1. Introduction
Ciampi et al. [
1] defines sustainable development as development that seeks to use resources and the environment in such a way that does not jeopardize their use in the future. According to Gil et al. [
2], sustainable development involves economic activities that satisfy the demands of the current generation without jeopardizing the capacity of future generations to satiate their needs. The three pillars of economic development, social advancement and environmental preservation form the basis of sustainability [
3]. The international community has established a number of initiatives and programs aimed at replacing the current global economic situation in order to achieve sustainable development.
Reardon et al. [
4] noted that industrial restructuring, different population-based factors and limited skills greatly affect the population and economic sustainability in most rural areas across Europe. Since the 20th century, the concept of sustainable development has continued to attract the great attention of governments, nonprofit groups, the business world, and academic scholars [
5]. The Greek government has implemented a number of steps to stabilize the economic situation and prevent rural farmers from returning to poverty, in order to guarantee property development [
6]. In other words, Greece has made resolving the issue of poverty a priority of economic and social growth, and included it under the objectives of creating a generally prosperous society by 2020 [
7]. This not only demonstrates the state’s focus on eradicating financial poverty in rural areas, but it also represents a significant advance in this new and unique socialist period, and a development in the strategy and policy established in order to eradicate financial poverty [
8,
9], which is currently an urgent concern. Most nations have met the targets for poverty reduction outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development via a number of successful initiatives.
Leal Filho et al. [
10] claimed that the idea of rural transformation relates to eradicating poverty and continuing to work towards a better life for those who do so. In the context of Greece’s second century of conflict, the efforts made so far to reduce rural poverty have achieved a crucial victory. The economy and farmers’ living conditions have improved thanks to the development of agricultural technology, and the assistance of the market and the government [
11]. Farmers are demanding more from their living environment, and urbanization is speeding up, with home safety now taking precedence. Security difficulties are common for rural residences in Greece, owing to several factors and unforeseen events; these problems have been greatly restricting the growth of rural regions [
6]. The ability of housing to support people in these regions is poor, and landslides, floods, and other catastrophes have elevated safety risks [
12]. In isolated rural locations with little traffic, it is difficult to carry construction materials such as bricks and tiles to construction sites, and transportation costs have continued to increase, adding to the financial strain and compromising the safety of homes. Finally, in order to develop attractive new rural areas, it is imperative that policymakers move quickly to address the issue of rural housing security [
13,
14]. On the one hand, the relocation program has been delayed because local administrations have not carefully assessed the farmers’ genuine needs and present living arrangements. Some governments lack the time required to provide farmers with thorough information regarding social protection, and forcible evictions are often carried out [
2]. Farmers’ opinions have not changed, and as a consequence, conflicts have developed between the two sides [
15,
16]. Consequently, after gaining ground against poverty, one of the difficulties that rural governments must confront is how to guarantee the security of the rural living environment and sustain the steady expansion of rural governance [
2,
17].
Sgroi [
18] noted that rural economic development greatly depends on governments taking various measures to create avenues through which rural people can achieve economic freedom. There is, however, limited research on the general vulnerability of farmers in rural areas, the problems they face, and how they are coping with climate change, in relation to rural development. It is therefore important to evaluate the current risks associated with living in rural areas, the vulnerability of farmers, and how to reduce this vulnerability in order to increase resilience.
As such, this study primarily focuses on assessing the risks, vulnerability, and resilience associated with sustainable agriculture as it relates to rural economic development. The specific objectives of the study include the following:
To determine the effects of agricultural risks on the sustainable development of the rural economy;
To assess vulnerabilities encountered in agriculture, and their influence on sustainable rural economic development;
To identify the most resilient agricultural practices and their effects on sustainable rural economic development.
The research hypotheses of this study are as follows:
H1: Risks in agriculture have a positive effect on sustainable rural economic development.
H2: There is a significant relationship between vulnerability in agriculture and sustainable rural economic development.
H3: Resilient agricultural practices positively affect sustainable rural economic development.
This study contributes significantly to the field of rural–urban development, and illuminates the extent to which the different risks encountered in agriculture, the various types of agricultural vulnerability, and the most resilient agricultural practices determine the level of sustainable development in rural areas.
This study represents a novel approach to the field of agriculture and the sustainable development of the rural economy, especially in regard to the effects of risks and resilient agricultural practices, and the negative impacts of agriculture vulnerabilities.
3. Materials and Methods
We first had to establish a research design in order to approach our research and lay the groundwork for data collection, measurement and analysis. Many factors can be considered simultaneously thanks to the cross-sectional survey methodology used here. This study has employed quantitative techniques for data collection and hypothesis testing.
The study has primarily targeted different professionals within the Greek agricultural sector. This population was targeted since professionals in the agricultural sector have great knowledge of the risks, vulnerability, and resilience related to sustainable agriculture and the sustainable development of the rural economy.
The determination of the sample size was based on the model of Krejcie and Morgan [
85]. We included 304 respondents from different farms in Greece.
Stratified and simple random sampling techniques were utilized. Stratified sampling is essentially a probability sampling technique in which the researcher divides the study target population into discrete subgroups, or “strata”, and then randomly selects a proportion of each stratum for the final sample. Here, the final sample was taken from the strata using a simple random sampling procedure after the target sample had been determined using stratified sampling.
A survey questionnaire was employed in this study to collect data. A questionnaire is more efficient because a huge number of responses can be collected quickly, and it allows the respondents to respond freely to sensitive topics without worrying about the researcher’s judgment. It was assumed that, given their employment in the agricultural sector, they would have a wealth of knowledge relevant to addressing the various goals of the study, and so a questionnaire was used to gather insights into the risks, vulnerability, and resilience of sustainable agriculture in the context of rural economic development.
The variables were operationally defined. For instance, questions concerning the risk, vulnerability, and resilience of agriculture in relation to improving the rural economy were constructed in the form of surveys. To facilitate the creation of an index, these were then transformed into quantifiable and observable components. A Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used, wherein 5 means strongly agree; 4 means agree; 3 means not sure; 2 means disagree; and 1 means strongly disagree.
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20. The collected data were carefully sorted and imported into SPSS for analysis. The results of the analysis have been translated into frequencies and percentages, and are presented in the tables and figures below. To examine associations with a 95% level of confidence, Pearson’s correlation coefficient test was used. In order to determine the general predictive capacity of the various independent factors in relation to the study’s dependent variable, regression analysis was carried out, and a multiple regression model was used to estimate the various predictive values.
Here, the following pertains:
Y = sustainable rural economic development;
β0 = constant (coefficient of intercept);
X1 = risks in agriculture;
X2 = vulnerability;
X3 = resilient agricultural practices;
ε = the model’s error term;
β1 … β3 = the regression coefficient for the independent variables, which enables us to predict business sustainability in times of uncertainty.
The hypotheses of this study were tested and consequently interpreted at the 5% level of significance (0.05); the null hypotheses ewere accepted or rejected based on their p-value.
The purpose of the study was clearly explained to the respondents, and verbal consent was acquired from them. No respondent was forced to give information against their will. Care was also taken to ensure that there was no physical or emotional harm caused to the respondents. To ensure this, the anonymity of the respondents was protected to avoid victimization.
4. Results
This section presents the data analysis, and the interpretation and presentation of the findings (
Table 1).
The findings in
Table 1 reveal that 61.5% of the respondents were male, and 38.5% of the respondents were female. Most of the participating farmers (36.3%) were in the age bracket of 41–50 years, and only 12.2% were below 30 years old. This indicates that the respondents were more mature in age, suggesting their capacity to provide useful information related to the research subject. Furthermore, the majority (40.8%) had 5–20 years of experience in farming, and only 20.4% had below 5 years’ experience. This means that most of the participating farmers were experienced in farming.
