Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment

Abstract

This paper reviews and synthesizes findings from scholarly work on linkages among rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Using the livelihood approach as an organizing framework, we examine evidence on the multiple pathways linking environmental variables and the following demographic variables: fertility, migration, morbidity and mortality, and lifecycles. Although the review draws on studies from the entire developing world, we find the majority of micro-level studies have been conducted in either marginal (mountainous or arid) or frontier environments, especially Amazonia. Though the linkages are mediated by many complex and often context-specific factors, there is strong evidence that dependence on natural resources intensifies when households lose human and social capital through adult morbidity and mortality, and qualified evidence for the influence of environmental factors on household decision-making regarding fertility and migration. Two decades of research on lifecycles and land-cover change at the farm level have yielded a number of insights about how households make use of different land-use and natural resource management strategies at different stages. A thread running throughout the review is the Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access

Farmers’ response to agricultural drought in paddy field of southern China: a case study of temporal dimensions of resilience

“…In the vulnerability perspective, the rising diversity reduced the dependence on the one income and the risk will be lowered in case this one income was weakened or disappeared. And this point was also proved by several scholars (Niehof 2004;de Sherbinina et al 2008).…”

Explaining the persistence of low income and environmentally degrading land uses in the Brazilian Amazon

“…Roughly 22% of households received some level of income from forest products, most commonly açai palm fruit and Brazil nuts, but there was little overlap between households with off-farm and forest income (only 14% of households had farm, forest, and off-farm income). Nevertheless, those with higher income diversity did report higher perceived life quality, likely because diversity helps to reduce intra-and interannual income variability and risk (Ellis 2000, de Sherbinin et al 2008. Income diversification into nonfarm activities among farm households is thought to be particularly appealing as wages in the nonfarm sector grow (Ellis 2000).…”

Elephants, safety nets and agrarian culture: understanding human-wildlife conflict and rural livelihoods around Chobe National Park, Botswana

“…34 While the agricultural officer was complaining that this behavior means people do not take care of their fields and thus limit their chances of obtaining productive yields, their strategy follows standard economic theory on livelihood decision-making in which households do their best to diversify their livelihood portfolio in order to spread risk and to mobilize all available assets-in this case, physical and financial capital that can be accessed simultaneously through various state channels (i.e. participation in ISPAAD agricultural programs and public work programs) (de Sherbinin et al 2008). 35 In this case, state programs appear to work against each other-the presence of Ipelegeng might decrease rural crop production-as households scramble to take advantage of whatever state resources are available to them that can potentially contribute to their livelihood portfolio.…”