Journal Pre-proof

Rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change: A strategic analysis

Ali Tohidimoghadam, Alireza PourSaeed, Masoud Bijani, Roya Eshraghi Samani

PII: S2665-9727(23)00069-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100292
Reference: INDIC 100292

To appear in: Environmental and Sustainability Indicators

Received Date: 8 May 2023

Revised Date: 22 August 2023
Accepted Date: 24 August 2023

Please cite this article as: Tohidimoghadam, A., PourSaeed, A., Bijani, M., Samani, R.E., Rural
sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change: A strategic analysis, Environmental and
Sustainability Indicators (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100292.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

 Full title:
Rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change: A strategic analysis

Short title:
Rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change

Authors:
Ali Tohidimoghadam a, Alireza PourSaeed b*, Masoud Bijani c*, & Roya Eshraghi Samani d

a. Ph.D. Student, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam,

of
Iran. (First name: Ali, Last name: Tohidimoghadam, Tel: +982148292020, Fax: +982148292200, Mobile phone:
+989188514560, Postal Code: 1447663161, Email: tohidimoghadamali@gmail.com, ORCID: 00000-0003-1160-

ro
2819

-p
b. Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran.
re
(First name: Alireza, Last name: PourSaeed, Mobile phone: +989120655719, Postal Code: 1447663161, Email:
alireza.poursaeed@iau.ac.ir), ORCID: 0000-0002-8156-4849 (*. Corresponding Author)
lP

c. Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares
University (TMU), Tehran, Iran. (First name: Masoud, Last name: Bijani, Tel: +982148292020, Fax:
na

+982148292200, Mobile phone: +989166624222, Postal Code: 1497713111, Email: mbijani@modares.ac.ir,

ORCID: 0000-0003-2659-6386 (*. Corresponding Author)
ur

d. Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Jo

Ilam, Iran. (First name: Roya, Last name: Eshraghi Samani, Mobile phone: +989120655715, Postal Code:
1447663161, Email: ro.eshraghi@iau.ac.ir, ORCID: 0000-0002-7275-4552

Authors’ notes:
Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Alireza PourSaeed (Department of
Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam,
Iran, Email: alireza.poursaeed@iau.ac.ir) and Masoud Bijani (Department of Agricultural Extension and
Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran, Email:
mbijani@modares.ac.ir).

Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful of all the respondents who played a valuable role in the success of this research by
providing information and dedicating their precious time.
 1 Rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change: A strategic analysis
2
3 Abstract
4 Due to excessive dependence on the climate, the villagers have experienced the greatest effects of
5 climate change in recent years. Therefore, it is necessary to increase their resilience against the
6 effects of climate change by adopting measures. The current descriptive and exploratory research
7 was conducted with the aim of conducting a strategic analysis of the resilience of sustainable rural
8 livelihoods against climate change using SWOT technique. The statistical population included 21
9 subject specialists. The sampling method was purposeful. The results obtained included 27

of
10 strengths (final coefficient=4.032), 39 weaknesses (final coefficient=3.723), 21 opportunities (final
11 coefficient=3.940) and 20 threats (final coefficient=3.410). The SWOT matrix indicated that the

ro
12 dominant strategy is in the SO (offensive) area. In this regard, four offensive strategies were
13
-p
proposed including: SO1 (S1, S8, O3, O7: Using the technical ability of leading farmers and
re
14 gardeners in educational and extension activities), SO2 (S2, O2, O10: Empowerment of extension
15 developers by providing continuous at-services training to climate change), SO3 (S3, O5, O7:
lP

16 Using press media to inform farmers about climate change) and SO4 (S7, O7: Increase the
na

17 connection between the extension system and research centers and paying serious attention to the
18 issue of adapting to climate change). In the following, some strategies were determined for three
ur

19 other strategic areas including WO (conservative), ST (competitive) and WT (defensive). The

Jo

20 proposed strategies can be used by policy makers in the field of rural development and agriculture.
21
22 Keywords: Resilience, Climate change, Sustainable livelihood, Rural people, SWOT.
23
24 1. Introduction
25 Climate change means making a change in weather patterns, which is mainly caused by the
26 emission of greenhouse gases from natural systems (forest fire, earthquake, ocean, permanent ice,
27 wetlands, volcanoes) (YUE & GAO, 2018) and anthropogenic activities (energy production,
28 industrial activities and land use change) (Fawzy et al., 2020). Climate change is considered as one
29 of the most important current environmental challenges (Jacquemont et al., 2022), which causes
30 some problems such as increased global warming (Watts et al., 2019), energy demand increase
31 (Ogunbode et al., 2022), reducing water quantity and quality (Mujere & Moyce, 2017), increasing

1
32 urban and industrial waste (Chen, 2018), increasing soil degradation (FAO, 2019) and above all,
33 reducing food security (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020).
34 In recent years, due to excessive dependence on the climate, the agricultural sector has experienced
35 the most adverse impacts of climate change (Mardy et al., 2018), and in case of continuation of
36 climate change and neglecting strategies to reduce production and Greenhouse gases emissions,
37 the agricultural sector will face a serious crisis and the livelihood of the families living in rural
38 areas (namely in developing countries) will be threatened. Considering that climate change in the
39 agricultural sector is a great threat to livelihood production units, especially small-scale farmers
40 (Adger et al., 2018), in order to mitigate its risks on rural communities, improving the capabilities

of
41 of farmers in some fields such as adaptability and resilience under climate change conditions to
42 maintain livelihood, is one of the most important recommended strategies (Alam et al., 2016). Also,

ro
43 besides modifying the methods of using water resources in order to reduce the impacts of drought,
44
-p
changing the management methods of rural life in order to enhance resilience is also one of the
re
45 new and successful solutions in reducing the harmful impacts of climate change. Therefore,
46 significant changes have been seen in the attitude towards risks in recent years and at the global
lP

47 level, so that the dominant approach has changed from a weak focus on reducing vulnerability to
na

48 increasing resilience against accidents. (McEntire et al., 2012). In their research, Liu et al. (2022)
49 found that climate change can increase the vulnerability of rain-fed agriculture, and in the absence
ur

