Farmers’ Livelihood Capital and Sustainable Livelihood Strategies: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Vivi Li and Version 1 by Tanveer Ahmed.

ELivaluating the influence of livelihood capital on livelihood strategies remains an unexplored strategy intended to cultivate the level of elihood refers to a systematic procedure of making a living on the basis of skills, resources, and feasible activities. With a view to resolving the problem of the sustainability of farmers’ livelihood capital, enhancs, the livelihood strategies, combine the achievements regarding a reduction inafety and quality of farmers in poor areas is considered a primary issue, as well as a key research hotspot for experts and scholars. In order to fundamentally help rural areas out of poverty, and attain everlasting poverty mitigation, along with endorsing and comprehensively promote rural revitalization, the government needs to not only offer policy support from all aspects, but also to fundamentally improve the livelihood ability of farmers themselves, enrich their livelihood strategies, and help them retain a sustainable livelihoods way of living.

  • livelihood capital
  • livelihood strategy
  • farmers
  • logistic regression analysis

1. Introduction

Livelihood refers to a systematic procedure of making a living on the basis of skills, resources, and feasible activities. With a view to resolving the problem of the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods, the livelihood safety and quality of farmers in poor areas is considered a primary issue, as well as a key research hotspot for experts and scholars [1]. As China is a developing country, and according to the consideration of a common poverty phenomenon in rural areas, the government has industrialized medium- and long-term poverty alleviation projects and has articulated a series of poverty alleviation policies, which have accomplished remarkable results in reducing the population living in poverty [2]. Although China’s poverty alleviation work has accomplished great achievements, in order to fundamentally help rural areas out of poverty and comprehensively promote rural revitalization [3], the government needs to not only offer policy support from all aspects, but also to fundamentally improve the livelihood ability of farmers themselves, enrich their livelihood strategies, and help them retain a sustainable way of living [4].
The term “three rural” refers to agriculture, rural areas, and farmers, and the so-called “three rural issues” refers to problems within each of these areas [5]. China is a large agricultural country, meaning agriculture is the primary industry. The countryside is a place where workers engaged in agricultural production live together, and most farmers are people who have engaged in agricultural production for a long time. The “three rural issues” are also an important concern related to China’s development. The purpose of studying the three rural issues is to increase farmers’ income, agricultural development, and rural stability [6]. Along with complete success in the fight against poverty [7], the main focus of “three rural” work is primarily the implementation of rural revitalization tactics to promote the long-term development of rural areas [8]. Farmers’ desire for a better life is the driving force toward promoting this rural revival. Protecting the ultimate interests of farmers and endorsing their common prosperity are the starting point and footholds of promoting rural revitalization. Living a rich lifestyle means doing everything possible to raise farmers’ income, expand the level of sustainable livelihoods in rural areas, and empower hundreds of millions of farmers to embark on the path of common prosperity [9]. Hence, improving the livelihood quality of farmers is not only a crucial reason for combining and increasing the attainment of poverty alleviation, but also a crucial link to understanding rural revitalization in the future. The sustainable livelihood status of farmers is critical for improving the operational effectiveness of rural revitalization. Thus, the inclusive results of this research study are beneficial for improving the level of farmers’ sustainable living and the growth of farmers’ livelihood capital. They have significant practical implications for solving the “three rural” problems, thereby supporting rural revitalization and promoting urban alongside rural development.
Compared to the central and eastern regions, the economic development of Western China is relatively slow [10]. This raises a question regarding how to improve the sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods in the western region and accelerate their freedom from poverty by becoming rich, which has become the main scientific problem to be solved in the sustainable development of the western regions [11].

2.  Literature Reviewvelihood Capital, Livelihood strategy and The Impact of Livelihood Capital on Livelihood Strategies

At present, the existing literature lacks studies on the relationship between farmers’ livelihood capital and their livelihood strategies. Investigating how farmers can achieve sustainable development, specifically starting from the livelihood capital owned by farmers and investigating which livelihood tactics should be adopted, is considered a well-intentioned issue of consideration. What is the current situation of the livelihood capital owned by farmers in Western China? What is the current livelihood strategy? How does livelihood capital affect the different types of livelihood strategies? What are the key factors to promote the transformation of livelihood strategies? Based on these parameters, this research paper’s aims were to explore the influencing factors of livelihood capital on the choice and transformation of livelihood strategies, therefore helping to consolidate the achievements of poverty reduction, enrich the poverty reduction practices, and realize the sustainable development of farmers. Based on the evaluation of livelihood capital, the choice of livelihood strategy, and the impact of livelihood capital on livelihood strategies, this paper reviewed the relevant literature. The research on farmers’ livelihood capital primarily emphasizes the following aspects: (1) The construction of a livelihood capital evaluation index system. Research on a livelihood capital evaluation index system is quite well-established. Most scholars principally depend on the sustainable livelihood framework theory established by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to create a livelihood capital evaluation index system [12,13,14][10][11][12]. (2) The measurement of livelihood capital. The existing literature includes a lot of research on the index quantification and capital measurement of farmers’ livelihood capital. Liu et al. methodically evaluated the procedures for measuring farmers’ livelihood capital, and they compared subjective weighting and principal component weighting [15][13]. Erenstein et al. used principal component analysis to evaluate the livelihood capital of poor farmers in India [16][14]. Fang et al. used the AHP method to calculate and analyze the current situation of farmers’ livelihood capital [17][15]. (3) The empirical study of livelihood capital. Oladele and Ward used the SLA framework to select the corresponding indicator elements of livelihood capital, and by constructing a logistic regression model of livelihood capital and farmers’ life satisfaction, it was concluded that capital stocks in different regions are different [18][16]. Johnson empirically analyzed the main and moderating effects of risk expectations and livelihood capital on farmers’ homestead withdrawal intentions and their intergenerational differences [19][17]. The research showed that livelihood capital has a positive impact on farmers’ willingness to withdraw from homesteads and plays a moderating role in the relationship between risk expectations and willingness to withdraw from homesteads. The total amount of farmers’ livelihood capital directly or indirectly regulates their choice of livelihood strategy [20][18]. Livelihood strategies are the activities carried out by people to achieve their established livelihood objectives. Production choices and production activities belong to the category of livelihood strategies [21][19]. Research on livelihood strategies is also relatively mature. Presently, there are many studies on the classification forms and influencing factors of livelihood strategies [13,22,23][11][20][21]. These research studies are, correspondingly, one of the significant bases to comprehend the sustainable livelihood of farmers. There are various types of livelihood strategies, and there is no unified division standard at present. Some scholars have separated the types of strategies according to their local lifestyles, such as livestock breeding, agricultural planting, going out to work, and doing business [24][22]. According to the proportion of agricultural income within the total household income, some scholars have divided livelihood strategies into pure agriculture, part-time agriculture, and non-agriculture types [25][23]. Referring to the classification methods of the National Bureau of Statistics and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, this paper divided the livelihood strategies of farmers into three types: pure agriculture, part-time agriculture, and non-agriculture, according to the source of economic income.  In addition, there is plenty of research on the influencing factors of sustainable livelihood strategies. For example, Alemayehu et al. separately studied the impact of local and non-local work on the choice of livelihood strategy and believed that different forms of work result in farmers choosing different types of livelihood strategies [26][24]. Scholars such as Manlosa et al. initially used the accumulation cataloguing methodology to classify livelihood strategies into three types, namely farming and breeding, business and industry, and an assorted category [27][25]. This method focuses on the impact of land transfer on these three livelihood strategies, lastly drawing valuable conclusions and making appropriate recommendations. There are also abundant studies on the impact of livelihood capital on livelihood strategies. Ding et al. believed that livelihood capital has a substantial impact on livelihood strategies and pointed out that through the development of livelihood capital, the variation in livelihood strategies can be improved, so as to expand the sustainable livelihood ability [28][26]. Meng et al. took the farmers and herdsmen in Ordos, China, as the research object and analyzed the impact of their livelihood capital on their livelihood strategies [29][27]. It was found that natural capital such as pasture area and livestock quantity have a significant impact on the choice of livelihood strategies. Zinda and Zhang used a logistic regression model to analyze the relationship between farmers’ livelihood capital and livelihood strategies based on a sustainable livelihood analysis framework [30][28]. The research showed that those farmers with a high human capital index tend to work in other places, and farmers with high physical capital and social capital indexes tend to work locally. In summary, researchers have achieved rich results on livelihood capital and livelihood strategies, providing useful reference for this article. However, according to the literature review, most scholars have focused primarily on a province, a city, or even a county as the research area, rarely focusing on poor farmers as the research object, and there are very few studies on the poor areas in Southwest China. This paper took farmers in poor areas of Southwest China as the research object. Southwest China is one of the regions with the largest number of poor people and the highest incidence of poverty in China, and it is also the main target area in the period of decisive victory in poverty alleviation [31]. Therefore, taking the poor areas in Southwest China as the sample area is very representative and typical. In addition, the literature on the relationship between livelihood capital and livelihood strategies lacks in-depth empirical research. Although some scholars have conducted research on the impact of livelihood capital on livelihood strategies, this research is not comprehensive and thorough. Such research has only analyzed the impact of livelihood capital on the choice of livelihood strategies, without further analyzing the key influencing factors of the transformation of farmers’ livelihood strategies [32]. Thus, this paper intends to make up for this deficiency.

3. Sustainable Livelihood Theory

The formation of sustainable livelihood theory has a long history. The earliest is the reflection on the national development model in the 1950s and 1960s, including the small-scale peasant production model and the Stalinist socialist model. These models ignore or belittle the interests and needs of farmers and the potential role of improving their livelihoods. After the 1970s, academic circles began reflecting on the above model, arguing that farmers potentially have the ability to maintain their own livelihood, and that there is need for external promotion from the government to invest in farmers; mobilize their enthusiasm; promote them to give full play to the spirit of diligence, responsibility, and wisdom; and finally achieve the purpose of improving agricultural development and their own living standards. Most scholars understand the concept of “sustainable livelihood” from the perspective of “livelihood” and understand livelihood as a way of making a living. This way of making a living is based on the ability, assets, and activities of individuals or families, and indicates that the way of living should be sustainable. Only by withstanding external risks and pressures and recovering can livelihoods be sustainable [29]. After the 1980s, the United Nations “World Conference on Environment and Development” first clarified the concept of sustainable livelihoods, defined as a collection of relevant assets, abilities, and income-generating activities owned and acquired by individuals or families in order to maintain their own development [30].
The Department for International Development (DFID) proposed a sustainable livelihood analysis framework [7][26], which consists of five parts: vulnerability background, livelihood capital, structure and system, livelihood strategy, and livelihood output, as shown in Figure 1. The sustainable livelihood of poor farmers can be explained according to the framework as follows: farmers combine their own capital in a fragile environment, realize one or more livelihood strategies under the influence of the structure and system, and finally achieve their livelihood goal. Vulnerability background indicates that human survival and development is impacted and disturbed through the external environment, including natural disasters, economic downturn, and political turmoil. Livelihood capital mainly refers to the natural, social, financial, physical, and human capital needed to maintain living or obtain development. Structure and system refer to the impact of the organizational structure, political system, policies, and measures on livelihood. Livelihood strategies involve the use of livelihood capital and the choice of lifestyle after livelihood capital combination. Livelihood strategies are always fluid, changing alongside internal and external circumstances. Livelihood output is also called livelihood outcome, including multiple outcomes such as increased income, a high level of welfare, good living conditions, and low vulnerability.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of DFID’s sustainable livelihood analysis framework. Source: created by the UK Department for International Development.

References

  1. Wang, X.G. Rural households’ livelihood transition induced by land use change for tourism development: A case study of Jinshitan, Dalian. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 13, 4–14.
  2. Yan, H.; Bun, K.H.; Siyuan, X. Rural revitalization, scholars, and the dynamics of the collective future in China. J. Peasant. Stud. 2021, 48, 853–874.
  3. Liu, Y.; Zang, Y.; Yang, Y. China’s rural revitalization and development: Theory, technology and management. J. Geogr. Sci. 2020, 30, 1923–1942.
  4. Zhang, L.; Liao, C.; Zhang, H.; Hua, X. Multilevel modeling of rural livelihood strategies from peasant to village level in Henan Province, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2967.
  5. Yang, X.; Guo, S.; Deng, X.; Xu, D. Livelihood adaptation of rural households under livelihood stress: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China. Agriculture 2021, 11, 506.
  6. Tong, Y.; Shu, B.; Piotrowski, M. Migration, livelihood strategies, and agricultural outcomes: A gender study in rural China. Rural. Sociol. 2019, 84, 591–621.
  7. Kuang, F.; Jin, J.; He, R.; Wan, X.; Ning, J. Influence of livelihood capital on adaptation strategies: Evidence from rural households in Wushen Banner, China. Land Use Policy 2019, 89, 104228.
  8. Wu, B.; Liu, L. Social capital for rural revitalization in China: A critical evaluation on the government’s new countryside programme in Chengdu. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104268.
  9. Zhou, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, C. Land consolidation and rural revitalization in China: Mechanisms and paths. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104379.
  10. Guo, S.; Liu, S.; Peng, L.; Wang, H. The impact of severe natural disasters on the livelihoods of farmers in mountainous areas: A case study of Qingping Township, Mianzhu city. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1679–1696.
  11. Perz, S.G.; Leite, F.L.; Griffin, L.N.; Hoelle, J.; Rosero, M.; Carvalho, L.A.; Castillo, J.; Rojas, D. Trans-boundary infrastructure and changes in rural livelihood diversity in the southwestern amazon: Resilience and inequality. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2807.
  12. Biggs, E.M.; Watmough, G.R. A community mmevel assessment of factors affecting livelihoods in nawalparasi district, nepal. J. Int. Dev. 2012, 24, 255–263.
  13. Liu, M.Y.; Feng, X.L.; Wang, S.G.; Zhong, Y. Does poverty-alleviation-based industry development improve farmers’ livelihood capital? J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 915–926.
  14. Erenstein, O.; Hellin, J.; Chandna, P. Poverty mapping based on livelihood assets: A meso-level application in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 112–125.
  15. Fang, Y.P.; Fan, J.; Shen, M.Y.; Song, M.Q. Sensitivity of livelihood strategy to livelihood capital in mountain areas: Empirical analysis based on different settlements in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 38, 225–235.
  16. Oladele, I.; Ward, L. Effect of micro-agricultural financial institutions of south Africa financial services on livelihood capital of beneficiaries in north west province south Africa. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 45.
  17. Johnson, S. Sustainable livelihoods and pro-poor market development. Enterp. Dev. Microfinance 2012, 20, 333–335.
  18. Masterman-Smith, H.; Rafferty, J.; Dunphy, J.; Laird, S.G. The emerging field of rural environmental justice studies in Australia: Reflections from an environmental community engagement program. J. Rural. Stud. 2016, 47, 359–368.
  19. Nielsen, Ø.J.; Rayamajhi, S.; Uberhuaga, P.; Meilby, H.; Smith-Hall, C. Quantifying rural livelihood strategies in developing countries using an activity choice approach. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 57–71.
  20. Nyaupane, G.P.; Poudel, S. Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1344–1366.
  21. Ado, A.M.; Savadogo, P.; Abdoul-Azize, H.T. Livelihood strategies and household resilience to food insecurity: Insight from a farming community in Aguie district of Niger. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 747–761.
  22. Ayuttacorn, A. Social networks and the resilient livelihood strategies of Dara-ang women in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Geoforum 2019, 101, 28–37.
  23. Zhang, J.; Mishra, A.K.; Zhu, P. Identifying livelihood strategies and transitions in rural China: Is land holding an obstacle? Land Use Policy. 2019, 80, 107–117.
  24. Alemayehu, M.; Beuving, J.; Ruben, R. Risk preferences and farmers’ livelihood strategies: A case study from eastern Ethiopia. J. Int. Dev. 2018, 30, 1369–1391.
  25. Manlosa, A.O.; Hanspach, J.; Schultner, J.; Dorresteijn, I.; Fischer, J. Livelihood strategies, capital assets, and food security in rural southwest Ethiopia. Food Secur. 2019, 11, 167–181.
  26. Ding, W.; Jimoh, S.O.; Hou, Y.; Hou, X.; Zhang, W. Influence of livelihood capitals on livelihood strategies of herdsmen in inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3325.
  27. Meng, J.; Amrulla, L.Y.; Xiang, Y. Study on relationship between livelihood capital and livelihood strategy of farming and grazing households: A case of Uxin Banner in Ordos. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2013, 49, 321–328.
  28. Zinda, J.; Zhang, Z. Land tenure legacies, household life cycles, and livelihood strategies in upland China. Rural. Sociol. 2018, 83, 51–80.
  29. Milbourne, P. The geographies of poverty and welfare. Geogr. Compass 2010, 4, 158–171.
  30. Qiu, P.; Xu, S.; Xie, G.; Tang, B.; Hua, B.; Yu, L. Analysis of the ecological vulnerability of the western Hainan Island based on its landscape pattern and ecosystem sensitivity. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 1257–1264.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback