Different Household Livelihood Strategies and Influencing Factors in the Inner Mongolian Grassland

Abstract

Household livelihood strategies affect grassland ecosystem services and the herder’s well-being. Understanding different household livelihood strategies and influencing factors is crucial for sustainable development in pastoral areas. We surveyed 241 households in the typical grassland region of Inner Mongolia to classify the different types of household livelihood strategies using income-based cluster analysis and to identify the major influencing factors of household livelihood strategies with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Our study has several findings. First, according to household income sources, there are five types of household livelihood strategies in this region, including breeding only small livestock (S), breeding mainly small livestock (SL), breeding mainly large livestock (LS), breeding only large livestock (L), and not breeding livestock (N), with the S strategy as the most dominant household livelihood strategy in this region. Second, among the five types of household livelihood strategies, the LS strategy had the highest household income (323,200 Chinese yuans) while the N strategy had the lowest household income (68,540 Chinese yuans). Third, among the five types of livelihood capitals, manufactured capital and natural capital had more substantial influences on household livelihood strategies. Manufactured capital directly influenced household livelihood strategies, while natural capital affected household livelihood strategies either directly or indirectly through manufactured capital. Our results suggest that the LS strategy would be the most economically profitable among the five household livelihood strategies in the typical grassland region of Inner Mongolia.

Rural Households’ Livelihood Strategy Choice and Livelihood Diversity of Main Ethnic Minorities in Chongqing, China

“…The different clustering results of livelihood strategies are caused by different livelihood characteristics of the corresponding study area. Liu et al (2020) grouped the rural households in Inner Mongolia into only breeding small livestock, mainly breeding small livestock, mainly breeding large livestock, only breeding large livestock and non-breeding livestock, and found the factors affecting livelihoods [37]. Using livestock species to classify livelihood strategies of Inner Mongolian rural households well distinguished the characteristics of local households living on livestock.…”

“…In this study, the multiple regression method was adopted to explore the impact of livelihood capital on livelihood strategies. However, existing studies have found that there is also an interaction between various capitals [37]. Ignoring the interaction between livelihood capital may lower the credibility of research on the relationship between livelihood capital and livelihood strategy.…”

Assessing the impact of ecotourism on livelihood of the local population living around the Campo Maan National Park, South Region of Cameroon

“…The result is in line with the findings of Kimengsi et al (2019), who have demonstrated that, high level of education provides multiple choices to community members to participate in high valued and high income ecotourism activities, enhancing livelihood survival practices of the person with such human capital. Liu et al (2020) acknowledge that, those with low level of education, lack the technical skills to improve on their livelihood strategies in rural areas of Mongolia. Tran et al (2018) report that, education plays a pivotal role in households' livelihoods choices, with income inequality reflected in level of educational attainment in the North west region of Vietnam.…”

An Analysis of Livelihood-Diversification Strategies among Farmworker Households: A Case Study of the Tshiombo Irrigation Scheme, Vhembe District, South Africa

“…Rural households in Ethiopia, an example of sub-Saharan African countries where the rural population depends primarily on agriculture to sustain their livelihoods, participate in diverse livelihood strategies beyond agriculture. These strategies include non-farm and off-farm activities [15]. The additional livelihood activities contribute to income and enable people to cope with different livelihood shocks, trends, and seasonal changes associated with agricultural production [15].…”

“…These strategies include non-farm and off-farm activities [15]. The additional livelihood activities contribute to income and enable people to cope with different livelihood shocks, trends, and seasonal changes associated with agricultural production [15]. South Africa is no exception, as most of the households in its rural areas are involved in agricultural activities, making diversification of rural livelihood systems desirable.…”