50 of suitable resilience, the continuation of this type of situation can increase poverty in rural society.
Jo

51 Based on this, enhancing resilience to climate change is one of the factors affecting food security,
52 because it enables farmers to determine livelihood strategies so that they can be sustainable with
53 unpredictable weather, such as climate change. The results of Dhraief et al. (2019) indicate that
54 regarding resilience, rural households and farmers, strategies to strengthen household knowledge
55 about coping strategies, land management and climate challenges awareness have been taken into
56 consideration. In this regard, an important strategy is to promote associations such as the
57 agricultural services organization, which can help families to meet the essential demands of
58 households and agricultural institutions, and also mitigate the costs of technologies and services
59 and create suitable employment in the village. Also, public investments are essential to improve
60 the quality of human and animal health services in rural areas. The results of Hecke's research are
61 related to access to microcredits and social assistance to families to enhance resilience against
62 natural disasters (Hecke, 2018). According to the study done by Saleh et al. (2022), many indicators

2
63 such as "participation in collective employment activities", "awareness of new market needs",
64 "business development through the use of new technologies", "work experience in the diverse job
65 environments" and "learning new skills of economic activities" indicate the importance of
66 understanding the basic needs of the market and increasing the ability of villagers to perform
67 alternative agricultural activities in times of crisis.
68 Hamadan is one of the cities in the west of Iran, in which like most villages in Iran, rural areas have
69 agricultural activities-based economy. In the villages of this city, many crops such as wheat, canola,
70 garlic, potatoes, etc. are planted. Considering the position of these products in the income of
71 villagers and also creating employment opportunities in rural areas, identifying threats and risks of

of
72 these products is of great importance. Climate changes in this region, which is affected by global
73 climate changes, have many impacts on agricultural production. In research, Mohammadkhani &

ro
74 Jamali (2015) revealed that the vulnerability to climate changes in Hamedan and Alborz provinces
75
-p
in Iran is more than other provinces of Iran. This is due to the density of the agricultural and rural
re
76 population in these areas, and the livelihood of the residents is more dependent on agriculture,
77 groundwater resources and drought in the last decade. Numerous droughts and the inappropriate
lP

78 management of water resources in Hamedan city have caused the underground water balance to
na

79 become negative in many plains and this has seriously threatened the continuation of agricultural
80 activities. The increased crisis of water scarcity and drought has not only affected the production
ur

81 and livelihood of rural households, but has also paved the ground for rural migrations (Keshavarz,
Jo

82 2018).
83 Despite the existence of some research on climate and drought in Hamedan, there was no
84 exploratory research about the position of rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change.
85 Accordingly, the purpose of this research was to analyze the strategic resilience to climate change
86 with the approach of sustainable livelihood of households in rural areas.
87
88 2. Materials and methods
89 This applied research is qualitative from paradigmatic aspects, and is exploratory in terms of the
90 data collection method, which was conducted using the Delphi technique and SWOT (Strengths,
91 Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. When the theoretical background, especially at
92 certain levels, is not responsive in research, using the Delphi technique is a suitable solution. Delphi
93 is a structured process for collecting and classifying existing knowledge among a group of experts,

3
 94 which is done through the distribution of questionnaires among these people and the controlled
95 feedback of the answers and opinions received. Delphi technique can be used for “identification”
96 and “screening” of the most important decision-making indicators. Delphi is a framework for group
97 communication between experts so that they can make decisions and analyze in ambiguous
98 conditions with the help of it with the least possible error (Roth et al., 2016).
99 The statistical sample of this research included 21 experts of the agricultural jihad of Hamadan city
100 and the faculty members of the agriculture department of Bu Ali Sina University, who were
101 selected using a purposeful snowball sampling method. The expertise of the people in the
102 composition of 21 respondents includes 5 people with specialization in agricultural extension and

of
103 education, 4 people in agricultural economics, 3 people in agricultural and rural development, 3
104 people in agronomy, 2 people in water resources management, 1 person in soil science, 1 person

ro
105 in agricultural mechanization, 1 person, public administration and 1 person was social science and
106
-p
communication. The data collection instrument was a researcher-built questionnaire including four
re
107 fields of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
108 The content of each area of SWOT was extracted based on the results of qualitative content analysis
lP

109 via interviews with the experts of the mentioned sample. Based on the initial interviews, an open-
na

110 ended questionnaire (in this way, what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to
111 increase the resilience of villagers against climate change in the current administration?) was
ur

112 designed to measure the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the first phase of
Jo

113 Delphi. After summarizing the opinions, the second phase questionnaire was designed in which the
114 agreement or disagreement of the respondents with each item was measured and the items with
115 80% agreement of the respondents were kept and the rest were deleted. In similar studies, it is
116 usually done in the same way, and the accuracy is between 75 and 80% (see Keeney et al., 2001;
117 Okoli & Pawlowski (2004); Fallah Haghighi et al., 2021). Here, to increase the accuracy, 80%
118 agreement was considered. In the third phase, the respondents' agreement with each item in a 5-
119 part Likert scale [very low (1), low (2), medium (3), high (4) and very high (5)] was measured and
120 scored. The final questionnaire consists of 107 items in 4 main questions of strengths (27 items),
121 weaknesses (39 items), opportunities (21 items) and threats (20 items). These three phases lasted
122 for three months from June to August 2022.SWOT is one of decision-making patterns designed to
123 determine strategy and make big and key decisions about various issues and topics. SWOT analysis
124 is used to match “internal” strengths and weaknesses with “external” opportunities and threats.

4
125 Indeed, SWOT analysis provides a systematic analysis method to identify factors and choose a
126 strategy that best matches them (Fallah Haghighi et al., 2021). Thus, the internal environment is
127 those variables whose origin is related to the farmer households living in the rural areas of Hamedan
128 and they can directly control (strengthen or weaken) them and they are realized directly based on
129 the rural households in Hamedan. The external environment is an environment in which variables
130 are not directly controlled by the farmer households living in the rural areas of Hamedan, but those
131 variables are affected to enhance resilience to climate change.
132 From this aspect, a suitable strategy is to maximize strengths and opportunities and minimize
133 weaknesses and threats. In general, the internal strengths and weaknesses and the external
opportunities and threats are connected based on the four general states of “offensive (SO)”,

of
134
135 “conservative (WO)”, “competitive (ST)” and “defensive (WT)” strategies and strategic items are

ro
136 created and selected (Harrison and Caron, 2014). SO, strategies use environmental opportunities
137
-p
by relying on internal strengths. In WO strategies, the aim is to reduce internal weaknesses by using
re
138 existing environmental opportunities. In ST strategies, it is attempted to reduce the impacts of
139 threats in the external environment by using internal strengths, and in WT strategies, the goal is to
lP

140 mitigate internal weaknesses and avoid threats from the external environment (Ibid).
na

141
142 3. Results and discussion
ur

143 3.1. Internal factors evaluation matrix

Jo

144 In SWOT analysis, the strengths and weaknesses form the organization's internal environment. To
145 analyze the internal environment, the sum of the final coefficients (final coefficient is obtained by
146 multiplying Intensity by relative importance) of the internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) is
147 required (Jahan et al., 2022). The final coefficient of each strength or weakness is obtained by
148 multiplying the relative importance by the intensity of that item (Duc Tran et al., 2023). It is worth
149 mentioning that in the analysis, the relative importance and intensity are scored between 1 and 5.
150 In this method, if the sum of the final coefficients of the internal factors is greater than 2.5 in the
151 internal environment, the strengths are dominant and if the sum of the final coefficients of the
152 internal factors is less than 2.5 in the internal environment, the weaknesses are dominant. Hence,
153 as shown in Table 1, the results of the internal space analysis obtained from the sum of the final
154 coefficients of the internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) are greater than 2.5 (3.92). This result
155 shows that strengths are dominant in the internal environment. In other words, the strengths of

5
156 livelihood resilience to climate change have been greater than its weaknesses. This is a positive
157 point that in strategic planning, by maintaining the existing strengths, the existing weaknesses can
158 also be removed (based on the priority given for each item of weaknesses).
159
160 [Table 1. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses caused by internal factors (*IFE)]
161
162
163 However, most of the effects of climate change cannot be controlled; the strengths of the rural
164 sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change are the great competencies that can have a
165 positive impact on resilience to climate change and the rural farming households can control them.

of
166 Analysis of strengths is performed by evaluating the final coefficient of strengths. The findings
167 showed that points S1 (use of local knowledge of leading farmers and gardeners and integration

ro
168 with scientific knowledge for drought management), S2 (increase the ability of experts to apply
169
-p
new extension approaches) and S3 (use of mass media in revealing the consequences of excessive
re
170 use of water resources) with total coefficient of 0.220, 0.220 and 0.202, are the great strengths of
171 rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change, respectively (Table 1).
lP

172 Weaknesses of the rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change are limitations or
na

173 shortages in resources, skills, facilities, and abilities that considerably avoid the sustainable
174 livelihood to climate change, and farmers living in rural areas can control them. As shown in Table
ur

175 2, the analysis of the weak points of rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change
Jo

176 showed that W1 (lack of equipment, facilities and sufficient credits in order to conduct the activities
177 expected from experts), W2 (Short-term programs and educational courses) and W3 (low
178 knowledge of gardeners regarding issues related to climate change) with total coefficient of 0.126,
179 0.126 and 0.120, respectively, are the most serious weaknesses of the rural sustainable livelihood
180 resilience to climate change.
181
182 [Table 2. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses caused by internal factors (*IFE)]
183
184 3.2. External factors evaluation matrix
185 In SWOT analysis, the sum of opportunities and threats show the external environment of the
186 organization. To analyze the external space, we need the sum of the final coefficients of the external
187 factors (opportunities and threats) (Aghasafari et al., 2020; Priyadarshini Das et al., 2022). In this

6
188 method, if the sum of the final coefficients of the external factors is greater than 2.5 in the external
189 environment, opportunities are dominant and if the sum of the final coefficients of the external
190 factors is smaller than 2.5 in the external environment, the threats are dominant. Therefore, As
191 shown in Table 3, the results of the analysis of the external environment of the rural sustainable
192 livelihood resilience to climate change, which is obtained from the sum of the final coefficients of
193 external factors (opportunities and threats), is more than 2.5 (5.022). These results indicate that
194 there are opportunities in the external environment. In other words, the opportunities for sustainable
195 livelihood resilience to climate change have been greater than its threats. The predominance of
196 strengths over weaknesses and here also the predominance of opportunities over threats shows that

of
197 the strategic plan can be carried out with the predominance of SO strategies. This work requires
198 further comparisons and analyzes which are presented below.

ro
199
200
-p
[Table 3. Evaluation of opportunities and threats arising from external factors (*IFE)]
re
201
202 Opportunities are external factors that climate change can use positively in increasing resilience
lP

203 and improving sustainable livelihoods, but the farmer households living in rural areas have no
na

204 control over them. The analysis of the future opportunities of sustainable livelihood resilience to
205 climate change according to Table 3 showed that O1 points (systematic planning of the government
ur

206 to conserve and save water resources and natural resources for the use of future generations), O2
Jo

207 (conduction of researches on the fields of agricultural production and being familiar with the main
208 problems of the agricultural sector and directing research in line with the real demands of farmers),
209 O3 (providing the basis for the promotion and development of knowledge and updating job skills
210 and improving productivity in the production and services of the agricultural sector) with the final
211 coefficient of 0.241, 0.214 and 0.210 are the strongest opportunities for the resilience of sustainable
212 livelihoods to climate change.
213 Threats are factors that have or can have a negative impact on the sustainable livelihood resilience
214 to climate change, and are not under the control of rural farming households. The analysis of threats
215 to the sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change, according to Table 4, indicated that points
216 T1 (lack of government support for equipping farms and gardens with new systems), T2 (lack of
217 coherent and systematic plans) human resource management of the agricultural sector) and T3
218 (increase migration of villagers and gardeners to cities and increasing marginalization in cities and

