IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i6p1257-d1174622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the Grain for Green Project on the Well-Being of Farmer Households: A Case Study of the Mountainous Areas of Northern Hebei Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Kun Wang

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China)

  • Piling Sun

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China
    Rizhao Key Laboratory of Territory Spatial Planning and Ecological Construction, Rizhao 276962, China
    College of Land Science and Technology, China Agriculture University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Xin Wang

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China)

  • Junxiong Mo

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China)

  • Nan Li

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China)

  • Jinye Zhang

    (School of Geography and Tourism, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China)

Abstract

There are close dynamic relationships among the livelihood, well-being, and ecological environment of farmer households. It is of great significance to scientifically clarify the impact of the Grain for Green policy on the livelihoods and well-being of farmer households in mountainous areas. Based on data from a survey of 392 farmer households in Zhangbei County, the system of indicators for livelihood assets and well-being of farmer households were constructed using the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF). The livelihood assets and well-being levels of different types of farmer households were measured, and a multiple linear regression model was used to analyze the impact of the Grain for Green policy implementation on the well-being levels of farmer households. The results showed that (1) the Grain for Green project caused changes in the livelihood of farmer households. The average livelihood diversity of farmer households was 3.008, and the returned farmland households (3.022) were higher than the nonreturned farmland households (2.975) in Zhangbei County. The level of natural assets among the total average livelihood assets of farmer households was the highest at 0.374, while the level of physical assets was the lowest at 0.018. The level of livelihood assets of returned farmland households (0.948) was lower than that of nonreturned farmland households (1.117). (2) The Grain for Green policy had an improving effect on the level of well-being of farmer households, but the effect was not significant. The level of well-being of all farmer households in Zhangbei County was 0.517, with the level of wealth contributing the most to the well-being of farmer households at 40.20% and the quality of the ecological environment contributing the least at 11.99%. The level of well-being of returned farmland households (0.518) was slightly higher than that of nonreturned farmland households (0.514). (3) The influencing degree of each factor on the level of well-being varied significantly. There are three main paths through which the Grain for Green policy affects the well-being of farmer households: by reallocating human assets, optimizing natural assets, and enhancing financial assets. The factor of household size had the highest degree, at 0.366, while educational attainment of household members, household labor capacity, annual household expenditure, livelihood diversity, number of large production tools, and total value of livestock were also important drivers of household well-being, and area of arable land was negatively associated with household well-being. There were also differences in the factors influencing the level of well-being of different types of farmer households.

Suggested Citation

  • Kun Wang & Piling Sun & Xin Wang & Junxiong Mo & Nan Li & Jinye Zhang, 2023. "Impact of the Grain for Green Project on the Well-Being of Farmer Households: A Case Study of the Mountainous Areas of Northern Hebei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1257-:d:1174622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1257/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/6/1257/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aguado, Mateo & González, José A. & Bellott, Kr'sna & López-Santiago, César & Montes, Carlos, 2018. "Exploring subjective well-being and ecosystem services perception along a rural–urban gradient in the high Andes of Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 1-10.
    2. Lokesh Chandra Dube & Sudipto Chatterjee, 2022. "Assessing livelihood impact of forest carbon projects using sustainable livelihood framework," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(8), pages 1-18, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Lapointe, Marie & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cumming, Graeme S., 2020. "Urbanization alters ecosystem service preferences in a Small Island Developing State," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    4. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Otilia Vanessa Cordero-Ahiman & Jorge Leonardo Vanegas & Pablo Beltrán-Romero & María Elena Quinde-Lituma, 2020. "Determinants of Food Insecurity in Rural Households: The Case of the Paute River Basin of Azuay Province, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Catalina B. Muñoz-Pacheco & Nélida R. Villaseñor, 2022. "Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Huang, Qingxu & Yin, Dan & He, Chunyang & Yan, Jubo & Liu, Ziwen & Meng, Shiting & Ren, Qiang & Zhao, Rui & Inostroza, Luis, 2020. "Linking ecosystem services and subjective well-being in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: Insights from a multilevel linear model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    8. Indunee Welivita & Simon Willcock & Amy Lewis & Dilshaad Bundhoo & Tim Brewer & Sarah Cooper & Kenneth Lynch & Sneha Mekala & Prajna Paramita Mishra & Kongala Venkatesh & Dolores Rey Vicario & Paul Hu, 2021. "Evidence of Similarities in Ecosystem Service Flow across the Rural-Urban Spectrum," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-38, April.
    9. Wang, Xiaoqi & Zhao, Xueyan, 2023. "Farmers' perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    10. Danny Daniel Castillo Vizuete & Alex Vinicio Gavilanes Montoya & Gabriela Estefanía Román Santamaría, 2023. "Evaluation of the Importance of rural tourist attractions in Riobamba Canton, Ecuador," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 200-210, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:6:p:1257-:d:1174622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.