics of the re- Male 311 80.8
Female 74 19.2
spondents, such as gender, age, education, working experience, and
land area under cultivation, while the second part included items about Age (years) 44.85 13.45
LC measured on a five-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = strongly dis- Less than 30 52 13.5
From 30–40 131 34.0
agree to 5 = strongly agree). The content and face validity of the From 41–50 97 25.2
questionnaire were confirmed by a group of experts (faculty members From 51–60 51 13.3
of Islamic Azad University and Agricultural Organization experts), More than 60 54 14.0
whose comments were taken into account in the design of the final Marital status
version of questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was as- Married 321 83.4
sessed in a pilot study conducted prior to the service with participants Single 64 16.6

D
out of the sample. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, a measure used to as- Level of education
sess the reliability or internal consistency of a set of scale or test items, Illiterate 212 55.1
was calculated to 0.85, indicating that the research tool was reliable. Diploma and AD 138 35.8
MS and higher 35 9.1

Farming experience (years) 23.58 14.20

TE
2.3. Data analysis
Less than 10 96 24.9
From 10–30 201 52.2
Data were analyzed statistically using SPSS software package (ver- From 31–50 70 18.2
sion 21). First, descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, More than 50 18 4.7
means, and standard deviations were calculated to depict the demo-
graphic profile of the farmers. Inferential statistics were employed to AD: associate degree, a greater level of education than a high school diploma; MS: master
of science.
assess the effect of farmers’ characteristics on satisfaction by the LC
project. In this regard, t-tests and F-tests were calculated. Factor ana-
Table 2
lysis was performed to identify factors of LC success based on farmers’
C Farmers’ economic-technical characteristics.
views. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a widely utilized and broadly
applied statistical technique with main objective to classify a large Characteristic Frequency Percentage
number of variables into a small number of factors based on relation-
Area under cultivation
ships among variables. EFA is particularly appropriate for scale devel-
Less than 1 ha 168 43.6
opment or when there is little theoretical basis for specifying a priori
A
From 1 to 2 ha 118 30.7
the number and patterns of common factors (Hayton et al., 2004; More than 2 ha 99 25.7
Costello and Osborne, 2005). First, data were analyzed by KMO Farm ownership
(= 0.893) and Bartlett’s tests (chi-square = 2497.67, P < 0.01), Private land 251 65.2
whose results showed that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. Leased land 50 13.0
R

Indicators with factor load less than 0.4 were not appropriate and were Private and leased land 84 21.8
removed from the model; hence two indicators (easy access to land and Number of lots
increase in use of pesticides) were removed. 1 114 29.6
Following factor analysis, a two-step cluster analysis was conducted 2–3 134 34.8
4–5 35 9.1
to find the appropriate number of clusters for classifying farmers ac-
ET

More than 5 102 26.5

cording to factors of satisfaction by LC identified in factor analysis.
Cluster analysis is used to identify groups of cases if the grouping is not Consulting promotion experts
previously known. More specifically, cluster analysis tries to identify Yes 226 65.5
No 119 34.5
homogenous groups of cases, so that respondents could be categorized
in distinguished clusters. Following that, a K-means clustering analysis Using family work force
Yes 320 83.1
was used to classify paddy farmers in terms of factors generated in
No 65 16.9
factor analysis according to their instinct motivations toward LC sa-
tisfaction. Using loans
Yes 261 67.8
R

No 124 32.2
3. Results
Annual household income
Less than $1190 90 23.7
3.1. Population profile From $1190 to $2380 120 31.7
More than $2380 169 44.6
The majority of the respondents were male, with an average age
44.85 years (Table 1). Almost a third (34.0%) were within the age
group of 30–40 and almost a quarter (25.2%) were in the age group of respondents (26.5%) had > 5 lots. Most respondents were consulting
41–50. Most respondents were married. Respondents with no education promotion experts (65.5%), using family work force (83.1%), and using
had the highest prevalence in the sample (55.1%) (Table 1). Farmers loans (67.8%). Just less than half (44.6%) had an annual income above
with farming experience within the range of 10–30 years had the $2380 (Table 2)
highest frequency (52.2%) and those with more than 50 years had the
lowest (4.7%). The mean experience of farmers was 23.58 years. 3.2. Role of farmers’ characteristics in satisfaction by LC
The average area under cultivation was 1.75 ha. Most respondents
(65.2%) had private land of less than 1 ha under cultivation (Table 2). Farmers with family work force showed a high level of satisfaction
The majority had up to 3 lots, but a significant proportion of the by LC (P < 0.01), but no significant differences were observed for the

97
M.S. Allahyari et al. Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101

Table 3 Table 4
Farmers’ characteristics concerning satisfaction by LC (t-test results). Farmers’ characteristics concerning satisfaction by LC (F-test results).