7
219 finally increasing urban expenses) with final coefficient of 0.267, 0.234 and 0.230, respectively
220 are the most serious threats to sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change.
221
222 [Table 4. Evaluation of opportunities and threats arising from external factors (*IFE)]
223
224 3.3. Providing strategies
225 After examining the tables of internal and external factors in sustainable livelihood resilience to
226 climate change, based on the studies and also considering the direction of identified policies in this
227 area, the strategies of sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change in the SWOT matrix was

of
228 developed. The SWOT matrix is an important matching tool that helps managers develop four
229 types of strategies: offensive strategies (SO: strengths-opportunities), adaptive strategies (WO:

ro
230 weaknesses-opportunities), conservative strategies (ST: strengths-threats), and defensive strategies
231
-p
(WT: weaknesses-threats). In this matrix, as shown in Table 5, some strategies have been proposed
re
232 in sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change. The strategies that are in the group of SO are
233 offensive strategies that are obtained from the intersection of a number of opportunities (O) and
lP

234 strengths (S) of climate change. Therefore, in the group of ST, there are competitive strategies that
na

235 are obtained from the intersection of some of threats (T) and strengths (S), the strategies that are in
236 the group of WO are conservative strategies that are obtained from the intersection of opportunities
ur

237 (O) and weaknesses (W) and finally are placed in the group of WT defensive strategies, which are
Jo

238 obtained from the intersection of some threats (T) and weaknesses (W) (Sharifzadegan, 2013).
239
240 [Table 5. SWOT matrix for developing sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change]
241
242 According to Table 6, based on the obtained rank and coefficients, the sustainable resilience
243 livelihoods to climate change are shown. Based on the calculations, the dominant position is
244 "offensive strategy" (Fig. 1).
245
246 [Table 6. Internal-external matrix of the sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change]
247
248 [Figure 1. Dominant strategy: Offensive strategy (use of capabilities)]
249

8
250 As shown in this matrix, the score obtained from the evaluation of internal factors (strengths and
251 weaknesses) is equal to 7.442; therefore, considering that the sum of the scores of the strengths is
252 4.032 and the sum of the scores of the weaknesses is 3.723, strengths are preferred. Thus, it is
253 possible to plan based on eliminating weaknesses and paying attention to strengths. The results of
254 the external factors matrix evaluation (opportunities and threats) indicate that the obtained score is
255 7.350; therefore, according to the final score of opportunity factors equal to 3.940 and threat factors
256 3.410, it is concluded that here, the opportunities are dominant over the threats. Also, the analysis
257 of internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats)
258 indicates that offensive strategies (using strengths and opportunities) with a score of 7.972 has been

of
259 adopted as the most important strategy in climate change in Hamadan, and conservative strategies
260 (improvement of internal systems using external opportunities), adaptive strategy (improvement of

ro
261 environmental conditions using capabilities) and defensive strategy ( reducing weaknesses and
262
-p
avoiding threats) are in other categories with final scores of 7.663, 4.442 and 7.133, respectively.
re
263 It should be concluded that regarding the subject under discussion, the opportunities are dominant
264 over the threats. In general, considering this situation requires its own strategies to minimize
lP

265 weaknesses and cope up with threats.

na

266 The results indicated that the use of local knowledge of leading farmers and horticulturists and
267 integration with scientific knowledge for drought management, increase the ability of experts to
ur

268 use new extension approaches and the use of mass media in detecting the consequences of
Jo

269 excessive use of water resources are the most prominent strengths of sustainable livelihood
270 resilience to climate change. These results are similar to the findings of McEntire et al. (2012);
271 Keshavarz et al. (2017); Adger et al. (2018); Shariatzadeh et al. (2021). The lack of equipment,
272 facilities and sufficient credits in order to perform the activities expected from the experts, short-
273 term implementation of educational programs and courses, and the lack of knowledge of gardeners
274 regarding climate change, are the most important weaknesses of livelihood resilience to climate
275 change. The systematic planning of the government to conserve and save water resources and
276 natural resources for the use of the future generation, the conducting of researches on the fields of
277 agricultural production and familiarization with the main problems of the agricultural sector and
278 directing research in line with the real demands of farmers and providing the basis for improvement
279 and developing knowledge and updating job skills and improving productivity in the production
280 and services of the agricultural sector are the strongest opportunities for sustainable livelihood

9
281 resilience to climate change. Findings of Alam et al. (2016); Dhraief et al. (2019); Shariatzadeh &
282 Bijani (2021); Liu et al. (2022) confirm these results. Also, the lack of state support for equipping
283 farms and gardens with new systems, the lack of coherent plans for the human resources
284 management in the agricultural sector, and the increase in the migration of villagers and gardeners
285 to cities, and the increase in marginalization in cities and, the increase in urban expenses are the
286 most serious threats to sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change. This result is consistent
287 with the study by Valizadeh et al (2021). Also, the results indicated that there were strengths in the
288 internal space and opportunities in the external space.
289 In this regard, according to the purpose of the research, the necessary strategies were developed

of
290 based on the comparison of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Table 5). Strategy
291 means having central long-term goals and finding ways to achieve them, and strategic planning is

ro
292 a systematic method to create and establish coherence between priority actions, taking into account
293
-p
weaknesses and strengths, opportunities and threats (Close, 2007). Regarding the characteristics of
re
294 the strategy, it should be noted that environmentalism and realism are effective in explaining the
295 appropriate goals for the strategy, determining the direction of movement and predicting the
lP

296 suitable means to achieve the goal (Fallah Haghighi et al., 2021). According to the existing
na

297 strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, a total of 16 strategies were presented in four
298 strategic areas: offensive (SO), conservative (WO), competitive (ST) and defensive (WT).
ur

299
Jo

300 5. Conclusion
301 In order to develop rural sustainable livelihood, it is necessary to cope up with the negative impacts
302 of climate change by designing and implementing practical programs and preparing for improving
303 the resilience of rural areas based on their assets and experiences against the crisis. The effect of
304 climatic changes on villages is dependent on the resilience of rural communities and is different
305 from one society to another, from one group to another, and from one region to another. In this
306 regard, the first necessary step is to recognize and understand accurately the dimensions of
307 individuals’ vulnerability and resistance in order to improve the threshold of tolerance and
308 flexibility of villagers. In this research, offensive strategies were proposed based on the strategic
309 space analysis, but the use of other three strategies is also recommended. Indeed, this research has
310 some limitations, including the qualitative nature of the study. By these results, research with a
311 quantitative or mixed approach can be conducted for future studies.

10
312 Based on what was done, the following policy suggestions can be made:
313 - Planning to provide practical training to villagers and farmers to deal with climate change;
314 - Provision of alternative opportunities for the cultivation of resistant crops due to the stress of
315 the climate change incident as well as livelihood opportunities other than agriculture, such as
316 agricultural and natural tourism and the development of handicrafts;
317 - Planning to increase the self-mobilization participation of rural people in order to increase
318 adaptation to climate change;
319 - Proper management of water with new solutions for its proper storage and transfer at the right
320 time and

of
321 - Creation and development of villagers' pre-awareness systems.
322

ro
323 Acknowledgement
324
-p
The authors are thankful of all the respondents who played a valuable role in the success of this
re
325 research by providing information and dedicating their precious time.
326
lP

327 References
na

328 Aghasafari, H., Karbasi A., Mohammadi H., & Calisti, R. (2020). Determination of the best
329 strategies for development of organic farming: A SWOT – Fuzzy Analytic Network Process
ur

330 approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277(December 2020), 124039.

Jo

331 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124039
332 Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Nelson, D. R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., ... & Tompkins, E. L.
333 (2018). Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary
334 Reviews: Climate Change, 2(5), 757-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.133
335 Alam, G. M., Alam, K., & Mushtaq, S. (2016). Influence of institutional access and social capital
336 on adaptation decision: Empirical evidence from hazard-prone rural households in
337 Bangladesh. Ecological Economics, 130, 243-251.
338 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.012
339 Chen, Y. C. (2018). Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions and energy recovery from municipal and
340 industrial solid waste using waste-to-energy technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192,
341 262-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.260

11
342 Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change
343 anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434.
344 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434
345 Close, D. W. (2007). A model for strategic social planning in a fishing economy: Newfoundland
346 and Labrador, 1993-2005. vascos, pp:373-398. Available at:
347 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-model-for-strategic-social-planning-in-a-fishing-
348 Close/00ddae99aa5639e2926afa62040997f325cf8e81
349 Dhraief, M. Z., Dhehibi, B., Daly Hassen, H., Zlaoui, M., Khatoui, C., Jemni, S., Rekik, M. (2019).
350 Livelihoods strategies and household resilience to food insecurity: A case study from rural

of
351 Tunisia. Sustainability, 11(3), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030907
352 Duc Tran, D., Duc Nguyen, T., Park, E., Dan Nguyen, T., Thi Anh Ngoc, P., Tat Vo, T., & Hai

ro
353 Nguyen, A. (2023). Rural out-migration and the livelihood vulnerability under the intensifying
354
-p
drought and salinity intrusion impacts in the Mekong Delta. International Journal of Disaster
re
355 Risk Reduction, 93(July 2023), 103762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103762
356 Fallah Haghighi, N., Mirtorabi, M. S., Bijani, M., and Valizadeh, N. (2021). Appropriate strategies
lP

357 to establish knowledge-based companies: Evidence from Iran. International Journal of Finance
na

358 and Economics, 26(4), 6375-6389. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2124

359 FAO. (2019). Climate change and food security: risk and responses. Available at:
ur

360 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5188e.pdf
Jo

361 Fawzy, S., Osman, A. I., Doran, J., & Rooney, D. W. (2020). Strategies for mitigation of climate
362 change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18(6), 2069-2094.
363 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w
364 Harrison, J. & Caron, J. (2014). Foundations in Strategic Management. Cengage Learning
365 Publisher.
366 Hecke, Bram. Van. (2018). Defining and measuring resilience of smallholder farm households in
367 Tanzania. Master dissertation of bioscience engineering: agricultural sciences. Available at:
368 https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/482/ 192/RUG01-002482192_2018_0001_AC.pdf
369 Jacquemont, J., Blasiak, R., Le Cam, C., Le Gouellec, M., & Claudet, J. (2022). Ocean conservation
370 boosts climate change mitigation and adaptation. One Earth, 5(10), 1126-1138.
371 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.09.002

12
372 Jahan, H., Wakilur Rahman, M., Sayemul Islam, M., Rezwan-Al-Ramim, A., Tuhin, M.M., &
373 Emran Hossain, M. (2022). Adoption of agroforestry practices in Bangladesh as a climate
374 change mitigation option: Investment, drivers, and SWOT analysis perspectives.
375 Environmental Challenges, 7(April 2022), 100509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100509
376 Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H.P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a
377 research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(2), 195-200.
378 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4
379 Keshavarz, M., Maleksaeidi, H., and Karami, E. (2017). Livelihood vulnerability to drought: A
380 case of rural Iran. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 223-230.

of
381 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.12.012
382 Liu, L., Lei, Y., Zhuang, M., & Ding, S. (2022). The impact of climate change on urban resilience

ro
383 in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Science of the Total Environment, 827, 154157.
384
-p
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154157
re
385 Mardy, T., Uddin, M. N., Sarker, M. A., Roy, D., & Dunn, E. S. (2018). Assessing coping strategies
386 in response to drought: A micro level study in the north-west region of
lP

387 Bangladesh. Climate, 6(2), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6020023

Mohammadkhani, M., & Jamali S. (2015). Iran’s Vulnerability assessment to climate change.
na

388
389 Iranian Dam and Hydroelectric Powerplant, 2(4), 54-65. (In Persian). Available at:
ur

390 http://journal.hydropower.org.ir/article-1-26-fa.html
Jo

391 Mujere, N., & Moyce, W. (2018). Climate change impacts on surface water quality. Hydrology and
392 Water Resource Management: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice, 97-115.
393 https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3427-3.ch004
394 McEntire, D.A., Fuller C., Johnston, C, W., and Weber, R. (2012). A Comparison of Disaster
395 Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 267-
396 281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00178
397 Ogunbode, C. A., Doran, R., Hanss, D., Ojala, M., Salmela-Aro, K., van den Broek, K. L., ... &
398 Karasu, M. (2022). Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: Correlates of
399 negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. Journal of Environmental
400 Psychology, 84, 101887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887

13
401 Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S.D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
402 considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
403 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
404 Priyadarshini Das, K., Sharma, D., & Satapathy, B.K. (2022). Electrospun fibrous constructs
405 towards clean and sustainable agricultural prospects: SWOT analysis and TOWS based strategy
406 assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 368(September 2022), 133137.
407 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133137
408 Roth, C., Brewer, M., & Wieck, K.L. (2016). Using a Delphi method to identify human factors
409 contributing to nursing errors. Nurs Forum, 52,173-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12178

of
410 Saleh, I., Salehnia, N., Mirbagheri, S. S., Akbarpoor, H., & Bastani, M. (2022). Investigating The
411 Role of Livelihoods Diversity in Resilience and Welfare Level of The Rural Community in The

ro
412 Face of Climate Change (with Emphasis on Drought). Journal of Water and Sustainable
413
-p
Development, 9(3), 75-84. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/JWSD.V9I1.2111.1098
re
414 Shariatzadeh, M., Bijani, M., Abbasi, E., & Morid, S. (2021). An adaptation capacity model in the
415 face of climate change: A qualitative content analysis. Journal of Arid Environments,
lP

416 185(February 2021), 104326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104326

Shariatzadeh, M., & Bijani, M. (2022). Towards farmers’ adaptation to climate change: The effect
na

417
418 of time perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 348(May 2022), 131284.
ur

419 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131284
Jo

420 Sharifzadegan, M. (2013). Theoretical foundations and experiences of using SWOT analytical
421 matrix in regional development strategic planning. Publications of Shahid Beheshti University,
422 Tehran, Iran. (In Persian).
423 Valizadeh, N., Karimi, V., Fooladi Heleileh, B., Hayati, D., & Bijani, M. (2021). Formulating of
424 small-scale farmers' perception towards climate change in arid areas: Facilitating social
425 interventions for agricultural sustainability. Water and Environment Journal, 36(2), 199-213.
426 https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12741
427 Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Boykoff, M., ... &
428 Montgomery, H. (2019). The 2019 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate
429 change: ensuring that the health of a child born today is not defined by a changing climate. The
430 Lancet, 394(10211), 1836-1878. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32596-6

14
431 YUE, X.L., & GAO, Q.X (2018). Contributions of natural systems and human activity to
432 greenhouse gas emissions. Advances in Climate Change Research, 9(4), 243-252.
433 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2018.12.003

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

15
434 Tables
435
436
Table 1. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses caused by internal factors (*IFE)
Relative Final
No. Internal factors Intensity
importance coefficient
The use of local knowledge of leading farmers and horticulturists and combining it with scientific
S1
knowledge for drought management 4.85 0.045 0.220
S2 Increasing the ability of experts in using new extension approaches 4.85 0.045 0.220
S3 Using mass media in revealing the consequences of excessive use of water resources 4.65 0.044 0.202
S4 Publication of extension magazines and journals in the field of water management in agriculture 4.50 0.042 0.189
The use of a cooperative extension approach in order to identify effective solutions for climate risk
S5
management 4.50 0.042 0.189
Social networking for facilitating and accelerating the transmission of climate information among
S6
farmers and gardeners 4.50 0.042 0.189
The use of more practical and useful scientific findings in the process of implementing activities and
S7
providing extension services to gardeners 4.50 0.042 0.189
S8 The use of leading and trusted farmers and gardeners in extension programs 4.36 0.041 0.178

of
The young age of the experts and the up-to-date scientific knowledge and the possibility of directing
S9
them towards the needs of agricultural development in the region 4.25 0.04 0.169
Receiving feedback from farmers and horticulturists in using the presented findings regarding their

ro
S10
applicability in farmers' fields. 4.125 0.039 0.159
Strengths

S11 Modifying the cultivation pattern and planning to improve the cropping pattern at the farm level 4.25 0.040 0.169
The presence of local experienced and novice experts in various agricultural specialties in service

-p
S12
centers 4.15 0.039 0.161
A large number of agricultural graduates and the possibility of using them to consult farmers in
S13
various fields 4.15 0.039 0.161
re
S14 Attention to extension planning in order to improve the effectiveness of extension measures 4.08 0.038 0.156
S15 Employing expert farmers and gardeners in educational and extension activities 4.01 0.038 0.15
S16 Providing continuous and timely training on how to deal with climate change 3.96 0.037 0.147
lP

S17 Holding training courses for the scientific enhancement of gardeners and farmers 3.86 0.036 0.139
S18 Transferring new agricultural knowledge to farmers and gardeners and increasing their income 3.86 0.036 0.139
Conducting decentralized needs assessment programs from gardeners with the aim of perceiving
S19
their needs in different areas 3.62 0.034 0.123
na

Promote new methods of cultivation and productivity in order to produce healthy products and
S20
conserve the environment 3.62 0.034 0.123
S21 The use of the educational method of the school in the farmer's farm for agricultural education 3.29 0.031 0.101
ur

S22 Serious attention of research centers to the issue of adapting to climate change 3.22 0.03 0.097
S23 Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of extension measures and programs 3.16 0.03 0.093
Improving the quantity and quality of communication between extension managers and experts in
S24 3.11 0.029 0.090
Jo

service centers
S25 Optimal use of the capacities of local information resources 3.08 0.029 0.089
S26 Support the exploitation systems of organizations and cooperatives in the agricultural sector 3.08 0.029 0.089
S27 Improve the professional skills of farmers and gardeners 3.29 0.031 0.101
The sum of coefficients of strengths 106.87 1.000 4.032
*. IFE: Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix

Relative importance = Normal weight = Intensity ÷ Total intensity

Final coefficient = Intensity × Relative importance
437
438

16
439
Table 2. Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses caused by internal factors (*IFE)
Relative Final
No. Internal factors Intensity importance coefficient
Lack of equipment, facilities and sufficient funds in order to perform the activities expected from
W1
the experts
4.25 0.031 0.126
W2 Short-term implementation of educational programs and courses 4.25 0.031 0.126
W3 Gardeners' lack of knowledge about issues related to climate change 4.15 0.030 0.120
Low motivation of gardeners and farmers to accept production operations in drought conditions due
W4
to reduced yields
4.05 0.027 0.114
W5 Weakness in accurate information for planning gardeners with weather conditions 4.05 0.027 0.114
The inefficiency of most of the previous extension programs and creating a sense of pessimism and
W6
a negative attitude towards all current and future programs
4.05 0.028 0.114
W7 Insufficient specialized information of farmers and gardeners in the field of drought management 3.84 0.027 0.103
W8 Illiteracy and low literacy of the beneficiaries of the agricultural sector 3.80 0.026 0.100
Lack of funds for the continuous implementation of programs and training classes to enhance the
W9
resilience of gardeners
4.05 0.028 0.114
W10 Lack of experts and extension developers and skilled and experienced technical forces 4.00 0.028 0.111
Low knowledge of agricultural experts and extension developers

of
W11 3.80 0.026 0.100
Lack of active and continuous interaction between research and extension and agricultural education
W12
departments
3.70 0.026 0.095

ro
Low motivation of extension developers to provide necessary advice and recommendations to
W13
farmers
3.70 0.026 0.095
W14 Distrust of farmers in the extension department of the Agriculture Jihad Organization 4.16 0.029 0.120

-p
W15 Poor interactions of service centers with agricultural researches 4.19 0.029 0.122
W16 Inappropriate mechanism in delegating authority to center experts by higher level managers 4.20 0.029 0.123
Lack of recognition of the majority of farmers covered by the new system of agricultural extension
re
Weaknesses

W17
from the implementation of the mentioned plans
4.10 0.029 0.117
The low level of scientific knowledge of gardeners in the region and the lack of sufficient information
W18
about water needs in gardens
3.90 0.027 0.106
lP

Lack of interference of the opinions and decisions of the stakeholders of the agricultural sector in the
W19
implementation and evaluation of plans and programs
4.01 0.028 0.112
W20 Low resilience of farms to climate change 3.80 0.026 0.100
W21 Weakness in communication between experts. farmers and gardeners 3.89 0.027 0.105
na

W22 The bias of experts in paying more attention to the situation of leading farmers and gardeners 3.80 0.026 0.100
W23 Delegating actions not related to promotion in the task description of experts 3.51 0.024 0.086
W24 Low dynamics of the educational system to meet to the demands of gardeners and farmers 3.60 0.025 0.090
ur

W25 Not using the modern methods in extension activities 3.38 0.024 0.079
The inappropriateness of the spaces, facilities and technical and educational equipment of the
W26
agricultural sector
3.29 0.023 0.075
Jo

W27 Poor technical knowledge and skills of promotion agents (state and private) 3.38 0.024 0.079
W28 Weakness of scientific abilities of experts 3.40 0.024 0.08
Farmers and gardeners are not familiar with the method of risk management caused by climate
W29
change
3.35 0.023 0.078
W30 Improper efficiency and lack of motivation of extension developers 3.41 0.024 0.081
Failure to delegate the necessary authority to experts in order to solve the problems of farmers and
W31
gardeners
3.32 0.023 0.077
W32 Improper investment for knowledge in issues related to climate change and adaptation solutions 3.24 0.023 0.073
W33 Multiplicity and interference of duties and responsibilities of extension developers 3.52 0.024 0.086
W34 Lack of education on the occurrence of water crisis in the study area due to climate change 3.28 0.023 0.075
W35 Lack of educating the cropping pattern appropriate to the region 3.2 0.022 0.071
W36 Poor knowledge and awareness of farmers and gardeners regarding climate change 3.15 0.022 0.069
Lack of education on the consequences of excessive water consumption in agriculture and
W37
horticulture
3.20 0.022 0.071
Lack of participation of farmers and gardeners in the planning of optimal water consumption to
W38
control drought
2.90 0.020 0.059
W39 Lack of continuous monitoring and evaluation of extension programs and developers 2.85 0.020 0.057
The sum of coefficients of weaknesses 143.72 1.000 3.723
*. IFE: Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix

Relative importance = Normal weight = Intensity ÷ Total intensity

Final coefficient = Intensity × Relative importance
440
441

17
Table 3. Evaluation of opportunities and threats arising from external factors (*IFE)
Relative Final
No. External factors Intensity importance coefficient
The systematic planning of the government to maintain and save water resources and natural resources
O1 for future use 4.45 0.054 0.241
Conducting researches on the fields of agricultural production and familiarization with the main
O2
problems of the agricultural sector and the direction of research in line with the real needs of farmers 4.19 0.051 0.214
Preparation for improving and developing knowledge and updating job skills and improving productivity
W3 in the production and services of the agricultural sector. 4.15 0.051 0.210
O4 Optimum use of finance, physical and human resources etc. in the study area 4.16 0.051 0.211
O5 Employing agricultural experts in line with extension policies 4.09 0.050 0.204
Strengthening the motivational system of employees via mechanisms such as financial incentives.
Opportunities

O6 facilitating job promotion and enhancing job security 4.08 0.050 0.203
O7 The existence of suitable fields to develop environmental education in villages 4.09 0.050 0.204
O8 Presenting information on meteorological hazards to farmers and gardeners in drought management 4.04 0.049 0.199
O9 Increase the number of agricultural service centers and managing them by agricultural graduates 3.99 0.049 0.194
O10 Preparation for improving interactions between service center experts and higher-level managers 4.00 0.049 0.195
O11 The possibility of using the power of education 3.90 0.048 0.185
O12 Using the capacity of exact agriculture such as meteorology stations 3.82 0.047 0.178
O13 Improve communication between extension, research and education units 3.62 0.044 0.16
O14 Evaluate the activities of extension developers and providing feedback 3.45 0.042 0.145

of
O15 The relationship between village farmers and agricultural jihad 3.19 0.039 0.124
O16 Easy access to information and connection of farmers and gardeners with the educational center 4.09 0.050 0.204

ro
O17 The presence of agricultural faculties and related scientific centers 4.00 0.049 0.195
O18 Development of a specific program for the activities of extension developers 3.00 0.037 0.110
O19 The existence of a large number of agricultural graduates and the possibility of using them in the plan 4.00 0.049 0.195

-p
O20 The use of the capacity of educational and research centers 3.93 0.048 0.188
O21 The use of information and communication technology (ICT) 3.85 0.047 0.181
The sum of coefficients of opportunities 82.09 1.000 3.940
re
*. IFE: Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix

Relative importance = Normal weight = Intensity ÷ Total intensity

Final coefficient = Intensity × Relative importance
lP

442
443
na

Table 4. Evaluation of opportunities and threats arising from external factors (*IFE)
Relative Final
No. External factors Intensity importance coefficient
T1 Lack of government support to equip farms and gardens with new systems 4.25 0.063 0.267
ur

T2 Lack of coherent plans for the management of human resources in the agricultural sector 3.98 0.058 0.234
Increase the migration of villagers and gardeners to cities and increase marginalization in cities and
W3 consequently increase urban expenses 3.94 0.059 0.230
Jo

T4 Inadequate capacity of human resources trained by the university to work in agricultural field 3.65 0.054 0.197
T5 Poor communication between executive and research departments in the field of drought management 3.54 0.052 0.185
Weakness of expertise of government agencies in recognition and management of the consequences of
T6 climate change 3.26 0.048 0.157
T7 The high price of new and advanced irrigation system equipment 3.25 0.048 0.156
T8 Low culture of villages 3.41 0.051 0.172
Threats

T9 Allocation of low budgets and small investment in the agricultural sector as a macroeconomic sector 3.41 0.051 0.172
T10 Poor functional connection and extension process with the research system 3.41 0.051 0.172
T11 Lack of specialized research centers active in the field of drought management 3.35 0.050 0.166
T12 Lack of good communication with other departments of agricultural research 3.28 0.049 0.159
T13 Failure to pay attention to the advice and opinions of experts by gardeners 3.28 0.049 0.159
Superiority of knowledge and awareness of farmers on agriculture sector compared to horticulture in the
T14
studied area 3.12 0.046 0.144
T15 Failure to use the approach of research and farm extension 3.00 0.044 0.133
The uncertain future of agriculture and the promotion of pessimism towards the continuation of activities
T16
in fields related to agriculture 3.00 0.044 0.133
The lack of organizational cohesion of the Agriculture Jihad in supporting the plan of the new extension
T17
system 3.06 0.045 0.139
The lack of knowledge of experts and provincial officials about the plan of the new agricultural extension
T18
system 3.00 0.044 0.133
T19 Non-availability of necessary structures that accelerate agricultural development 3.19 0.047 0.151
T20 Failure to provide efficient extension services for drought management 3.19 0.047 0.151
The sum of coefficients of threats 67.57 1.000 3.410
*. IFE: Internal Factor Evaluation Matrix

Relative importance = Normal weight = Intensity ÷ Total intensity

Final coefficient = Intensity × Relative importance

18
444
445
Table 5. SWOT matrix for developing sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change
Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W)
SO Strategies (Offensive) WO Strategies (Conservative)

WO1. Planning to provide sufficient facilities and financial

SO1. Using the technical ability of leading farmers and
resources to change technologies and use technologies
Opportunities (O)

gardeners in educational and extension activities (S1, S8,

compatible with climate change (W1, O1)
O3, O7)
WO2. Proper use and taking advantage of the potential of
SO2. Empowerment of extension developers by providing
experts in the field of climate change in making laws and
continuous at-services training to climate change (S2, O2,
regulations, making decisions and planning (W2, W5, O5,
O10)
O10)
SO3. Using press media to inform farmers about climate
WO3. Improve the knowledge and skills of farmers in order
change (S3, O5, O7)
to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change and adapt
SO4. Increase the connection between the extension system
to it (W3, O2, O3, O7)

of
and research centers and paying serious attention to the
WO4. Increase motivation and public awareness of farmers in
issue of adapting to climate change (S7, O7)
the field of climate change and global warming (W6, O4)

ro
ST Strategies (Competitive) WT Strategies (Defensive)

-p
ST1. Strengthen the system of selection and recruitment of
WT1. Reform macro policies in agricultural water
extension workers and efforts to use competent and
management based on the climatic capacities of the region
expert resources (S2, T4)
re
(W1, T1)
Threats (T)

ST2. Empower farmers to climate change and prevent this

WT2. Development of alternative and compatible livelihood
crisis by publishing extension magazines and
extension programs in local and rural communities (W1, T2)
lP

publications and social media (S3, S4, T3)

WT3. Structural and institutional coordination in related tasks
ST3. Plan coordination and cooperation between
in the agricultural sector between government and private
government institutions and non-governmental
institutions in dealing with the outcomes of climate change
organizations when dealing with climate change and
na

and drought (W5, W10, T5)

drought (S5, S10, T1)
WT4. Government support for equipping farms with new
ST4. Appropriate notification of the relevant institutions
systems such as automatic weather stations to cope up with
regarding the use of collaborative approaches to cope up
the crisis of water scarcity and drought (W8, T1, T9).
ur

with drought (S5, T6)

446
Jo

447
448
Table 6. Internal-external matrix of the sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change
Internal factors External factors
Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W) Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
4.032 3.723 3.940 3.410
Combination of factors
SO WO ST WT
Offensive strategy Adaptive strategy Conservative strategy Defensive strategy
7.972 7.663 7.442 7.133
449
450

19
451 Figure

452

453

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

Figure 1. Dominant strategy: Offensive strategy (use of capabilities)

Jo

20
Highlights

• The purpose was to conduct a strategic analysis of rural sustainable livelihood resilience to climate change.
• This exploratory research was conducted using the Delphi technique and SWOT analysis.
• SWOT analysis showed the most important strategies are aggressive strategies.
• The most important strengths were the use of farmers’ indigenous knowledge and experts’ abilities to use
new extension approaches.
• The most important opportunities were codified and systematic planning to save water resources and
conducting research on farmers’ real needs.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo