Pop-up English-Chinese

Integrated features and benefits of livelihood capital of farmers after land transfer based on livelihood transformation

ZHANG Shichao1,2 ZHENG Dongsheng1 JIANG Jiajia1

(1.College of Geography and Tourism, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing, China 401331)
(2.Key Laboratory of Land Surface and Environment Remote Sensing in Three Georges Reservoirs Area, Chongqing, China 401331)

【Abstract】As land is an important livelihood resource for rural households, land transfer means that rural households intend to break inherent livelihood pattern and seek alternative livelihoods through the integration of livelihood capital to ensure their livelihood security. In this paper, we aimed to determine the livelihood capital integration characteristics of rural household, including its direction, intensity, and benefit. Taking three villages of Shuangkui Town, Hechuan District, Chongqing City, China as a case study, 267 questionnaires of rural household renting their farmland were collected prior to land transfer in 2013 and after land transfer in 2017, respectively. In this paper, firstly, according to the employed industry and its change, rural households were divided into five categories: stable pure households, non-agricultural pure households, stable part-time households, non-agricultural part-time households and stable off-farm households. Secondly, based on the livelihood capital system that included six subsystems: human capital, physical capital, productive capital, living capital, financial capital, and social capital, the difference of livelihood capital among different types of households was analyzed. Finally, the radar chart, livelihood capital disturbance index, and growth index were applied, respectively, to evaluate the integration direction, intensity, and benefit of households’ livelihood capital before and after the land transfer. The results indicated that the livelihood capital totalities of stable off-farm households, non-agricultural part-time households, stable part-time households, non-agricultural pure households and stable pure households were 3.248, 3.142, 2.967, 2.460, and 2.274, respectively, in 2013. Besides, non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households had more human capital, living capital, financial capital and social capital, while stable pure households and stable part-time households dominated in physical capital and productive capital before land transfer. It was apparent that the livelihood condition was the basis of livelihood transformation of rural households. The results also showed that the human capital, living capital, financial capital and social capital of non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households increased, while the physical capital of stable pure households and stable part-time households rose. Therefore, for livelihood capital intensity direction, non-agricultural pure households and non-agricultural part-time households were inclined to the integration of human capital, financial capital, and social capital, while stable pure households and stable part-time households focused mainly on the integration of productive capital. However, there was no obvious difference in the intensity direction of livelihood capital for stable off-farm households. In addition, livelihood capital disturbance index was in the descending order of non-agricultural pure households (0.169), non-agricultural part-time households (0.144), stable pure households (0.124), stable part-time households (0.105) and stable off-farm households (0.098). It showed that the livelihood capital integration intensity of non-agricultural households was higher than that of stable style households. Moreover, the livelihood capital growth index was in the descending order: non-agricultural part-time households (0.135), non-agricultural pure households (0.120), stable part-time households (0.094), stable off-farm households (0.093), and stable pure households (0.088), respectively. Thus, the livelihood capital integration benefit of non-agricultural households was also higher than that of stable style households. From this research, we concluded that path inertia law existed in the livelihood capital integration process of rural households. That was, certain livelihood capital pattern was able to trigger off the particular livelihood strategy which solidified the corresponding livelihood capital pattern, which was positive for non-agricultural part-time households and non-agricultural pure households but not for stable part-time households and stable pure households. The results would provide references for the establishment of policies on accelerating land transfer to ensure livelihood sustainability of households. Besides, the interactive mechanism between farmer’s livelihood capital integration and land transfer would be better understood.

【Keywords】 land use; rural areas; land transfer; household livelihood; livelihood capital; livelihood transformation;

【DOI】

【Funds】 National Natural Science Foundation of China (41501104) Basic and Frontier Research Program of Chongqing Science & Technology Bureau (cstc2015jcyjA80025, cstc2016jcyjA0393)

Download this article

    References

    [1] Chen J, Zhang LQ, Yang XJ, et al. The impact of tourism development on changes of households'livelihood and community tourism effect: A case study based on the perspective of tourism development mode [J]. Geographical Research, 2017, 36 (9): 1709–1724 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [2] Wu KS, Yang XJ, Yin S. Farmers’ livelihood choice and sustainability under the influence of environmental change: A case study of Minqin Oasis community in Gansu Province [J]. Economical Geography, 2016, 36 (9): 141–149 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [3] Alam, G M. Livelihood Cycle and Vulnerability of rural households to climate change and hazards in Bangladesh [J]. Environmental Management, 2017, 59 (5): 777–791.

    [4] Castells-Quintana D, Lopez-Uribe M D, McDermott T K J. Adaptation to climate change: A review through a development economics lens [J]. World Development, 2018, 104: 183–196.

    [5] Li C, Liu W, Feng WL, et al. The influence of relocation policy on rural households’ livelihood strategy: Based on the household survey data in South Shaanxi Province [J]. China Rural Survey, 2013 (6): 31–44, 93 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [6] Ping XG, Li CW, Jiang ZG. Household energy consumption patterns in agricultural zone, pastoral zone and agro-pastoral transitional zone in eastern part of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau [J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2013, 58: 1–9.

    [7] Dao RN. Relationship between livelihood assets and livelihood strategies of rural households of farming-pastoral area: A case study on four counties in the Eastern Inner Mongolia [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2014, 24 (S2): 274–278 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [8] Hua Xiaobo, Yan Jianzhon, Zhang Yili. Evaluating the role of livelihood assets in suitable livelihood strategies: Protocol for anti-poverty policy in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017, 78, 62–74.

    [9] Yan JZ, Wu YY, Zhang YL. Livelihood diversification of peasants and nomads of eastern transect in Tibetan Plateau [J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2010, 20 (5): 757–770.

    [10] Wang YX, Pan SY, Lu T, et al. Impact of livelihood capital on the livelihood activities of herdsmen on the eastern edge of Qinghai-Tibet plateau [J]. Resources Science, 2014, 36 (10): 2157–2165 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [11] Cai J, Yu YC, Zhu LF, et al. Research on Farmers’livelihoods changes under the new rural community construction taking Tyanzi Village of Zhongxian County, Chong Qing City as an example [J]. Areal Research and Development, 2015, 34 (4): 143–147, 153 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [12] Zhong JB, Shao JA, Yang YZ. Characteristics of non-point source pollution load of crop farming undergoing the background of livelihood diversification [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71 (7): 1201–1214 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [13] Bhandari B P. Rural livelihood change? Household capital, community resources and livelihood transition [J]. Journal of Rural Studies. 2013, 32: 126–136.

    [14] Zena W S. Getting stuck, falling behind or moving forward: Rural livelihood movements and persistence in Nepal [J]. Land Use Policy, 2017, 65: 294–207.

    [15] Gentle P, Maraseni T. Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: Adaptation practices by rural mountain communities in Nepal [J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2012, 21: 24–34.

    [16] Jagger P, Luckert M K, Bahati J, et al. Asking questions to understand rural livelihoods: comparing disaggregated vs. aggregated approaches to household livelihood questionnaires [J]. World Development, 2012, 40 (9): 1810–1823.

    [17] Sarah J C, Tim W. Rural household vulnerability to climate risk in Uganda [J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2017, 17 (3): 649–663.

    [18] Pamela J, Gerald S, Arthur A. Circular migration, small-scale logging, and household livelihoods in Uganda [J]. Population and Environment, 2012, 34 (21): 235–256.

    [19] Kebebe E, Shibru F. Impact of alternative livelihood interventions on household welfare: Evidence from rural Ethiopia [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, 75: 67–72.

    [20] Tesfaye Y, Roos A, Campbell B M. Livelihood strategies and the role of forest income in participatory-managed forests of Dodola area in the bale highlands, southern Ethiopia [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2011, 13 (4): 258–265.

    [21] Zhao XY, Zhang L, Jiang JD, et al. The impact of ecological compensation on the farmers'livelihood: A case study of Huanghe River water supply areas of Gannan [J]. Geographical Research, 2013, 32 (3): 531–542 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [22] Keshavarza M, Maleksaeidib H, Karamic E. Livelihood vulnerability to drought: A case of rural Iran [J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 21: 223–230.

    [23] Zhang ZM, Qian WR. Study on Farmers’willingness of land transfer under different levels of concurrent business: Based on the investigation and evidence in Zhejiang Province [J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2014, 35 (3): 19–24, 110 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [24] Zhong XL, Li JT, Feng YF, et al. Farmland transfer willingness and behavior in the perspective of farm housed cognition in Guandong Province [J]. Resources Science, 2013, 35 (10): 2082–2093 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [25] Ji HL, Cai YY. Households’ land transfer behavior: a case study of 516 respondents in Wuhan suburb [J]. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 2017, 26 (2): 220–226 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [26] Yan JZ, Zhuo RG, Xie DT, et al. Land use characters of farmers of different livelihood strategies: Cases in Three gorges reservoir area [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2010, 65 (11): 1401–1410 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [27] Wang C, Wang LP, Li XQ, et al. The source of forward-security of farmers’ livelihood and settlement integration: Based on the survey of 477 farmers in Bailin Village west suburbs of Chongqing [J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011, 66 (8): 1141–1152 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [28] Zhang L, Wang C, Du XZ, et al. Multifunction compartmentalization of rural settlement land use and its peasant household utilization difference evaluation [J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of CSAE), 2017, 33 (12): 278–285 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [29] Zhao XY. Sustainable livelihoods research from the perspective of geography: The present status, questions and priority areas [J]. Geographical Research, 2017, 36 (10): 1859–1872 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [30] Tang Q. Research progress and future key trends of sustainable livelihoods [J]. Advances in Earth science, 2015, 30 (7): 823–833 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [31] Li S, Wei H, Ni XL. Evaluation of urban human settlement quality in Ningxia based on AHP and the entropy method [J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25 (9): 2700–2708 (in Chinese with English abstract).

    [32] Xin GX, Yang CX, Yang QY, et al. Post-evaluation of well-facilitated capital farmland construction based on entropy weight method and improved TOPSIS model [J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017, 33 (1): 238–249 (in Chinese with English abstract).

This Article

ISSN:1002-6819

CN: 11-2047/S

Vol 34, No. 12, Pages 274-281

June 2018

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 0 Introduction
  • 1 Data source
  • 2 Research methods
  • 3 Results and analysis
  • 4 Conclusions
  • References