Variable Mean SD P-value Variable Mean SD P-value

Gender Level of education

Female 4.04 0.529 Illiterate 4.01 0.57
Male 4.06 0.545 Diploma and AD 4.11 0.50
t-test 0.43 ns 0.638 MS and higher 4.12 0.48
F-test 1.64 ns 0.195
Marital status
Married 4.08 0.540 Farm ownership
Single 3.96 0.545 Private land 4.07 0.54
t-test −1.34 ns 0.181 Leased land 4.06 0.59
Private and leased 4.02 0.47
Using family work force
F-test 0.21 ns 0.809
Yes 4.12 0.511
No 3.74 0.580 Annual household income
**
t-test 5.23 0.000 Less than $1190 3.98 0.565

D
$1190-$2380 4.02 0.538
Consulting experts
More than $2380 4.15 0.525
Yes 4.06 0.515 *
F-test 3.78 0.024
No 4.04 0.560
t-test 0.40 ns 0.689 Area under cultivation
Less than 1 ha 4.03 0.514
Using loans

TE
From 1–2 ha 4.12 0.522
Yes 4.07 0.511
More than 2 ha 4.04 0.633
No 4.02 0.602
F-test 0.99 ns 0.371
t-test 0.53 ns 0.594
Number of parcels
ns: non-significant. 1 3.96 0.544
** Significant at P < 0.01. 2–3 4.06 0.522
4–5 3.83 0.643
More than 5 4.24 0.507
other variables (Table 3). Moreover, farmers with increased annual F-test 7.19 **
0.000
household income, high number of parcels, and advanced age showed a C Age
high level of satisfaction by LC (Table 4). Old farmers had higher level
Less than 30 3.87 0.554
of satisfaction than young farmers. From30 to 40 4.03 0.502
From 41–50 4.08 0.536
3.3. Factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction of LC From 51–60 4.12 0.564
More than 60 4.19 0.628
A
*
F-test 2.56 0.038
Factor analysis extracted four factors which accounted for 54.9% of
Farming experience
the total variance (Table 5). Based on the loaded indicators in each of
Less than 10 3.86 0.514
the four extracted factors, an appropriate name for each factor was From 10–30 4.42 0.524
given. Factor 1 explained 16.93% of the total variance. Five variables From 31to 50 4.36 0.571
R

(related to production cost and revenue) were loaded on this factor, More than 50 4.73 0.534
which was named economic efficiency. Factor 2 explained 16.73% of F-test 1.30 ns 0.274

the total variance. Three variables (related to physical conditions and

ns: non-significant.
working schedules) were loaded on this factor, which was named ** Significant at P < 0.01.
working conditions. Factor 3 explained 12.34% of the total variance. * Significant at P < 0.05.
ET

Six variables (related to better use of resources and inputs) were loaded
on this factor, which was named technical efficiency. Factor 4 explained
9.04% of the total variance. Three variables (related to intensification
of land use) were loaded on this factor, which was named land pro-
ductivity. From these four main factors, economic efficiency showed
the highest importance (i.e., explained the highest percentage of var-
iation), working conditions factor was ranked in the second position,
technical efficiency with a little difference was placed in the third po-
R
4. Discussion
This study examined factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction by LC in
Masal County of Guilan Province in northern Iran based on farmers’
views. Older farmers, farmers with increased family workforce, income,
and number of parcels had higher level of satisfaction and were more
positive towards LC. Studies on factors affecting the success of LC are

sition, and land productivity showed the lowest importance (Table 5).
In addition, each factor with its indicators was measured by mean
technique. Given that all questions were measured according to a five-
point Likert-type scale, and the mean of all the indicators were more
than 3.5, we can say that all of the 17 indicators and the four factors are
important.
3.4. Farmers’ classification based on factors affecting satisfaction
As seen in Table 6, there were two clusters in which all the clus-
tering factors differed significantly (P < 0.01). Based on the four fac-
tors, the farmers were classified in two conceptually distinguishable
groups, those who were highly satisfied by LC (64.8%) and were named
enthusiastic and those who expressed moderate satisfaction (35.2%)
and were more cautious than the first group (named conservatives)
(Table 7).
limited in the literature. Therefore, the findings provide useful insights
into farmers’ behavior when participating in LC projects and are ex-
pected to provide a basis for easy implementation of future LC projects.
Moreover, the findings are important, because essential structural
changes to agriculture can be effective with LC in an integrated rural
development context. On the contrary, without a concerted effort,
structural changes may be limited and thus occur at a much reduced
rate. Farmers can recognize the problems of land fragmentation, but
voluntary efforts to consolidate have not made significant impact.
Therefore, it is essential that the necessary resources along with assis-
tance are provided to farmers and other rural residents in a coherent
manner in a well-designed LC strategy.
In a previous study, old age groups of farmers showed increased
probability of adopting LC projects than young farmers, which is in line
with the results of the current study (Yaslioglu et al., 2009). Old family

98
M.S. Allahyari et al. Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101

Table 5
Factors affecting land consolidation success.

Factor Indicator Factor loading Variance explained% Mean SD

Economic efficiency 16.93 3.99 0.94

LC reduces labor cost 0.684 3.96 0.96
LC reduces inputs cost 0.681 4.07 0.83
LC increases total revenue 0.525 3.94 0.99
LC increases labor income 0.521 3.98 0.97
LC reduces transport cost 0.642 4.02 0.93

Working conditions 16.73 4.08 0.7

LC improves the livelihood of paddy farmers 0.606 3.96 1.02
LC alleviates the problem of labor shortage 0.707 4.03 0.91
LC reduces the difficulty of working in agriculture 0.688 4.25 0.99

Technical efficiency 12.34 4.15 0.87

LC provides easy access to irrigation water 0.561 4.10 0.89

D
LC increases the use of machinery and upgrades the mechanization level 0.814 4.25 0.85
LC facilitates the use of machinery in paddy fields 0548 4.29 0.80
LC controls irrigation water consumption in paddy fields 0.556 4.07 0.96
LC removes land registration problems 0.852 4.10 0.86
LC allows extraction of water from own wells 0.765 4.11 0.84

TE
Land productivity 9.04 3.94 0.98
LC promotes second crop 0.596 3.99 0.97
LC supports animal husbandry 0.704 3.93 0.99
LC improves land fertility 0.728 3.89 0.99

SD: standard deviation.

Table 6 the fact that LC would release the available labor force of large families
Analysis of variance of the two clusters of farmers for each factor.
C for other activities, thus contributing to an increase of the family in-
come. The present study also showed that farmers with high income
Factor Cluster Error F P-value
had a higher level of satisfaction by LC than poor farmers. Farmers with
MS n-1 MS n-1 high income usually own large farms and are more dynamic in the
adoption of technological innovations. In a previous study, farmers who
Economic efficiency 72.72 1 0.25 365 290.96 0.000 were well-off tended to participate in activities such as LC that improve
Working conditions 51.82 1 0.24 365 219.76 0.000
A
economic and social welfare, thus combating future risk (Kizilaslan and
Technical efficiency 94.96 1 0.19 365 487.26 0.000
Land productivity 120.18 1 0.22 365 552.08 0.000 Almus, 2002). Farmers’ low income is a reason of resistance to LC ac-
ceptance, because low-income farmers must address the needs of sub-
MS: mean square. sistence farming and practically they have no other choice. A great part
of the farms in developing countries are subsistence farms that may
R

Table 7 produce little for the market, but they are an important source of in-
Final center and description of the two clusters of farmers (n = 367). come and food security for several rural residents (Kahan, 2012).
Moreover, part-time farmers often maintain farms only as a sideline to
Factor Conservative Enthusiastic
supplement their incomes and do not necessarily want to expand their
operations. As expected, farmers with a great number of plots showed
ET

