Introduction
Agriculture is the backbone of rural economies, playing a vital role in food security, employment, and the livelihood sustainability of rural households. However, persistent drought, declining rainfall, water resource scarcity, and growing competition among various water uses have increasingly challenged the sustainability of existing agricultural production patterns. In response, cropping pattern change has been adopted as a key policy tool for water resource management and for aligning agricultural activities with environmental carrying capacities. Yet, such changes are not merely technical or environmental decisions; they directly affect farmers’ income, production costs, investment risk, employment, and overall livelihood security. Moreover, the way policies are designed and implemented—including the extent of information dissemination, access to responsible institutions, and farmers’ participation in decision‑making—can shape the relationship between farmers and administrative bodies, as well as farmers’ attitudes toward public policies. At the social level, shifts in agricultural activities may influence cooperation among farmers, social relations, migration patterns, social cohesion, and the quality of rural household life. Despite prior studies on cropping patterns and their economic and social consequences, most research has focused on technical, economic, or water‑management dimensions, largely neglecting farmers’ own perceptions of the simultaneous economic, political, and social impacts of cropping pattern change. This gap is especially critical in regions where such changes are driven by water restrictions and formal agricultural policies. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the perceived economic, political, and social consequences of cropping pattern change from the perspective of farmers in the Howmeh rural district of Andimeshk County, Iran.
Materials and Methods
This applied research is descriptive‑analytical in nature and employs a survey method. The statistical population consisted of active farmers in the Howmeh rural district (approximately 1,200 farmers). Using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table, a minimum sample of 291 was estimated; to enhance accuracy and compensate for potential non‑responses, 361 questionnaires were distributed, and 346 valid ones were analysed. A multi‑stage sampling approach was adopted to account for spatial dispersion and variations in farming conditions across villages. Eligible participants were active farmers with direct experience in agricultural operations and exposure to cropping pattern changes in the region. Data were collected using a researcher‑designed questionnaire comprising 25 indicators across three dimensions: economic (8 indicators), political (6 indicators), and social (11 indicators). Each indicator was measured on a five‑point Likert scale ranging from “very low” to “very high,” with a theoretical midpoint of 3. Content validity was confirmed by expert review. Since each indicator was measured by a single item, Cronbach’s alpha was not computed. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means) and one‑sample t‑tests comparing each indicator’s mean against the theoretical midpoint of 3. The null hypothesis for each indicator was that the mean equals 3, with significant deviations above or below 3 interpreted as above‑average or below‑average perceived consequences.
Results and Discussion
Findings revealed that perceived consequences of cropping pattern change are not uniform across dimensions. In the economic dimension, five of eight indicators were significantly above the theoretical mean: creation of new job opportunities and financial resources (mean 3.285), reduction of investment risk (3.144), regional economic growth (3.130), increased investment in land and equipment (3.191), and enhanced investment motivation (3.141). However, three indicators—better market competitiveness (3.080), improved savings (2.966), and improved livelihood (3.000)—did not differ significantly from the midpoint. This suggests that while farmers positively perceive certain investment‑related opportunities, these have not yet translated into tangible improvements in savings or overall livelihood. In the political dimension, two of six indicators were significantly below the mean: the impact of government policies on improving farmers’ livelihoods (2.750) and the level of political participation among farmers (2.853). Other indicators—political protests, insecurity, government support policies, and change in political attitudes—showed no significant differences. This points to a perceived lack of effective government support and limited participatory engagement in the policy process. In the social dimension, three of eleven indicators were significantly below the mean: positive impact on social conditions (2.890), reduction of social relations (2.869), and decline in socio‑cultural conditions (2.890). The remaining eight indicators, including effects on social relations, improvement in social conditions, social prosperity, alignment with social goals, and job diversification, did not differ significantly from the midpoint. Overall, the results indicate that farmers’ perceptions are mixed: some economic opportunities are viewed positively, while political and social dimensions are often perceived as neutral or negative. The absence of significant differences in several indicators should not be interpreted as evidence of “no effect”; rather, it may reflect that the effects were not large enough at the aggregate level to be detected statistically. The discussion highlights consistencies with prior studies (e.g., Shateri et al., 2023; Amin Ravan et al., 2021) while also noting discrepancies, particularly regarding livelihood improvements and social cohesion, which may stem from differences in alternative crops, local market structures, policy implementation duration, and regional contexts.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the perceived consequences of cropping pattern change in the Howmeh rural district are multidimensional and uneven. Economically, farmers recognise positive effects on employment, investment, and risk reduction, but these have not yet led to significant improvements in savings or livelihood. Politically, there is a notable perception of weak government support and limited farmer participation, while socially, concerns about reduced social relations and declining socio‑cultural conditions are evident. These findings underscore that sustainable success of cropping pattern policies requires simultaneous attention to farmers’ economic viability, social cohesion, and genuine participatory governance. Supportive measures—such as market development for alternative crops, risk reduction mechanisms, transparent communication, and institutionalising farmer participation—are essential to enhance policy acceptance and long‑term effectiveness. However, given the cross‑sectional survey design and the use of one‑sample t‑tests, the results reflect farmers’ perceptions relative to a theoretical midpoint and should not be interpreted as causal evidence. Future research employing mixed methods, longitudinal designs, and subgroup analyses is recommended to deepen understanding of the contextual and temporal dynamics of these consequences.