This study established the effects of the different risk types in agriculture on the sustainable development of rural areas, and the results are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2 shows that, regarding the issue of whether businesses’ approaches to coping with climate change represent a major threat to agriculture, the majority of the respondents (57.4%) strongly agreed, and only 1.3% strongly disagreed. With respect to whether soil erosion and biodiversity loss normally affect the final yields of farms, the larger percentage (50.2%) agreed, and 0.9% disagreed. Further, 58.7% agreed that rural agriculture is subjected to the threat of failing to meet customer expectations. The majority of the participants (54.5%) agreed that meeting the rising demands for more food of higher quality represents a great challenge in rural areas, and finally, 44.3% agreed with the risk involved in investing in rural agriculture, given the possibility of low farm productivity and low returns on investments.
The study also assessed the vulnerability encountered in agriculture in relation to sustainable rural economic development, and the results are presented in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows that most participants (52.5%) agreed that general exposure to elevated temperatures makes agriculture highly vulnerable. The majority of the participants (75.9%) agreed that vulnerability in agriculture is associated with the sensitivity of crop yields to elevated temperatures. Furthermore, 55.7% felt that some farmers lack the ability to adapt to the various effects of climate change. The majority of the participants (64.5%) agreed that the lack of improved seeds makes most rural farmers vulnerable. Additionally, most respondents (44.3%) agreed that some rural agriculturalists have limited access to water for irrigation. Finally, 64.5% agreed that agriculture is vulnerable due to a lack of knowledge about weather patterns and financial options for purchasing new equipment.
The results about resilient agricultural practices are presented in
Table 4.
In
Table 4, the results regarding whether mixed cropping practices in agriculture allow for the efficient use and cycling of soil nutrients show that the majority of the respondents (41.7%) agreed, while 20.9% disagreed. Further, the majority of the participants (42.6%) agreed that vertical integration in agriculture helps to lower the risks associated with the quantity and quality of farming inputs or outputs. Regarding whether contracting in agriculture reduces risk by guaranteeing stable prices or market outlets in advance, the majority (51.3%) agreed, and only 8.6% disagreed. Furthermore, the larger percentage (56.5%) agreed that soil and water conservation, as well as proper community farming, enhance resilience in agriculture. Additionally, more than half of the respondents (60.2%) agreed that resilience in farming encompasses maintaining local agro-biodiversity. Finally, most participants (51.2%) agreed that resilient agriculture necessitates being able to recuperate from different shocks and low productivity.
The results regarding sustainable rural economic development are presented in
Figure 2.
The results in
Figure 2 show that the socioeconomic advancement of locals (22.4%) is a major aspect of sustainable rural economic development, which is followed by decent living and working conditions (especially for those involved in farming) (20.8%), followed by the ability to meet the needs of rural populations (13.2%), the offering of a sufficient income (12.5%), and sustainable environmental conservation (10.5%). It is important to note that sustainable environmental conditions greatly contribute to supporting both regional economies as well as urban–rural connections.
A correlation analysis revealed the relationships between the study variables, as shown in
Table 5.
There was a positive correlation between risks in agriculture and sustainable rural economic development (r = 0.715), which is significant at the 0.05 level. There was a positive correlation between vulnerability in agriculture and sustainable rural economic development (r = 0.551), significant at 0.05. Resilient agricultural practices showed a positive correlation with sustainable rural economy development (r = 0.715) at the 0.05 level of significance (p = 0.00 < 0.05).
This regression analysis reveals the degree to which sustainable rural economic development is predicted by risks in agriculture, vulnerability and resilient agricultural practices, and the results are presented in
Table 6. We found a positive multiple correlation coefficient (R), which indicates that three of the independent variables in this study are positively correlated with sustainable rural economic development. Additionally, the r-square value confirms that the independent variables in this study contribute to 58.9% of the change seen in sustainable rural economic development.
One-way ANOVA was used to determine whether the three independent variables were the most effective predictors of the dependent variable, and whether the linear regression model effectively fit the data (
Table 7). Here, F (3, 135) = 149.136,
p < 0.05, indicating that the model and data fit well.
The unstandardized coefficients obtained after the regression analysis illuminate the relationships between risks in agriculture, vulnerability, resilient agricultural practices and sustainable rural economic development (
Table 8).
The beta coefficient of risks in agriculture is 0.196, meaning that a unit change in risks in agriculture may result in a 19.6% change in sustainable rural economic development. Similarly, the beta coefficient of vulnerability in agriculture is 0.184, meaning that any changes in agricultural vulnerabilities will lead to an approximately 18.4% greater negativity in vulnerability in agriculture. The results also show that any change in the use of resilient practices in agriculture will lead to a 21.6% change in sustainable rural economic development. The coefficients clearly show that resilience in agricultural practices is the best predictor of sustainable rural economic development, compared to risks and vulnerability.
Risks in agriculture are not significantly related to sustainable rural economic development (p = 0.104 > 0.05). Hypothesis 1 can therefore be rejected, meaning that risks in agriculture do not have a positive effect on sustainable rural economic development. This means that high levels of risk may represent an obstacle to rural economic development.
Vulnerability in agriculture had a significant negative influence on rural development (p = 0.001 < 0.05). This means that there is a significantly negative relationship between vulnerability in agriculture and sustainable rural economic development. This is an indication that vulnerabilities in agriculture, such as a lack of improved seeds among rural farmers, negatively affect the sustainable development of the rural economy.
Hypothesis 3 was also accepted, as resilient agricultural practices positively affect sustainable rural economic development (p = 0.023 < 0.05). This is an indication that resilience in agriculture has a positive and significant influence on the sustainability of the rural economy.
5. Discussion
This study has focused on risks in agriculture, as well as vulnerability and resilient agricultural practices, and their general impacts on sustainable rural economic development. It shows that the unpredictability of the weather, yields, prices, governmental laws, global markets, and other factors that impact farming may lead to significant changes in agricultural earnings.
The findings show that vulnerabilities in agriculture negatively affect the sustainability of the rural economy, and thus act as an obstacle to rural economic development. With regard to vulnerability, it was revealed that most vulnerabilities in agriculture are associated with the general exposure to elevated temperatures. Furthermore, the sensitivity of crop yields to elevated temperatures is also a key factor. It is also important to note that some farmers lack the ability to adapt to the various effects of climate change, and this affects agricultural yields, which in the long term, affects the level of rural economic transformation. Additionally, vulnerability and resilience have long-term effects on the livelihoods of farmers and herders in impoverished regions [
50,
51,
52]. The ability to meet needs without depleting the natural resource base, as well as its ability to recover, maintain, and increase capital in the face of stress, together define sustainable living [
53]. Vulnerability and resilience are intrinsically related to each other, as well as to sustainable development [
36,
54].
It was revealed in our study that risks related to agriculture do not have a positive effect on sustainable rural economic development. This is an indication that high levels of risk can act as an obstacle to rural economic development. This substantiates risk management’s importance in agriculture, as it helps to mitigate different risks, thereby elevating the sustainability of agriculture and improving long-term economic growth. Risk management entails making decisions that decrease the possible financial repercussions of uncertainties. One source of production risk relates to the unpredictability of plants’ and animals’ natural cycles. This study shows that sustainable development in rural areas relates to the proper management and conservation of the ecosystem’s natural resource base, as well as the enactment of institutional and technological change, to guarantee the satisfaction of human needs. Such sustainable development in the agricultural sector must conserve land, water, and plant- and animal-derived resources, and be ecologically non-damaging, technologically suitable, commercially successful and socially acceptable. As such, it strengthens the economic, social, and environmental sectors in a way that ensures the resilience of food systems and food security, and nourishment for everyone, while maintaining healthy ecosystems for current and future generations [
86]. In order to build resilience, the people, institutions, infrastructure, and services related to food systems must be prepared for shocks, manage risks, prevent (reduce) exposure, adapt to a changing risk scenario, and be able to transform when the current food system is no longer viable from an economic, social, or environmental standpoint [
6].
In relation to the adaptations required to support family livelihoods, climate resilience has been found to offer workable alternatives within productive systems and increase the potential for improvement. Understanding integrated local and regional dynamics and enacting good policies that can account for biases are the main obstacles encountered when addressing the problems brought about by climate and environmental change. Because of the current intensification of the discussion around climate resilience, some researchers have attempted to connect family farming to the protection of food sovereignty [
87]. The OECD notes that the variety of professions, and the close ties that family farmers have to their local ecosystems, may support efforts towards conserving these resources and addressing climate change [
88]. Such studies, however, do not seek to elucidate the many facets of climate resilience related to family farming from the standpoint of sustainable rural development. In order to shed light on the micro dynamics at play in this issue, we performed a scoping review of the international literature, utilizing a rigid search and selection approach. In general, we see that local cultural characteristics and biodiversity play major roles in promoting resistance to climate change [
89].
This study’s findings show that different practices related to resilience in agriculture have a significant influence on sustainable rural economic development. Resilience-oriented agricultural practices are often described as interconnected solutions based on community experiences, the technology used and management techniques. This is due to the fact that farmers in various settings will show a range of experience, which will affect how they perceive climate risk, and how they adjust to it [
2,
36]. Unquestionably, the quickest way to boost farmers’ resilience is to make access to agricultural inputs easier, increase the proliferation of technology and equipment, and promote alternate methods of raising and farming animals [
90]. Accordingly, farmers often look for technological solutions and management techniques that suit their needs, required outcomes, and resources. Robust and coordinated rural practices are necessary to the long-term sustainable enhancement of agricultural systems in the context of various climatic scenarios. Basic agronomic measures must be taken to preserve balance in ecosystems and prepare for climate change [
91].
There are four key areas representing the basic considerations that should be made in order to make agricultural systems more climate-resilient. In order to reduce inequality and poverty from the point of view of sustainable rural development, we must strengthen the social, political, and economic frameworks intrinsic to sustainability [
92]. A crucial aspect of climate justice is the amplification of subjects’ voices when setting out policy plans, and the removal of access barriers that restrict family farming. These approaches can be combined with capacity building to more effectively face challenges. The absence of effective policy incentives, market access, and access to credit services, as well as the lack of availability of financial resources, information, and expertise, represent major threats to the resilience of rural communities [
55]. This finding is in line with the research that has shown the importance of the quality of local frameworks, and government engagement in risk management and climate change adaptation. Accordingly, further initiations and more focused policies are required in order to address these concerns.
Fatemi et al. [
93] observed that, since creating climate resilience policy involves the interests of several sectors and the pursuit of territorial development, the divergence of goals being sought has undermined concerted efforts. Another obstacle relates to the development of comprehensive initiatives that ignore the advancement of climate change and exclude governments, departments, and local organizations. In order to create the space for engagement, production, and communication in relation to climate resilience, the interested parties’ objectives must be addressed.
This research found a correlation between the enhancement of adaptive skills and the availability of high-quality education. Our results demonstrate that education is a crucial factor in decision making in the context of climate change, and contributes substantially to sustainable rural development. As a result, educational initiatives founded on rural extension and technical support services, with the intention to broaden the knowledge, experience, and skills required to meet sustainability concerns, must be undertaken in tandem with policies and activities that promote climate resilience [
94].
Assuring the efficiency and resilience of food systems in regions susceptible to multiple systemic risks, stresses, and hazards, such as climatic extremes, calls for immediate, coordinated global action. This is crucial to lessening agriculture’s vulnerability to systemic factors, structural fragility, and compound hazards in these delicate regions [
95]. This necessitates a systemized strategy that unifies concerns over health and maximizes the consideration of different areas’ interests, such as offering remedies for food insecurity, malnutrition, violence, epidemics, and the loss of biodiversity. It is important to take into account the structural factors that contribute to increasing hunger and poverty, such as inequality, the unequal access to and distribution of land, gender inequities, and breaches of human rights [
96]. This also demands the promotion and facilitation of widespread public engagement in, and co-governance of, food systems. The participation in, co-creation of, and open access to information are the founding principles of tricentric governance, enabling states, social markets, and collective activities to flourish, and thus helping build food systems. In order for resilient food systems to be able to provide food security, nutrition, and high-quality livelihoods for everyone on the planet, and to prevent the degeneration of society, people must be placed at the center; the system must be run from the bottom up, and based on communities. We find that farmers’ capacities to improve their social networks, expertise, and adaptability are similarly constrained by their non-participation in local class-based institutions and organizations. In this context, increasing farmers’ involvement in social groups and organizations built out of networks of local actors is essential to undertaking transformative actions, because it increases their access to financial support, and encourages community mobilization in response to challenges such as extreme climate events [
84].
6. Conclusions
The study shows that risks in agriculture, different agricultural vulnerabilities, and resilient practices in agriculture have a great influence on sustainable rural economic development. The results show that rural development, which is intrinsically related to the issue of shared prosperity, depends on the safety of rural farmers’ living environments. Families in agricultural communities are materially vulnerable because of their precarious financial situations and the high costs of repairing their deteriorating homes, which have often been neglected for a long time. The danger of relapsing into poverty has also grown as a result of inadequate insurance coverage, the poor implementation of crucial social measures, and their incompatibility with local realities. The most vulnerable members of society, the resource base, and the ecosphere’s capacity for absorption are all coming under increasing pressure in both developed and developing countries. It is crucial to look into ways to help rural people thrive sustainably by improving their capacity to recover from setbacks. This aforementioned susceptibility becomes more critical in relation to the frequency of natural catastrophes and market risks. Thus, it is crucial to improve farmers’ resilience so they can more effectively deal with risks; this will help ensure the sustainable and steady expansion of Greece’s rural regions. The capacity of rural families to resist risks will be enhanced when their vulnerability is minimized; in contrast, the scope for evading risks among rural households will narrow, making it challenging to ensure safety in their living environment. They may thus revert to poverty, therefore limiting the growth of rural regions and impeding the establishment of shared wealth. There are still certain disparities between rural communities in Greece and those in other developed countries, despite the acceleration of urbanization and economic growth. It is important to pay attention to the development of rural economies, to ensure good communication between the government and communities, and to enable people to vocalize their needs. This study makes a significant contribution to the field of rural urban development, and expands our understanding of how the level of sustainable development in rural areas is influenced by the various risks associated with agriculture, agricultural vulnerabilities, and resilient agricultural practices.
6.1. Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the aforementioned observations and results.
There are various vulnerabilities that arise in agriculture. For example, farmers often lack quality seeds, and struggle to adjust to the rapidly changing modern world. As such, in order to enhance the quality of life of farmers in these isolated areas, the government and the market must actively develop public infrastructure and service facilities. Additionally, the government should provide farmers with free high-quality seeds, or at least subsidized seeds, that will produce high yields under all climatic conditions.
It is crucial to satisfy the emotional needs of farmers, and to help them cultivate a positively cooperative attitude. In fact, a large number of socioeconomically disadvantaged households do not get enough assistance, since most of the activity of rural governments is focused on material input, with a concentration on project creation and minimal social support.
Nations should include climate-smart agricultural techniques within their curricula, and create the technical, legislative, and investment frameworks required to encourage farming communities to embrace them.
Governments should design their social protection programs in such a way that they support increased agricultural production and employment, safeguard the most vulnerable populations, strengthen resilience, and enable the broadest possible rural transformations.
6.2. Limitations and Areas for Future Research
However, a few limitations must be considered. It is not possible to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the actual situation pertaining to all the rural areas in other parts of Greece due to the constraints of field research and the number of respondents we had. As a consequence, we are limited in our portrayal of the disparities in the living conditions among rural populations throughout Greece, as well as those in family income. These issues will require further investigation in future research.