Economic efficiency 3.46 4.39

Working conditions 3.68 4.46 higher satisfaction by LC than farmers with limited number of plots. A
Technical efficiency 3.33 4.39
great number of plots implies great distance between plots and farm-
Land productivity 3.20 4.39
Meana 3.42 4.41 steads as well as great distance between plots themselves (or scattering
Number 129 238 of plots), which limit working efficiency and increase production costs.
Percentage 35.2 64.8 The success of LC as seen from farmers’ level of satisfaction in this
study was summarized in four factors using factor analysis, i.e., eco-
a
On a five-point Likert-type scale from very low = 1 to very high = 5.
nomic efficiency, working conditions, technical efficiency, and land
productivity, which explained 54.9% of the total variance in farmers’
R

members usually live in villages and cultivate agricultural lands.
Therefore, this finding can be explained by the fact that aged farmers
suffer more from difficulties in the cultivation of fragmented and
scattered plots than young farmers, and therefore, old farmers are more
positive towards LC (Yaslioglu et al., 2009). This finding may be also
explained by the fact that young farmers are usually employed in off-
farm activities and probably they fear of losing income from extensive
farm mechanization in consolidated land. Another finding of the cur-
rent study showed that farmers with increased family workforce had
higher level of satisfaction and were more positive towards LC than
farmers with limited family workforce. Based on a comprehensive
analysis of global agricultural census data, family farming is by far the
predominant form of agriculture (Graeub et al., 2016). Farming
households with more labor force were more likely to be satisfied by LC
and more likely to rank the project as satisfactory, as also reported
elsewhere (Luo and Timothy, 2017). This finding could be attributed to
satisfaction. The consolidation of small parcels into contiguous holdings
is commonly justified by expectations of beneficial economic effects,
i.e., parcel consolidation is expected to reduce production costs and
thus improve net income for a farm of a given size. LC that produces
large farms (keeping the number of parcels fixed) is also believed to be
beneficial, as it is expected to reduce the level of fixed costs per unit of
land, allow more efficient use of technology, and ultimately increase
productivity and efficiency. Production costs are positively related to
the number of plots and to their distance from the farm, but they de-
crease with plot size. Many farmers view their land as their only live-
lihood source, especially those who have no other income options, and
are therefore highly sensitive to land reform and other changes. This
makes LC more an issue of social security insurance than a land use
model. Improvement in working conditions in the field was positively
related with farmers’ satisfaction from an LC project, so that farmers

