[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of livelihood diversification of rural households on their ecological footprint in agro-pastoral areas of northern China

  • Published:
Journal of Arid Land Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human-environment relationship is a focus of academic researches and an understanding of the relationship is important for making effective policies and decisions. In this study, based on rural household survey data of Taibus Banner, Duolun county and Zhengxiangbai Banner in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region of China, we identified the impact of livelihood diversification on ecosystems in these agro-pastoral areas by using the ecological footprint theory and methodology together with the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation analysis methods. In 2011, the total ecological footprint of consumption (EFC) was 0.665 g hm2, and the total ecological footprint of production (EFP) was 2.045 g hm2, which was more than three times the EFC. The ecological footprint of arable land consumption (EFAC) accounted for a large proportion of the EFC, and the ecological footprint of grassland production (EFGP) occupied a large proportion of the EFP. Both the ecological footprint of grassland consumption (EFGC) and EFGP had a significant positive correlation with the income, indicating that income was mainly depended on livestock production and the households with higher incomes consumed more livestock products. The full-time farming households (FTFHs) had the highest EFP, ecological footprint of arable land production (EFAP), EFGP and EFGC, followed by the part-time farming households (PTFHs) and non-farming households (NFHs), which indicated that part-time farming and non-farming employment reduced the occupancy and consumption of rural households on local ecosystems and natural resources to some extent. When farming households engaged in livestock rearing, both the EFAP and EFAC became smaller, while the EFP, EFC, EFGC and EFGP increased significantly. The differences in ecological footprints among different household groups should be taken into account when making ecosystem conservation policies. Encouraging the laborers who have the advantages of participating in non-farming employment to move out of the rural areas and increasing the diversification of livelihoods of rural households are important in reducing the environmental pressures and improving the welfare of households in the study area. Moreover, grassland should be utilized more effectively in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bilsborrow R E. 1992. Population growth, internal migration, and environmental degradation in rural areas of developing countries. European Journal of Population, 8(2): 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caraveli H. 2000. A comparative analysis on intensification and extensification in Mediterranean agriculture: dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2): 231–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen D D, Gao W S, Chen Y Q, et al. 2010. Ecological footprint analysis of food consumption of rural residents in China in the latest 30 years. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1: 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K, Pan G X, Smith P, et al. 2011. Carbon footprint of China’s crop production-an estimation using agro-statistics data over 1993–2007. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 142(3): 231–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26: 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Rural Survey of National Bureau of Statistics. 2010. 2010 China Yearbook of Rural Household Survey. Beijing: China Statistic Press, 4–6. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb K H. 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3): 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferng J J. 2011. Measuring and locating footprints: a case study of Taiwan’s rice and wheat consumption footprint. Ecological Economics, 71: 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellrich M, Zimmermann N E. 2007. Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in the Swiss mountains: a spatial statistical modelling approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1): 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondran N. 2012. The ecological footprint as a follow-up tool for an administration: application for the Vanoise National Park. Ecological Indicators, 16: 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon A, et al. 2010. Relaxing rural constraints: a’ win-win’ policy for poverty and environment in China? Oxford Economic Papers, 62(1): 132–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao H G, Li X B, Zhang J P. 2013. Impacts of part-time farming on agricultural land use in ecologically-vulnerable areas in North China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 4(1): 70–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inner Mongolia Autonomous Regional Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 696–705. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo A E, Grau H R, Aide T M. 2011. Implications of rural-urban migration for conservation of the Atlantic Forest and urban growth in Misiones, Argentina (1970–2030). Ambio, 40(3): 298–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koulouri M, Giourga C. 2007. Land abandonment and slope gradient as key factors of soil erosion in Mediterranean terraced lands. Catena, 69(3): 274–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X B, Zhao Y L. 2011. Forest transition, agricultural land marginalization and ecological restoration. China Population, Resources and Environment, 21(10): 91–95. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu D, Feng Z M, Yang Y Z, et al. 2011. Spatial patterns of ecological carrying capacity supply-demand balance in China at county level. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(5): 833–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu M C, Li W H. 2009. The calculation of China’s equivalence factor under ecological footprint mode based on net primary production. Journal of Natural Resources, 24(9): 1550–1559. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Q, Peng X C, Zhou L X, et al. 2010. Quantitative research on ecological compensation among every city of Guangdong Province based on ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity. Meteorological and Environmental Research, 1(6): 82–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long K S, Chen L G. 2012. Theory construction and its application to ecological environment compensation based on ecological land rent. Journal of Natural Resources, 27(12): 2048–2056. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorent H, Evangelou C, Stellmes M, et al. 2008. Land degradation and economic conditions of agricultural households in a marginal region of northern Greece. Global and Planetary Change, 64(3): 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menconi M E, Stella G, Grohmann D. 2013. Revisiting the food component of the ecological footprint indicator for autonomous rural settlement models in Central Italy. Ecological Indicators, 34: 580–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press, 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monfreda C, Wackernagel M, Deumling D. 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3): 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran-Taylor M J, Taylor M J. 2010. Land and leña: linking transnational migration, natural resources, and the environment in Guatemala. Population and Environment, 32(2–3): 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nkemnyi M F, de Haas A, Etiendem N D, et al. 2013. Making hard choices: balancing indigenous communities livelihood and Cross River gorilla conservation in the Lebialem-Mone Forest landscape, Cameroon. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(3): 841–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Meza J, Southgate D, González-Vega C. 2004. Rural poverty, household responses to shocks, and agricultural land use: panel results for El Salvador. Environment and Development Economics, 9(2): 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudel T K, Coomes O T, Moran E, et al. 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change, 15(1): 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvati L, Zitti M. 2009. The environmental “risky” region: identifying land degradation processes through integration of socio-economic and ecological indicators in a multivariate regionalization model. Environmental Management, 44(5): 888–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2011. Major function-oriented zone planning of China. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China. [2011-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2011-06/08/content_1441.htm. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Geest K, Vrieling A, Dietz T. 2010. Migration and environment in Ghana: a cross-district analysis of human mobility and vegetation dynamics. Environment and Urbanization, 22(1): 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel M, Rees W E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 59–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C C, Yang Y S, Zhang Y Q. 2011. Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration: evidence from China. Ambio, 40(1): 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang D S, Zheng H, Ouyang Z Y. 2013. Ecosystem services supply and consumption and their relationships with human well-being. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 24(6): 1747–1753. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei X Y, Xia J X. 2012. Ecological compensation for large water projects based on ecological footprint theory: a case study in China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13: 1338–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), GFN (Global Footprint Network), ZSL (Zoological Society of London). 2013a. Living planet report 2012: biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779579969611/living_planet_report_2012.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), IGSNRR (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences), GFN (Global Footprint Network), et al. 2013b. China ecological footprint report 2012: consumption, production and sustainable development. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.doc88.com/p-949560783610.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao J H, Chen S J, Yu Q D, et al. 2011. A study on ecological compensation standard for Zaoshi Water Conservancy Project based on the idea of ecological footprint. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(22): 6696–6707. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z M, Zhang Z Q, Cheng G D. 2000. The calculation and analysis of ecological footprints of Gansu Province. Acta Geographic Sinica, 55(5): 607–616. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan J Z, Wu Y Y, Zhang Y L. 2011. Adaptation strategies to pasture degradation: gap between government and local nomads in the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 21(6): 1112–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye J Z, Wang Y H, Long N. 2009. Farmer initiatives and livelihood diversification: from the collective to a market economy in Rural China. Journal of Agrarian Change, 9(2): 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Niu J M, Bao T, et al. 2014. Human induced dryland degradation in Ordos Plateau, China, revealed by multilevel statistical modeling of normalized difference vegetation index and rainfall time-series. Journal of Arid Land, 6(2): 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L P, Zhang Y L, Yan J Z, et al. 2008. Livelihood diversification and cropland use pattern in agro-pastoral mountainous region of eastern Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 18(4): 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y B, Wang M J, Li J Q, et al. 2009. The impact of ecological compensation on farmers’ ecological footprint: an empirical study on Giant Panda habitat. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(7): 3569–3575. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X Y, Mao X W. 2013. Comparison environmental impact of the peasant household in han, zang and hui nationality region: case of Zhangye, Gannan and Linxia in Gansu Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33(17): 5397–5406. (in Chinese)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhen L, Liu X L, Wei Y J, et al. 2011. Consumption of ecosystem services: a conceptual framework and case study in Jinghe Watershed. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2(4): 298–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z Y, Sumner D A, Lee H. 2001. Part-time farming trends in China: a comparison with the Japanese and Korean experience. Comparative Economic Studies, 43(3): 99–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China

    Haiguang Hao, Huiyuan Zhang & Qiang Zhang

  2. Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing, 100037, China

    Jiping Zhang

  3. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China

    Xiubin Li & Qiang Zhang

Authors
  1. Haiguang Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiubin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huiyuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huiyuan Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hao, H., Zhang, J., Li, X. et al. Impact of livelihood diversification of rural households on their ecological footprint in agro-pastoral areas of northern China. J. Arid Land 7, 653–664 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-015-0049-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-015-0049-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation