| Research Articles |
|
|
|
|
| Impact of livelihood diversification of rural households on their ecological footprint in agro-pastoral areas of northern China |
| HAO Haiguang1, ZHANG Jiping2, LI Xiubin3, ZHANG Huiyuan1, ZHANG Qiang1,3 |
1 Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China;
2 Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;
3 Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China |
|
|
|
Abstract Human-environment relationship is a focus of academic researches and an understanding of the rela-tionship 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 prod-ucts. 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 con-sumption 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 liveli-hoods 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.
|
|
Received: 22 December 2014
Published: 05 October 2015
|
| Fund: National Natural Science Foundation of China (41161140352, 41471092). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
|
|
|
| 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.Caraveli H. 2000. A comparative analysis on intensification and exten-sification in Mediterranean agriculture: dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2): 231–242.Chen D D, Gao W S, Chen Y Q, et al. 2010. Ecological footprint analy-sis of food consumption of rural residents in China in the latest 30 years. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1: 106–115.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.Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26: 152–158.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)Ellis F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 56–74.Erb K H. 2004. Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on ecological footprint assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3): 247–259.Ferng J J. 2011. Measuring and locating footprints: a case study of Taiwan’s rice and wheat consumption footprint. Ecological Eco-nomics, 71: 191–201.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 Plan-ning, 79(1): 65–76.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.Groom B, Grosjean P, Kontoleon A, et al. 2010. Relaxing rural con-straints: a ‘win-win’ policy for poverty and environment in China? Oxford Economic Papers, 62(1): 132–156.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. Inner Mongolia Autonomous Regional Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Inner Mongolia Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 696–705. (in Chinese)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.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.Li X B, Zhao Y L. 2011. Forest transition, agricultural land marginali-zation and ecological restoration. China Population, Resources and Environment, 21(10): 91–95. (in Chinese)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.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)Liu Q, Peng X C, Zhou L X, et al. 2010. Quantitative research on eco-logical compensation among every city of Guangdong Province based on ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity. Me-teorological and Environmental Research, 1(6): 82–85.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)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.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.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press, 87–108. 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.Moran-Taylor M J, Taylor M J. 2010. Land and leña: linking transna-tional migration, natural resources, and the environment in Guate-mala. Population and Environment, 32(2–3): 198–215.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.Rodríguez-Meza J, Southgate D, González-Vega C. 2004. Rural poverty, household responses to shocks, and agricultural land use: panel re-sults for El Salvador. Environment and Development Economics, 9(2): 225–239.Rudel T K, Coomes O T, Moran E, et al. 2005. Forest transitions: to-wards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environ-mental Change, 15(1): 23–31.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.State Council of the People’s Republic of China. 2011. Major func-tion-oriented zone planning of China. The State Council of the Peo-ple’s Republic of China, Beijing, China. [2011-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2011-06/08/content_1441.htm. (in Chinese)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.Wackernagel M, Rees W E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publish-ers, 59–88.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.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)Wei X Y, Xia J X. 2012. Ecological compensation for large water pro-jects based on ecological footprint theory: a case study in China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13: 1338–1345.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.WWF (World Wildlife Fund), IGSNRR (Institute of Geographic Sci-ences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sci-ences), GFN (Global Footprint Network), et al. 2013b. China eco-logical footprint report 2012: consumption, production and sustain-able development. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.doc88.com/p-9495607 83610.html.Xiao J H, Chen S J, Yu Q D, et al. 2011. A study on ecological com-pensation standard for Zaoshi Water Conservancy Project based on the idea of ecological footprint. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 31(22): 6696–6707. (in Chinese)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) 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. 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.Zhang J, Niu J M, Bao T, et al. 2014. Human induced dryland degrada-tion in Ordos Plateau, China, revealed by multilevel statistical mod-eling of normalized difference vegetation index and rainfall time-series. Journal of Arid Land, 6(2): 219–229.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.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)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)Zhen L, Liu X L, Wei Y J, et al. 2011. Consumption of ecosystem ser-vices: a conceptual framework and case study in Jinghe Watershed. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2(4): 298–306.Zhou Z Y, Sumner D A, Lee H. 2001. Part-time farming trends in China: a comparison with the Japanese and Korean experience. Compara-tive Economic Studies, 43(3): 99–132. |
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