99
M.S. Allahyari et al.
who felt that working conditions in the field were improved with LC
projects were more frequently satisfied with the plan than those who
reported no improvement (Yaslioglu et al., 2009). Depending on the
improvement in plot size, working conditions in the field can be im-
proved, as the agricultural activities can be carried out more easily.
Therefore, the main motivation for such projects can be due to the poor
conditions for agriculture, so that reduction of production costs gives a
high economic return to the farmers. Alternatively LC projects can be
used as an instrument to integrate several functions of the countryside
and to re-evaluate certain rural areas.
This study demonstrates the importance of household satisfaction
research in the area of LC performance. Rural residents’ satisfaction can
reflect the integrated performance of LC from the community side, no
matter how different the conditions of LC are. In this study, 64.8% of
the farmers were highly satisfied by LC, which is a very high level of
satisfaction, while the remaining 35.2% expressed moderate satisfac-
tion and were more cautious than the first group. A high level of sa-
tisfaction (76.5%) with land consolidation performance was recently
reported from China (Luo and Timothy, 2017), which is in line with our
findings. As regards variables related to household satisfaction, this
TE
investigation discovered four main issues that critically affect LC per-
formance in Iran. These included i) economic efficiency (related to
production cost and revenue), ii) working conditions (related to phy-
sical conditions and working schedules), iii) technical efficiency (re-
lated to better use of resources and inputs), and iv) land productivity
(related to intensification of land use).
5. Policy implications C No. 4.5830 is acknowledged.
LC is an excellent tool to implement rural development projects with
multiple purposes and goals. The practice of LC has clearly demon-
strated that it can be an effective and active land management instru-
ment to address the problems associated with land fragmentation and
A
small farm sizes. The project is also an instrument for sustainable rural
development in a wider context which includes improvements in agri-
cultural production, employment, infrastructure, public facilities,
housing, and protection of natural resources. Although there is great
R
potential of rural LC in Iran due to the aggravated hollowed villages
against the background of rapid rural-urban transformation, LC has
achieved little success for agricultural development in the country. In
this context, the results can be useful for policy development efforts of
the local authorities to successful implementation of LC projects.
ET
Farmers’ support, employment status, and family size appear to
influence farmers’ satisfaction by LC projects, as noted elsewhere
(Akkaya Aslan et al., 2007), but not necessarily farmers’ satisfaction by
LC in general (Yaslioglu et al., 2009). To reduce the risks and un-
certainties of LC, promoting local cooperatives and household social
security insurance may improve performance and public perceptions of
LC. Training services and memberships in cooperatives should be es-
sential measures to help farmers live off the land better following LC. To
R
make LC more sustainable, objectives should focus on how to improve
farmers’ standards of living. Assessments of LC success should pay more
careful attention to the value of perceived performance rather than only
to operationalized performance on the ground. Finally, there should be
damage compensation for small-scale farmers in cases where the con-
solidated lands are not given in due time and therefore farmers miss one
or two planting seasons. Variables related to use of machinery can fa-
cilitate LC success and, therefore, it is suggested that appropriate fa-
cilities be provided for the use of machinery by the relevant organiza-
tions. Also, the use of such machines and technologies should be taught
to farmers. Improving governmental supports for better crop insurance
coverage, construction of infrastructures, and delivery of extension
courses to farmers is recommended. Strengthening capacity of local
leaders is also needed, so that they can be able to sensitize farmers on
all aspects regarding land use and management reforms. This capacity
will allow farmers to be confident in the process of LC until land
100
Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101
registration process is complete.
6. Conclusions
This study examined factors affecting farmers’ satisfaction by LC in
Masal County of Guilan Province in northern Iran based on farmers’
views. Older farmers, farmers with increased family workforce, income,
and number of parcels had a higher level of satisfaction and were more
positive towards LC. Factor analysis summarized the success of LC in
four factors, namely economic efficiency, working conditions, technical
efficiency, and land productivity, which explained 54.9% of the total
variance in farmers’ satisfaction. The findings provide insights into
farmers’ behavior when participating in LC projects and are expected to
provide a basis for easy implementation of future LC projects. The
government should create awareness of the economic benefits of LC to
D
farmers and provide damage compensation for small-scale farmers in
cases where the consolidated lands are not given in due time and
therefore farmers miss one or two planting seasons. Future studies
should aim to shed light on different aspects of LC performance, as-
sessing the effectiveness of publicity and public awareness and evalu-
ating possible effects of LC projects on household characteristics, agri-
cultural production, transportation, mechanization, and land leasing or
transferring ability before implementing LC.
Acknowledgement
Financial support by Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University Grant
References
Abdollahzadeh, G., Changizi, M., Sharifzadeh, M.S., 2016. Investigating the effect of land
consolidation projects on agricultural sustainability (Case study: Haraz Plain in
Mazandaran Province). J. Res. Rural Plan. 4, 147–162 (in Persian).
Akkaya Aslan, S.T., Gundogdu, K.S., Yaslioglu, E., Kirmikil, M., Arici, I., 2007. Personal,
physical and socioeconomic factors affecting farmers’ adoption of land consolidation.
Span. J. Agric. Res. 5, 204–213.
Bartlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W., Higgins, C.C., 2001. Organizational research: determining
appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey re-
search. Inform. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 19, 43–50.
Bonfanti, P., Fregonese, A., Sigura, M., 1997. Landscape analysis in areas affected byland
consolidation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37, 91–98.
Borec, A., 2000. The significance of land consolidation for the development of farmland in
Slovenia then and now. Ber. Landwirtsch. 78, 320–334.
Cay, T., Ayten, T., Iscan, F., 2010. Effects of different land reallocation models on the
success of land consolidation projects: social and economic approaches. Land Use
Policy 27, 262–269.
Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W., 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval.
10, 1–9.
Crecente, R., Alvarez, C., Fra, U., 2002. Economic, social and environmental impact of
land consolidation in Galicia. Land Use Policy 19, 135–147.
Du, X., Zhang, X., Jin, X., 2018. Assessing the effectiveness of land consolidation for
improving agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy 70, 360–367.
Ebrahimi, M.S., Khalil, K., Ali, A., 2012. Factor analysis of paddy-field consolidation: case
study of Iran. Sustain. Agric. Res. 1, 108–114.
Eichenauer, M., Joeris, D., 1994. The historical relationship between land consolidation
and nature conservation. Ber. Landwirtsch. 72, 329–450.
Fahmideh, S.N., Allahyari, M.S., Damalas, C.A., Masouleh, Z.D., Ghazi, M., 2017.
Predicting adoption of double cropping in paddy fields of northern Iran: a comparison
of statistical methods. Paddy Water Environ. 15, 907–917.
Golichenari, E., Firouzi, S., Allahyari, M.S., 2014. Promoting factors of land consolidation
of paddy fields in Iran: case of west part of Guilan Province. J. Soil Nat. 7, 1–6.
Graeub, B.E., Chappell, J.M., Wittman, H., Ledermann, S., Kerr, R.B., Gemmill-Herren, B.,
2016. The state of family farms in the world. World Dev. 87, 1–15.
Guo, B., Jin, X., Yang, X., Guan, X., Lin, Y., Zhou, Y., 2015. Determining the effects of land
consolidation on the multifunctionality of the cropland production system in China
using a SPA-fuzzy assessment model. Eur. J. Agron. 63, 12–26.
Hartvigsen, M., 2014. Land mobility in a central and eastern European land consolidation
context. Nordic J. Surv. Real Est. Res. 10, 23–46.
Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G., Scarpello, V., 2004. Factor retention decisions in exploratory
factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 7, 191–205.
Hiironen, J., Riekkinen, K., 2016. Agricultural impacts and profitability of land con-
solidations. Land Use Policy 55, 309–317.
Iscan, F., 2010. The effects of different land reallocation models applied in land con-
solidation projects on parcel transposition: example of Karatepe village, Turkey. Sci.
M.S. Allahyari et al.
Res. Essays 5, 873–882.
Islamic Republic News Agency, 2017. Available online at www.irna.ir (Accessed 13.09.
2017).
Jiang, G., Zhang, R., Ma, W., Zhou, D., Wang, X., He, X., 2017. Cultivated land pro-
ductivity potential improvement in land consolidation schemes in Shenyang, China:
assessment and policy implications. Land Use Policy 68, 80–88.
Kahan, D., 2012. Entrepreneurship in Farming. Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO), Rome, Italy.
Kizilaslan, N., Almus, S., 2002. Research on the determination of the socio-economic
factors affecting the farmers’ behaviour in adopting land consolidation implemented
in Güzelbeyli town in Zile County, Tokat Province. Turk. J. Agric. For. 26, 101–108.
Kupidura, A., Luczewski, M., Home, R., Kupidura, P., 2014. Public perceptions of rural
landscapes in land consolidation procedures in Poland. Land Use Policy 39, 313–319.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., Long, H., Cui, W., 2014. Community-based rural residential land con-
solidation and allocation can help to revitalize hollowed villages in traditional
agricultural areas of China: evidence from Dancheng County, Henan Province. Land
Use Policy 39, 188–198.
Lisec, A., Primozic, T., Ferlan, M., Sumrada, R., Drobne, S., 2014. Landowners’ perception
of land consolidation and their satisfaction with the land consolidation. Land Use
Policy 38, 550–563.
Liu, Y.S., Yang, R., Li, Y.H., 2013. Potential of land consolidation of hollowed villages
TE
C
A
R
ET
R
101
Land Use Policy 73 (2018) 95–101
under different urbanization scenarios in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 23, 503–512.
Long, H., 2014. Land consolidation: an indispensable way of spatial restructuring in rural
China. J. Geogr. Sci. 24, 211–225.
Luo, W., Timothy, D.J., 2017. An assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with land con-
solidation performance in China. Land Use Policy 61, 501–510.
Moradi, M., Falsoleyman, M., Abtahinia, A., 2013. Recognition of effective factors on
farmers will to take part in farming land consolidation plan performance case: Khoosf
Township. Geogr. Dev. 11, 89–102.
Niroula, G.S., Thapa, G.B., 2005. Impacts and causes of land fragmentation, and lessons
learned from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use Policy 22, 358–372.
Pašakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and
Eastern Europe: applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy 27, 545–549.
Yaslioglu, E., Allaua Aslan, S.T., Kirmikil, M., Gundogdu, K.S., Arici, I., 2009. Changes in
farm management and agricultural activities and their effect on farmers’ satisfaction
from land consolidation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 17, 327–340.
Yin, S., Wei, C.-F., Yang, X.-Y., Luo, Y.-J., 2011. The ecological compensation of land
consolidation and its evaluation in hilly area of Southwest China. Energy Procedia 5,
1192–1199.
Zhang, Z., Zhao, W., Gu, X., 2014. Changes resulting from a land consolidation project
D
(LCP) and its resource–environment effects: a case study in Tianmen City of Hubei
Province, China. Land Use Policy 40, 74–82.