Industrialization is one way to achieve a sustainable route out of poverty.During the implementation of industry-based poverty alleviation projects,rural households’livelihood responses to change are crucial.A strong...Industrialization is one way to achieve a sustainable route out of poverty.During the implementation of industry-based poverty alleviation projects,rural households’livelihood responses to change are crucial.A stronger livelihood response is conducive to multidimensional poverty relief due to industry-based poverty alleviation projects.Effective poverty alleviation can also stimulate stronger household responses.There is a positive cycle between livelihood response and multidimensional poverty relief effects that can help achieve sustainable poverty alleviation goals.Using a synergistic perspective on the relationship between“people–industry–land”,this paper explains the poverty alleviation logic connecting livelihood response,multidimensional poverty relief,and sustainable routes out of poverty by constructing a four-dimensional livelihood response measurement system with three elements of intensity.We analyzed survey data collected from 2363 households from 4 sample counties in 4 contiguous poverty-stricken areas,and measured and compared the characteristics of rural households’livelihood responses and the factors influencing poverty alleviation projects.Rural households’livelihood responses in four sample counties were moderate.The four dimensions of responses were ranked as livelihood strategy response,livelihood space response,livelihood output response,and livelihood capital response.The three intensities indicated that the perception and willingness elements of livelihood response were very similar,but there was a big gap between those elements and livelihood response actions.At the group level,poor households had higher and more consistent livelihood response than non-poor households.External environment factors(such as location,industry type,village organizational ability,and village atmosphere)and internal family factors(such as resource endowment,income sources,health,education,labor quantity,policy trust,credit availability,and social networks)had a significant impact on households’livelihood response.However,this impact varied across different dimensions and had different intensities.This paper proposes a multidimensional poverty relief mechanism and suggests sustainable routes out of poverty.展开更多
Livelihood assets are a matter of high concern for secured survival.Drought-prone Gamo lowland households have differential access to livelihood resources which indicates the varying capacity of resisting to shocks.Th...Livelihood assets are a matter of high concern for secured survival.Drought-prone Gamo lowland households have differential access to livelihood resources which indicates the varying capacity of resisting to shocks.The main objective of this study is to explore the impacts of livelihood assets on livelihood security in the drought-prone Gamo lowlands.Multistage sampling procedures were employed to select the study sites and sample respondents.Primary data of households’capital assets and livelihood security status were produced from 285 survey households,agricultural experts,key informants,focus group discussants,and field observation through transect walks.Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze quantitative data,whereas discussions and annotations were employed for analyzing qualitative data.The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is used with modifications to schematize the study conceptually.The findings indicated that the study households possessed combinations of livelihood resources differentially.Financial and natural capitals were found to be the most deficient and better-accessed capitals,respectively.The study also showed that lowland residents’access to assets has significant indications of livelihood security.Households’poor access to assets such as financial,information,and social capital demands raised attention of the concerned stakeholders and policy debates in the drought-prone rural setup.Hence,it has been concluded that the more assets are accessed,the stronger the capacity of the households to resist shocks,and better the livelihood security.Accordingly,enhancing people’s access to multiple livelihood assets is suggested to sustainably secure livelihoods.展开更多
基金Financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant No.41761022)Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Hunan Province,China(Grant No.2020JJ2025)+2 种基金Key Program of Social Science Foundation in Hunan Province,China(Grant No.18ZDB031)Platform Program of Key Laboratory of Ecotourism in Hunan Province,China(Grant No.STLV1815)Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation For Postgraduate,China(Grant No.CX20201061),is gratefully acknowledged.
文摘Industrialization is one way to achieve a sustainable route out of poverty.During the implementation of industry-based poverty alleviation projects,rural households’livelihood responses to change are crucial.A stronger livelihood response is conducive to multidimensional poverty relief due to industry-based poverty alleviation projects.Effective poverty alleviation can also stimulate stronger household responses.There is a positive cycle between livelihood response and multidimensional poverty relief effects that can help achieve sustainable poverty alleviation goals.Using a synergistic perspective on the relationship between“people–industry–land”,this paper explains the poverty alleviation logic connecting livelihood response,multidimensional poverty relief,and sustainable routes out of poverty by constructing a four-dimensional livelihood response measurement system with three elements of intensity.We analyzed survey data collected from 2363 households from 4 sample counties in 4 contiguous poverty-stricken areas,and measured and compared the characteristics of rural households’livelihood responses and the factors influencing poverty alleviation projects.Rural households’livelihood responses in four sample counties were moderate.The four dimensions of responses were ranked as livelihood strategy response,livelihood space response,livelihood output response,and livelihood capital response.The three intensities indicated that the perception and willingness elements of livelihood response were very similar,but there was a big gap between those elements and livelihood response actions.At the group level,poor households had higher and more consistent livelihood response than non-poor households.External environment factors(such as location,industry type,village organizational ability,and village atmosphere)and internal family factors(such as resource endowment,income sources,health,education,labor quantity,policy trust,credit availability,and social networks)had a significant impact on households’livelihood response.However,this impact varied across different dimensions and had different intensities.This paper proposes a multidimensional poverty relief mechanism and suggests sustainable routes out of poverty.
文摘Livelihood assets are a matter of high concern for secured survival.Drought-prone Gamo lowland households have differential access to livelihood resources which indicates the varying capacity of resisting to shocks.The main objective of this study is to explore the impacts of livelihood assets on livelihood security in the drought-prone Gamo lowlands.Multistage sampling procedures were employed to select the study sites and sample respondents.Primary data of households’capital assets and livelihood security status were produced from 285 survey households,agricultural experts,key informants,focus group discussants,and field observation through transect walks.Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze quantitative data,whereas discussions and annotations were employed for analyzing qualitative data.The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is used with modifications to schematize the study conceptually.The findings indicated that the study households possessed combinations of livelihood resources differentially.Financial and natural capitals were found to be the most deficient and better-accessed capitals,respectively.The study also showed that lowland residents’access to assets has significant indications of livelihood security.Households’poor access to assets such as financial,information,and social capital demands raised attention of the concerned stakeholders and policy debates in the drought-prone rural setup.Hence,it has been concluded that the more assets are accessed,the stronger the capacity of the households to resist shocks,and better the livelihood security.Accordingly,enhancing people’s access to multiple livelihood assets is suggested to sustainably secure livelihoods.
