Extended Abstract

Introduction

Studies conducted within the framework of livelihood resilience indicate that macro-level planning contributes to livelihood difficulties and instability in rural communities by weakening supportive capacities, learning processes, and self-organization mechanisms. Due to insufficient attention to indigenous advantages, local capitals, and key sustainable livelihood indicators, such approaches systematically constrain opportunities for livelihood improvement and intensify regional and livelihood inequalities. Although they formally rely on local motivation and linkages with extra-local policy frameworks, in practice they face challenges such as unequal access to benefits, weak governmental support channels, and limited coordination among key actors. Consequently, recent rural development debates have emphasized approaches based on “territorial capital” and the strengthening of local capacities as a core strategy for improving sustainable rural livelihoods. Capacity-based local planning enhances residents’ self-organizational capacities, enabling more effective adaptation to economic and environmental shocks. In this sense, locally grounded, indigenous capacity–based planning—by fostering social ownership, strengthening social capital, and mobilizing indigenous natural, cultural, and institutional resources—plays a key role in enhancing sustainable livelihoods.

From this perspective, focusing on local capacities and identifying indigenous advantages is not merely a development option, but a fundamental requirement for achieving sustainable development, social justice, and sustainable livelihoods in rural communities—an issue that has received insufficient attention in most rural development programs in Iran. As a result, many implemented programs have failed to improve rural livelihoods, including those of residents in the Sarfirouzabad rural district of Kermanshah Province, and in some cases have exacerbated livelihood challenges. Accordingly, this study aims to identify indigenous capacities and analyze their dynamics based on SLF indicators, including the five livelihood capitals, vulnerability contexts, and transforming structures and processes.

The present study employs a qualitative exploratory

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative exploratory research approach, conducted with the aim of identifying indigenous capacities and analyzing livelihood dynamics in the Sarfirouzabad rural district. Data were collected through fieldwork, and since the findings provide essential information for decision-makers and planners to make informed decisions in rural planning and livelihood improvement, the study is classified as applied research. The study population consisted of households residing in the Sarfirouzabad rural district who were directly engaged in agricultural, livestock, service-based, and related livelihood activities. Participants were selected through purposive extreme-case sampling until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis was carried out using the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and a three-level coding procedure (open, axial, and selective). This framework enabled the simultaneous examination of the five livelihood capitals, the vulnerability context, and transforming structures and processes within the socio-economic and environmental setting of the study area.

Results and Discussion

The findings indicate that livelihood capacities in the Sarfirouzabad rural district have developed across six main domains: crop farming and horticulture, livestock husbandry and animal production, handicrafts, commercial and marketing services, technical and digital services, and rural tourism. These capacities have emerged from a combination of traditional advantages, demographic change, rising economic expectations, and new market demands. The interviews clearly reveal current conditions and operational challenges within each sector.

In crop farming and horticulture, agriculture remains the core pillar of rural livelihoods but has increasingly shifted toward high value-added products such as saffron, medicinal plants, and mushrooms. Greenhouse cultivation and export-oriented products also represent important emerging directions; however, constraints in sales and marketing continue to significantly impede sectoral development.

Similarly, livestock and animal production continues to be a key pillar of the local economy. Capacities including cattle and sheep breeding, poultry, turkey and quail production, and beekeeping have created diverse livelihood opportunities. At the same time, population growth and rising living costs mean that traditional livestock farming alone can no longer meet household needs, functioning instead as part of a multilayered livelihood system.

In handicrafts, traditional skills such as wool spinning, giveh weaving, and black tent weaving remain active and have potential for home-based businesses. In parallel, small-scale workshops—such as carpet weaving, furniture making, and product packaging—have expanded local employment opportunities, making this sector an important complement to agriculture and livestock husbandry.

Commercial and marketing services constitute another active employment capacity, supplying daily village needs through activities such as retail, repair, tailoring, and construction. Finally, technical and digital services, along with tourism-related activities, represent emerging capacities, including internet cafés, mobile phone sales and repair, electrical services, and the development of tourism facilities and accommodation.

Conclusion

The results indicated that the livelihood structure in the Sarfirouzabad rural district represents an uneven outcome of multi-layered interactions among the five livelihood capitals, the vulnerability context, and institutional mechanisms. Natural capital emerges as the most significant asset of the local community by a considerable margin, playing a central role in shaping economic activities. Human and social capitals, despite financial and infrastructural limitations, act as reinforcing factors for sustaining activities and enhancing household resilience. In contrast, financial and physical capitals occupy a lower position, and their weakness is considered the main barrier to livelihood development and diversification.

Funding

There is no funding support.

Authors’ Contribution

The first author contributed to conducting interviews, developing the initial research idea, and collecting scientific literature. The second author, serving as the supervisor, contributed to guiding the research process, conceptual development, data processing, preparation of the final manuscript, submission, and responding to reviewers’ comments. The third author, serving as an advisor, contributed to drafting the initial version of the manuscript, quantifying qualitative data, and ensuring the validity of the findings.

Conflict of Interest

Authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The research team considers it necessary to extend their sincere gratitude to all participants in this study who patiently responded to the questions.