Relationships between Land Management Scale and Livelihood Strategy Selection of Rural Households in China from the Perspective of Family Life Cycle

Abstract

Rural households are micro-organizational systems that are composed of different family members. Against a background of fragmented land patterns and massive labor migration in China, it is of great significance for the sustainable development of regional economies to explore the optimal selection of livelihood strategies by rural households. Using a survey containing data from 8031 rural households from 27 provinces in China, this study analyzed the characteristics and spatial distribution trends of the land management scale, family life cycle, and livelihood strategy selection of rural households, and constructed Tobit econometric models to explore the correlations among these factors. The results show: (1) Rural households’ land management scale was primarily small-scale and, as it expanded, the proportion of the total cash income coming from agricultural activities increased. A relative majority of rural households were in the middle period of the family life cycle, and relatively few rural households were in the starting and empty nest periods. The proportion of the total cash income of rural households coming from agricultural pursuits while in the stable and the empty nest periods was relatively large, reaching 40.51% and 38.92%, respectively. In most provinces sampled, rural households’ livelihood strategies were non-agriculturally based, and the land management scale was mainly less than 0.67 ha. (2) Rural households’ land management scale positively correlated with their livelihood strategy selection. When other conditions remained unchanged, with every 1 ha increase in land management scale, the proportion of agricultural cash income in total family cash income increased, on average, by 3.7%. In comparison with rural households in the empty nest period, the proportions of agricultural cash income in the total family cash income of rural households in other family life cycles were relatively small. Specifically, for rural households in the starting, rearing, burden, stable, and maintenance periods, the proportion of agricultural cash income in the total family cash income decreased, on average, by 6.8%, 6.7%, 9.2%, 3.5%, and 16.3%, respectively.

Rural-Urban Migration and its Effect on Land Transfer in Rural China

“…Therefore, off-farm employment and part-time employment may be endogenous variables. Referring to the research of Huang et al [38], Xu et al [39], Deng et al [50] appropriate instrumental variables were used to model estimation. The selection of instrumental variables is based on the mean value of off-farm employment and part-time employment of other farmers in the same village except for those interviewed.…”

“…Part-time employment refers to the labor force engaged in agricultural production and non-agricultural work in a year [36,37]. However, as can be seen from the existing literatures, the impacts of part-time employment on land transfer are mostly still remaining at the theoretical level, and there are few quantitative empirical studies [38,39]. Meanwhile, even in existing quantitative studies, the effect of part-time employment on land transfer is also contradictory [40][41][42].…”

Does off-Farm Migration of Female Laborers Inhibit Land Transfer? Evidence from Sichuan Province, China

“…Since China's reform and opening up, with the gradual elimination of policy barriers and the transformation of the economic structure, many rural laborers have migrated to cities to seek urban off-farm sector employment [32][33][34]. Since 1984, when China opened the door for rural residents to work in cities, the rural labor force has decreased while urbanization and industrialization have increased [35][36][37][38][39][40]. In 1978, the number of rural off-farm workers was 32 million.…”

A Livelihood Resilience Measurement Framework for Dam-Induced Displacement and Resettlement

“…Therefore, the results of adaptation do not fully represent the ability of RAFs to resist risks. Finally, the study of sustainable livelihoods focuses more on livelihood capital and livelihood strategies [21,22], without delving into livelihood behavior and livelihood ability to deal with risks in the short term. In summary, the existing research on the short-term responsiveness and resistance of RAFs when facing risks is insufficient.…”