Next Article in Journal
Different Environments and Physical Activity before and during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Data from Slovenia
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Facade Elements of Traditional Areas in Seoul, South Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/land12020281
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on Sustainable Livelihood Framework

by
Jue Wang
1,*,
Haiwei Jiang
1 and
Yuan He
2
1
Business School, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn, Regina-Pacis-Weg 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(2), 281; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281
Submission received: 21 November 2022 / Revised: 31 December 2022 / Accepted: 10 January 2023 / Published: 18 January 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rapid expansion of rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, China, has severely decreased rubber prices in the last several years. The income loss and other adverse environmental impacts have brought livelihood challenges and opportunities to develop and adopt more diversified and environmental-friendly income-generating activities (IGAs). To better understand the constraints and opportunities for smallholder rubber farmers to sustain or improve their livelihoods, this study investigates which IGAs are applied by local farmers and the factors that determine their adoption, using the sustainable livelihood framework as the theoretical guideline. The qualitative approach is applied using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Five directions of changes in IGAs (i.e., intercropping, other cash crops, livestock raising for marketing, part-time job, and land renting) are identified, and local farmers are categorized into three groups (i.e., rejective, affirmative, and hesitate groups) based on their attitudes towards these IGAs. The results reveal that the main adoption motivations of certain IGAs are closely related to price shock, economic return, information, and extension service. Based on the results, suggestions are provided to enhance farmers’ motivation to make changes and improve the adoption of emerging IGAs with attention given to vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets and institutional assistance.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development is a common issue facing global human society. The United Nations’ sustainable development goals require a deeper understanding of social, economic, and environmental relations and the resolution of related issues [1]. Over the past few decades, the rapid expansion of agricultural commodities has replaced traditional sources of livelihood, especially the cultivation of cash crops, which has now become an important income-generating activity (IGA) for smallholders worldwide [2]. This is due to the higher economic performance of the strengthening system, which increases income in the short term. Crops such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber are popular and widely cultivated in the tropics and subtropics due to their high economic returns [3]. Millions of smallholders rely heavily on these cash crops for their livelihood [4]. In developing countries, especially in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, nearly half of smallholders grow cash crops as their major IGA [5,6,7,8,9]. Although cash crops will bring high economic returns in the short term, this market-based activity increases uncertainty in household income and vulnerability to market price fluctuations and climate changes, and bring environmental degradation in the long term [10,11,12,13]. In response to shocks, smallholders usually change their livelihood strategies, especially the combination of other IGAs [13,14,15], which attracted the attention of researchers and policymakers.
From farmers’ perspective, sustainable development is premised on achieving sustainable livelihoods [16]. Sustainable livelihoods have been regarded as the goal of solving rural economic, social, and ecological problems since the 1980s. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) specifically pointed out that sustainable livelihoods can make a living in an economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable way. Previous studies discussed the relationship between micro-level livelihood systems and various livelihood factors, macro policies, and ecological environments that affect livelihoods [17,18,19]. However, achieving sustainable livelihoods is not a decisive issue [20], because farmers’ irrational behavior and fragile agricultural external environment make it difficult to change their livelihood strategies [21,22]. At the same time, farmers tend to consider short-term economic factors when making IGA decisions, even if such behavior is unfavorable [23]. Lack of consideration of social and ecological factors often makes it difficult in the long run [24,25]. This will not only lead to the homogeneity of farmers’ IGA, but also increase their vulnerability. Although most countries in the world are trying to change, the sustainable livelihoods of farmers have not yet been fully realized [26,27].
Expanding agricultural commodities from specific plantations to non-traditional planting areas has dramatically affected the development trajectory of small farmers in developing countries, especially those growing tropical cash crops [13]. The increasing global demand for rubber and the favorable natural conditions have encouraged farmers in the Great Mekong Sub-region (GMS) to expand rubber plantations, mainly in monoculture [6]. Rubber production in GMS contributes more than 90% of global natural rubber production [28]. As a part of GMS, Xishuangbanna resonated with the same pattern of rubber cultivation. Due to the development of the Chinese automobile industry in the 1980s, the high domestic demand for natural rubber caused a rapid expansion of rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna [29], which increased from 329.7 km2 in 1987 to 4460 km2 in 2020, nearly 13.5 times [30,31]. The high return on rubber cultivation makes it the first choice for local farmers, and rubber cultivation accounts for more than half of local household income, and other IGAs are rarely adopted locally [8,13].
Long-term rubber monoculture cultivation has caused path dependence and the homogeneity of farmers’ income sources, hindering farmers’ response to market price fluctuations, which poses risks to their livelihoods [22,32,33]. In 2011, the natural rubber price in Xishuangbanna reached around 35 yuan/kg, and from 2012 to 2014 decreased rapidly to about 7 yuan/kg, lower than the cost [13]. Such price shocks directly lowered rubber farmers’ income and significantly affected their livelihoods in Xishuangbanna and the GMS. Farmers urgently demand new IGAs as alternatives, reducing their dependence on the single source of income from rubber monoculture [32]. Besides, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation caused by rubber monoculture have also called for sustainable transformation [5,34]. Due to the heterogeneity of farmers, IGAs types are also diversified. Evidence shows that understanding smallholder IGAs requires both a systematic framework and good practice cases [35]. Previous studies focused on the environmental and land management aspects [35,36] and lack of attention to the micro-level factors influencing small rubber farmers’ livelihood decisions and acceptance of new IGAs.
It is of great practical and theoretical significance to explore the trend of IGA under market price change, environmental degradation, and livelihood vulnerability. This topic is not only related to the sustainable livelihood of farmers, but also the rubber supply and biodiversity [22]. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to understand the current situation and detect the future tendency of rubber smallholders to adopt new IGAs based on a case study in Xishuangbanna, with particular attention given to the heterogenous farmer groups and diversified IGAs, contributing to improve smallholder rubber farmers’ livelihood practically and enrich the sustainable livelihood and IGA studies theoretically.

2. Analytical Framework

2.1. IGAs Typology

Livelihood strategies denote the range and combination of choices and activities people determine and undertake to achieve their livelihood targets, including productive activities, investment strategies, and reproductive decisions [15,37,38]. The process of determining and undertaking livelihood strategies is not static; instead, it is a dynamic process in which people combine their activities to meet their various needs in different periods and local conditions [39,40,41]. Different livelihood strategies reflect different needs, and the most important is how smallholder farmers generate more income [42].
Compared to livelihood strategies, the concept of IGA mainly focuses on monetary revenue from agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Previous studies show that the essential IGAs include agriculture production, agriculture wage work, and rural non-farm income (own business, part-time job, social help) [43]. The factors affecting changes in IGAs can be broadly categorized as natural and social factors. Natural factors include climate change, natural disasters, and so on; and social factors include land tenure systems, farm technology, agriculture productivity, and so on [44,45,46,47].
In Xishuangbanna, changes are expected due to high dependence on rubber monoculture, decreasing rubber prices, and severe environmental degradation [6,48,49]. As the result of modifications and initiatives at the grass root level, significant changes in agriculture have often emerged during and after shocks. It is crucial to analyze the emerging IGAs and explore alternatives to monoculture rubber cultivation, which could provide valuable references to other regions where smallholders rely highly on cash crop monoculture and seek sustainable livelihood transformation and environmental protection. For that, it is vital to categorize farmers and IGAs, which can be used as the basis and criteria in the typology study to identify differences among groups [50,51].

2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Framework to Unfold Decision on IGAs

It is essential to focus on farmers’ livelihood and decision-making at the local and household level with a more action-oriented perspective to unfold the adoption of IGAs. Origin from development studies and based on the capability approach [52], the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) analyzes livelihood resources, strategies, and outcomes under institutional transformation contexts [17,19,53,54,55]. As shown in Figure 1, SLF is a people-centered framework with six interlinked elements. Vulnerability context refers to the external, contextual, and structural conditions in which people exist. The livelihood assets pentagon lies at the core of SLF, including individuals’ human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital and their inter-relationships. Transforming structures and processes refer to the private and public organizations and their interactions that set and implement policy and legislation and perform all other functions that affect livelihoods. Influence and access that considers the link between livelihood assets and the transforming structures and process. Livelihood strategy is the overarching term referring to the combination of activities and choices people conduct to achieve their livelihood goals. Livelihood outcomes are the achievements or outputs of livelihood strategies.
SLF emphasizes how the resources can be used to realize different livelihood strategies, which is perfect for analyzing farmers’ decisions of IGAs under price shocks and environmental degradation. The vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets, trans-forming structure and process (each of them can be seen as an indicator pool) in this framework make it clear to identify the factors which influenced farmers’ IGAs decisions. Livelihood strategies and outcomes would reflect farmers’ perceptions of the results from their adopted IGAs. Furthermore, the typical relationships between those factors and related impacts can be investigated to detect the tendency to accept new IGAs. SLF has proved to be a suitable research tool to explain farmers’ livelihood decision-making [47,56].
A step-by-step analytical process is applied accordingly: First, the portfolios of existing IGAs in the study area are identified; second, the determinants adopted IGAs are investigated based on SLF; third, farmers’ adoption tendency of new IGAs is revealed; and fourth, development opportunities are discussed.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Area

The field research was conducted in the NaBan River Watershed National Nature Reserve (NRWNNR), as shown in Figure 2, situated in the northern part of Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture of Yunnan Province in South China, known as “Indo-Burma hotspot”. NRWNNR was established in 1991 based on the UNESCO “Man and the Biosphere” concept [57]. There are 32 villages that vary in size, ethnic group, population density, and social condition. To capture the diversity of farmers and IGAs, we selected seven villages at different elevations, namely Na Ban (NB), Zhong Zhi Chang (ZZC), Cha Chang (CC), Pan Bing (PB), Ban Qian Di (PQD), Ke Mu (KM), and Man Dian (MD).

3.2. Data Collection

This study adopts qualitative research methods, which determine the diversity of topics of interest and establish meaningful variation within a given population instead of aiming at establishing frequencies, means, or other parameters [58]. Qualitative methodology is deeper and more conducive to exploring the phenomenon with limited knowledge and helps researchers answer “how” and “why” questions [59]. As there is not much existing knowledge on the emerging IGA adoption issue in Xishuangbanna, the qualitative method is suitable.
Our data collection methods include semi-structured interviews, focus groups, participatory observation, and village statistic documents on land use, rubber plantation, and population. Information from interviews and focus groups was documented in written form transcripts. The data set includes transcripts of four focus group discussions and 78 farmers’ interviews, as shown in Table 1. Interviews may be conducted with the same farmer at different times, and there are 68 interviewees in total.

3.3. Data Analysis

The transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis following [60]. Qualitative thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data, considered a foundational method for qualitative analysis. It is helpful to capture an individual’s attempt to make sense of personal and social worlds, which suits our research purpose. It organizes and describes the dataset in detail and often further interprets various perspectives of the research topic [61]. We noticed that interpretation should be carefully conducted; therefore, we also used contextual information from other possible sources to complement critical reflections, e.g., literature, document, and media. Qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA12 was used to manage data and facilitate the coding and analyzing processes. In detail, data analysis is conducted mainly in five steps: preparing (data filtering), sorting (high-frequency glossary highlighting), categorizing (inductive categorization extracting and identifying), rechecking (ensuring the validity, reliability, and accuracy of the results), organizing and explaining the findings refer to others. It is essential to recognize that the guidelines for analysis are not rules; they need to be flexibly applied to fit the data and research questions [62]. The analysis was not a linear process moving from one phase to the next; instead, it was an iterative process, going back and forth throughout the phases as needed [63].

4. Results

4.1. Emerging IGAs in the Study Area

The various IGAs practiced by farmers in the study area could be sorted into five categories, namely intercropping (IN), other cash crops cultivation (OCC), livestock raising for the market (LM), part-time job (PTJ), and land-renting out (LRO). Table 2 shows the distribution of different IGAs in seven villages. One farmer could adopt more than one IGA at the same time.
IN refers to land use by cultivating more than one crop species in the rubber plantation, contributing to better land use efficiency, ecological profits, and diversified income sources. Intercrops include both local species (tea, lychee, konjac, etc.) from indigenous knowledge and new species (dendrobium, flemingia, taxus, agilawood, etc.) discovered by farmers’ initiatives or introduced by government and researchers. IN has a long history in the study area, and recently it has become prevalent in the rubber plantation. IN has shown the potential for sustaining or improving livelihoods, and there are also potential adopters: “I am planning to intercrop some cash crops in my rubber fields. I think this is a way to make more money” (CC1; note: interviewees are quoted and marked their numbered identities, with the capital letter referring to the village.).
OCC refers to cash crop cultivation except for rubber. Some farmers never try rubber and keep traditional cash crops, such as tea. “Traditional” here refers to not only crop species but also their cultivating skill, processing technology, and stable marketing channels. Some rubber farmers recently transferred the rubber plantation to other cash crops, including the traditional species and newly introduced coffee, dragon fruit, and mango. OCC becomes a vital alternative to reduce the income risk of rubber monoculture. Most of the interviewees responded positively to OCC, and several farmers have already cut down their rubber trees for OCC cultivation, “The rubber trees I have now is enough. I still need other crops for safety” (BQD3), stated a rubber farmer who has converted 20 mu out of 72 mu rubber plantation to other cash crops.
LM refers to livestock raising for the market as an income source rather than for subsistence. Unlikely IN and OCC, farmers are much less enthusiastic about LM. One out of 11 adopters raise peacocks (new practice in the region), and others raise traditional livestock such as pigs, chickens, and ducks. Although keeping livestock is common, no one considers LM the primary income source due to low profitability, land use conflicts, and labor conflict between livestock and rubber. Nevertheless, LM shows suitability to family labor conditions: “My parents-in-law are too old to work in rubber cultivation; they are taking care of our chicken to make more money” (MD6). About half of the respondents are willing to adopt LM soon as an IGA.
PTJ refers to doing other jobs during part-time, including both off-farm work and non-farm work. In recent years, PTJ has become one of the most prevalent IGAs during the off-season of rubber cultivation. Off-farm work refers to working on other farmers’ plantations (rubber, banana, vegetable, etc.); non-farm work includes construction, store running, latex carrier, and truck driving. Most of the PTJs are labor intensive, which requires knowledge and skills to expand employment opportunities and break through the income ceiling. As stated by a lady who sells traditional food on a tourism site: “I joined the female empowerment program and started my pineapple rice business in rubber off-season. I am very good at making it, and it brings my family 30,000–50,000 RMB per year, sometimes more than that from rubber” (NB11).
LRO refers to renting out land for rental income, including arable land and rubber field. LRO brings considerable income for local households and becomes a vital IGA with an increasing trend, as stated, “The rental is rather stable thus to at least secure my family’s subsistence” (NB2). However, there is another voice: “The one who lacks finance to invest in his/her land would rent out the land, and this is always the second choice” (PB3). Farmers make LRO decisions based on trade-offs between the investments and outcomes of their cultivation and renting out, with comprehensive consideration of family labor, economic profitability, and market stability. LRO requires both extrinsic factors, such as the appearance of the lessee, and intrinsic factors, such as personal willingness, other factors, such as land characteristics and political regulations, also need to be considered, particularly in the nature reserve.
Considering their inter-relationships, these five IGAs could be further grouped into three classifications. First, the incremental strategy (IN and LM) adds new activities to existing practices. These IGAs require extra labor input, and the farmers often adopt one incremental IGA at a certain period, i.e., either IN or LM. Second, the systematic strategy (OCC) substitutes previous activities but is still under the agricultural scheme. Farmers who practice OCC often reduce or abandon rubber cultivation. Third, the transformative strategy (PTJ and LRO) subverts previous means of income generation. The adoption of LRO often resulted in PTJ, but not vice versa.

4.2. Overview of the Determinants of IGAs Adoption

We coded the transcripts and extracted the determinants of farmers’ IGAs adoption behavior based on SLF. The determinants are summarized in Table 3, and their roles in each IGA are illustrated in Table 4. The determinant could be both facilitator and impediment of IGA adoption, which provide insight for development management, as discussed in Section 5. Facilitators refer to the factors which are beneficial or contributing to motivating adoption. Impediment implies that the element plays a negative role in practicing and decision-making processes, hindering actual adopters’ practice and impeding potential adopters from joining.

4.3. The Importance of Determinants of Each IGAs Adoption

Figure 3 summarizes the determinants for each IGA. As illustrated in Figure 3a, the most critical factors accelerating IN adoption are the age of rubber plantation, peer example, and extension service. Young rubber plantation has larger space and less shade, fitting heliophile and woody crops, and matured rubber plantation is suitable for shrubs and herbs requiring shade. Successful peer examples act as a demonstration, providing exact information on “how to” and expected returns. Similarly, extension services are demanded by most respondents to fill the information gap, particularly in knowledge and technique. Related to this, the government-led transition towards environmental-friendly rubber plantations positively influences IN activities. To set IN into practice, farmers also consider the maturation period of intercrops, the financial investment, and the market price.
As illustrated in Figure 3b, OCC requires new available land which farmers could rent from others or transfer existing rubber plantations. Such transitions mostly happen in the old plantations over 35 years, while some farmers recently cut young rubber trees to avoid more sunk costs with decreasing rubber price expectations. Selection of species is highly dependent on expected market price and peer example, and seasonality of rubber cultivation is also vital in avoiding labor conflict in the tapping season. In addition, financial, labor, and infrastructure conditions also play roles in OCC activities. Although OCC requires more inputs (land, labor, financial) than IN, the actual and potential adopters have more active and enthusiastic attitudes towards OCC. We found that the OCC adopters are often village opinion leaders or pioneers, have an open mind towards new practices, and can obtain information and resources.
As illustrated in Figure 3c, the most influential factors in LM adoption include price, information, and labor, similar to IN and OCC. Extension service, knowledge, and technology are also important, particularly for new species. Besides traditional livestock species, two new species—porcupine and peacock are mentioned for LM activity. Most farmers are skeptical of the new species but are still willing to try as long as more effective forehand information is offered on price, market channel, and knowledge.
As illustrated in Figure 3d, for PTJ adoption, wage and seasonality of rubber cultivation are the most determinants, as well as instability of PTJ opportunities, knowledge and technology, and decision power. Due to the decreasing rubber price, local farmers started considering part-time and full-time jobs to sustain their livelihoods. However, they have to face the dilemma of insufficient knowledge and skills required by those job opportunities. Long-time high dependence on rubber monoculture restrained their PTJ choices: “Before, my wife and I were working on our rubber farm, but the price is not good now, so only my wife is working on rubber, and I am working on construction site sometimes. I want a full-time job with stable income but cannot because I do not have knowledge and skill” (NB3).
As illustrated in Figure 3e, the influential factors for LRO are land availability, rental price, financial and labor situation, collective action, and extension service. Some farmers take LRO as a forced choice due to the lack of money or labor investing in their land; some farmers are willing to rent out land but lack land availability or tenants. LRO choice is accounted for by the household’s total land size and available labor. To some extent, LRO helps farmers to avoid labor conflict with other IGAs. Furthermore, collective action and official security for contract relief the fear of LRO adopters in cases of problem encountering.
In general, the economic consideration (price/rental/wage) plays the leading role in IGAs adoption, followed by extension services, land availability, peer example, information, and price changes, covering different elements in SLF. Many research focuses on livelihood assets in adoption studies, while our results indicate the necessity of including variables representing vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes, which also play vital roles in farmers’ adoption decisions.

4.4. IGAs Adoption Tendency Detection

Both the extrinsic and intrinsic factors are considered to predict the adoption trend of emerging IGAs, b. Farmers can be categorized into three groups based on their attitudes toward IGAs: rejective, affirmative, and hesitant. The rejective group refers to those subjectively skeptical of specific IGAs; they are not the mainstream in our study. The affirmative group refers to favorable farmers with optimistic attitudes to corresponding IGAs. They are farmers practicing certain IGAs and willing to continue, and farmers getting ready and planning to adopt soon. The hesitant group refers to farmers willing to adopt certain IGAs, but objective limits constrain their actions. That means their adoption is conditional, and they can be seen as potential adopters.
As illustrated in Figure 4, for LRO and PTJ, most respondents belong to the affirmative group, indicating they have a positive attitude and are willing to continue such IGAs. For OCC and LM, most respondents belong to the hesitant group, showing they are limited by specific prerequisites (e.g., labor and land) or uncertain about if there is a market for the crop or livestock. For IN, about half of the respondents would like to continue; one-fourth are hesitant, and one-fourth hold a negative attitude due to failed experience.
In the future, the farmers with young rubber plantations and sufficient intercropping knowledge seem to have more tendency to adopt IN. Other factors, such as adequate market information and extension service (e.g., subsidy and training), would also be helpful. Furthermore, the introduced species with short maturation periods are more favorable than others. The farmers located on high altitudes or arable land with convenient irrigation infrastructure seem more open to OCC. Information about marketing channels, prices, and successful peer examples can facilitate adoption. Similar to IN, the species with short maturation periods are more acceptable. Nevertheless, farmers also consider potential conflicts between OCC and rubber in the land, financial, and labor inputs, and the fitness between rubber seasonality and OCC species. Farmers with better internal conditions (e.g., more family members, better economic conditions, and sufficient knowledge or experiences) and external assistance (extension and networking) are more open to LM. Currently, almost all the LM adopters are focusing on the local market since it is relatively easy to access information such as popular species and prices. The forehand information on a larger potential market could be considered a way to improve LM activities. The most facilitating factors for local PTJ adoptions are decision power, knowledge, price/payment/profit, and seasonality of rubber cultivation. However, in the tendency detection scenario, the most influential factors are decision power and labor quality in possession of related knowledge. From local farmers’ perspectives, LRO directly conflicts with rubber cultivation in aspects of their limited land and labor resources. It can be detected that households with available land and unavailable labor are more intent to accept the LRO scheme. In addition, acting with government comrades could reduce the fear, and good rental brings them decent income in their profitability calculation compared with the opportunity cost of the rented land.
It should be noted that the determinants for current adoption and future adoption of these IGAs might differ, which could be attributed to external conditions, livelihood assets, and individuals’ experiences. First, the changes in external conditions shape farmers’ action situations. For instance, the local government’s recent emphasis on the environmental-friendly rubber plantation and the supporting promotion measures are the strong drivers for current IGAs adoption, while in the long run, farmers consider their capacity to carry on certain IGAs [64]. Second, farmers’ livelihood assets are dynamic; assets occupied by current IGAs might not be available for other IGAs in the future. Third, farmers’ recent successful or failed experiences would facilitate or hinder their future adoption [65].

5. Discussion

In this chapter, we compare our results with current studies, and explore possible pathways to promote new IGAs. In addition, the methodological issues are reflected, providing references for future research.

5.1. Determinants of IGAs Adoption

Studying the factors affecting farmers’ adoption of IGAs and adaptive strategies in the context of vulnerability has been widely discussed worldwide. Even if different theoretical frameworks are used, similar research results seem to reveal the common characteristics of farmers’ decision-making. These determinants include both external and internal factors. The external factors, such as shocks and extension services, have been affirmed by most studies the main factors stimulating farmers in changing IGAs [49]. In fact, external shocks happen at any time. Due to the limited cognitive and educational level, farmers tend to look for a balance between shocks and their own livelihoods. They will only adjust if the total benefits of adopting IGAs are greater than the losses caused by shocks plus the costs of adjusting their IGAs [66]. The internal factors include farmers’ livelihood assets, such as land holding, annual income, and social network [67,68,69]. For example, strengthening social capital such as information networks can make small holders more willing to adjust the IGAs [70]. Similarly, path dependence on tree crops with long growth cycles will prevent farmers from adjusting IGAs [22].
However, one study could not cover all the possible influencing factors. Some other factors, such as the elevation of rubber plantations, changes in land ownership and the gap between rich and poor of farmers mentioned in relevant studies using different theoretical frameworks, are also important factors affecting farmers’ decision-making. Nevertheless, there are some new insights provided by this study. First, five emerging IGAs are identified in three categories. Second, determinants for each IGA are explored respectively, and compared across the IGA groups and time frames. Third, the SLF has been proven applicable and suitable to unfold the influencing factors and trends of farmers’ adoption of IGAs. While most studies focus on the livelihood assets [71,72,73], and we claim that more attention should be paid to the vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes, from a holistic perspective.

5.2. Pathways to Promote New IGAs

The decreasing rubber price and the environmental degradation can be seen as an opportunity for the “green transition” in Xishuangbanna. The pathways could be summarized into three categories based on SLF: Awareness of the vulnerability context, improvement of livelihood assets, and strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes.
(1)
Awareness of the vulnerability context
Farmers can adjust their livelihood strategies to vulnerability contexts such as climate changes quickly because they can judge climate changes based on experience [74,75]. However, under the influence of unnatural factors, such as price shock, farmers’ perception of vulnerability is often limited and hysteretic [9,76]. For example, in coffee-growing areas, even if the price of coffee drops, the size of the coffee area has expanded [77]. For tree crops, due to the long harvest period and excessive input costs, it is still difficult for farmers to change their livelihood strategies in the face of agricultural commodity price shocks [66,78]. After several years of continuous price decline, farmers in our study became aware of the risk of high dependence on rubber monoculture; however, most still believe that the prices will rise again. Such belief is not based on sufficient knowledge and forecasting but rather good wishes. This is similar to the phenomenon found in [79] and [66] in Laos and Thailand. Due to the large cost of time and money invested in rubber plantations, when prices fall, farmers will first try to survive until commodity prices are too low to allow families to survive. Nevertheless, the current price shock can be seen as an essential lesson that raises their awareness of diversification in land use decisions [80]. More specifically, this lesson increases farmers’ willingness for land use change to profit with limited resources.
Seasonality of rubber cultivation is also an important context in IGAs adoption, which is not always negative [70]. As [81] mentioned, seasonality leads to occupation changes, because labor time can be shifted from lower-return activities to higher-return activities. The current five new IGAs are more or less related to the seasonality of rubber cultivation, which provides farmers with the labor availability for change in two periods. One is the result of rubber off-season, about four months of non-tapping time; another refers to the 6–8 years before tapping the young rubber plantation for rubber farmers conducting other IGAs. The seasonality also provides the “outsiders” a chance to introduce alternatives. Meanwhile, farmers are more available to accept the change during this period.
(2)
Improvement of livelihood assets
Among all the determinants of IGAs, factors in the livelihood asset category count the most in the number of factors and their importance (Table 3 and Table 4). Changes in different livelihood assets can lead to the optimization of farmers’ livelihood strategies [82]. In our case, the most influential driving factors are land availability (natural capital), economic return (financial capital), information (social capital), labor availability, and knowledge (human capital). As the land is relatively stable, effort should be put into financial, social, and human capital to encourage the adoption of new IGAs.
First, the new IGAs with higher economic returns should be considered. The economic return refers to the actual income and farmers’ ability to correctly evaluate the benefits of related activities closely related to the information and knowledge discussed next. Second, social capital could be strengthened through improved information channels [83,84]. Farmers express urgent demand for forehand information on IGAs, including material inputs, potential consumers, price and marketing channels of specific activities, etc. Access to information could be created by establishing associations, strengthening social networks, and improving extension services. Farmers in Laos are trying to develop collective action to improve their ability to market bargaining, thus raising the price of rubber [79]. Third, knowledge of sustainable land use and different farming styles is indispensable for motivating farmers to take action [85]. Most farmers have perceived that their livelihoods are affected by ecological problems such as water pollution and soil erosion attributed partially to rubber monoculture. This can allow farmers to learn more about sustainable land use [86]. Some farmers even took the opportunity of the crisis to update their livelihood assets, especially in the historic rubber plantation areas [66]. In addition, abundant knowledge of IGAs would give farmers more confidence and enthusiasm to initiate IGAs.
(3)
Strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes
We found that most respondents are strongly willing to change, among which few are motivated by their initiatives, and the majority are motivated by external incentives, especially governmental extension services [49]. Although [49] shows that rubber farmers present relatively low willingness to change IGA, it is undeniable that external incentives still play an important role. Farmers in IN, OCC, LM, and LRO schemes are stimulated directly by free tangible materials such as seedlings, chicks, subsidies, and intangible services such as training. Some OCC and PTJ adopters are indirectly motivated by the governmental empowerment program focusing on capacity building and resilience improvement, such as women’s training programs improving their non-farm skills for better PTJ opportunities. However, the high dependence on the government may lead to the rare existence of farmers’ initiatives [78]. Although the decisive government role is sometimes criticized due to its insufficiency in solving the root cause of livelihood vulnerability [87], we argue that help from “outsiders” are necessary and vital in initiating new IGAs, particularly facilitating potential adopters to start at the beginning phase [88].
Farmers have shown strong appeals for extension services due to the increased awareness of diversification to cope with vulnerability [89]. It is an opportunity to increase farmers’ motivation by integrating their needs into extension design. For instance, farmers need crops in IN or OCC with high profit and low labor input and fulfill the local conditions of altitude, soil, and water. Farmers would be more willing to accept new IGAs as alternatives to rubber monoculture if these requirements can be satisfied. As long as the extension providers effectively respond to the farmers’ voices and farmers feel they are playing an essential role in alternative adoption processes, their motivation can be increased [45,49]. In the long run, capacity-building programs could be seen as a platform for farmers to search for and conduct alternatives by themselves rather than depending on “outsiders”.

5.3. Methodological Issues

Previous studies on farmer’s IGAs adoption have adopted both qualitative and quantitative approaches [90]. Although the advantages of quantitative methods in data quantity can reveal some common laws, it is recognized that any quantitative assessment is partial and illustrative at best [91]. The typology studies in the qualitative manner built on interviews have most often been presented in the farming styles literature [92]. The qualitative analysis supports the analysis and discussion of qualitative data, provides insights into specific types of values and their generation mechanisms and discovers new patterns and characteristics to enrich theories [91,93]. Specifically, qualitative case studies provide an in-depth understanding of farmers’ income, food security, confidence, and the benefits of their perception of agricultural and climate risks [94] and fill the subjective and accurate information determined by indicators in the quantitative analysis [95]. It usually relies on the researchers’ knowledge and judgment to define the specific segmentation of different groups according to their characteristics. The qualitative approach ensures that the classifications are actor-centered and represent farmers’ perceptions; however, disadvantages such as researcher dependence, data complexity, and duplication difficulty are also noticed. For future research, a mixed methodological design combining qualitative and quantitative processes is recommended.

6. Conclusions

There is a current trend that smallholder farmers are changing IGAs under price shock and environmental degradation in the rubber-monocultural-dominant region. Using SLF as a theoretical guideline, qualitative methods have been applied in this research to investigate farmers’ emerging IGAs, determinants, and tendencies to adopt. SLF has shown its fitness and power in explaining IGAs adoption as a livelihood decision. We have identified five local IGAs (IN, OCC, LM, PTJ, LRO) in Xishuangbanna and revealed the determinants for behavior change under the category of vulnerability context, livelihood assets, and transformation structures and processes. The most influential factors are price shock, rubber seasonality, land availability, economic return, information and knowledge, labor availability, and extension services. Current changes in livelihood strategies are strongly motivated by government initiatives rather than farmers’ own, and in the future, there are some pathways to strengthen indigenous IGAs initiatives, such as improving awareness of the vulnerability context, enhancing livelihood assets, particularly the human capital, and strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes. This study provides some hints on why new IGAs emerged in the rubber-dominated area and how to guide farmers to develop IGAs to cope with the risks of rubber monoculture. At the same time, it enriches the practical experience of SLA in explaining farmers’ decision-making. It is important to note that the results drawn from our study are not universal and require the careful application to other regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W. and Y.H.; methodology, J.W. and Y.H.; validation, J.W.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, J.W. and Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H. and H.J.; writing—review and editing, J.W.; visualization, J.W.; supervision, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 42101216; the Sichuan Science and Technology Program, grant number 2023NSFSC0749; the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, grant number 01LL0919; the Humanities and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education, grant number 20YJCZH153;the Open Foundation of the Research Center for Human Geography of Tibetan Plateau and Its Eastern Slope (Chengdu University of Technology), grant number RWDL2022-YB005; and the Key Construction Projects in Philosophy and Social Sciences for the “Double First-Class” Construction of Chengdu University of Technology, grant number ZDJS202209.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. del Giorgio, O.; Robinson, B.E.; le Polain de Waroux, Y. Impacts of Agricultural Commodity Frontier Expansion on Smallholder Livelihoods: An Assessment through the Lens of Access to Land and Resources in the Argentine Chaco. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vicol, M.; Pritchard, B.; Htay, Y.Y. Rethinking the Role of Agriculture as a Driver of Social and Economic Transformation in Southeast Asia’s Upland Regions: The View from Chin State, Myanmar. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Su, S.; Zhou, X.; Wan, C.; Li, Y.; Kong, W. Land Use Changes to Cash Crop Plantations: Crop Types, Multilevel Determinants and Policy Implications. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Achterbosch, T.J.; van Berkum, S.; Meijerink, G.W.; Asbreuk, H.; Oudendag, D.A. Cash Crops and Food Security: Contributions to Income, Livelihood Risk and Agricultural Innovation; LEI Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014; ISBN 9086156738. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jin, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Location and Economic Resilience in Rubber Farming Communities in Southwest China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2020, 13, 367–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fox, J.; Castella, J.-C. Expansion of Rubber (Hevea Brasiliensis) in Mainland Southeast Asia: What Are the Prospects for Smallholders? J. Peasant Stud. 2013, 40, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kuma, T.; Dereje, M.; Hirvonen, K.; Minten, B. Cash Crops and Food Security: Evidence from Ethiopian Smallholder Coffee Producers. J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 55, 1267–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H.; Yang, X.; Cadisch, G. Rubber Boom, Land Use Change and the Implications for Carbon Balances in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tolno, E.; Kobayashi, H.; Ichizen, M.; Esham, M.; Balde, B.S. Economic Analysis of the Role of Farmer Organizations in Enhancing Smallholder Potato Farmers’ Income in Middle Guinea. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Singh, C.; Dorward, P.; Osbahr, H. Developing a Holistic Approach to the Analysis of Farmer Decision-Making: Implications for Adaptation Policy and Practice in Developing Countries. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahrends, A.; Hollingsworth, P.M.; Ziegler, A.D.; Fox, J.M.; Chen, H.; Su, Y.; Xu, J. Current Trends of Rubber Plantation Expansion May Threaten Biodiversity and Livelihoods. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 34, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, J.S.H.; Miteva, D.A.; Carlson, K.M.; Heilmayr, R.; Saif, O. Does Oil Palm Certification Create Trade-Offs between Environment and Development in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 15, 124064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jin, S.; Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Falling Price Induced Diversification Strategies and Rural Inequality: Evidence of Smallholder Rubber Farmers. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barrett, C.B.; Reardon, T.; Webb, P. Nonfarm Income Diversification and Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural Africa: Concepts, Dynamics, and Policy Implications. Food Policy 2001, 26, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Martin, S.M.; Lorenzen, K.A.I. Livelihood Diversification in Rural Laos. World Dev. 2016, 83, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. You, H.; Zhang, X. Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Sustainability in China: Ecologically Secure, Economically Efficient or Socially Equitable? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ashley, C.; Carney, D. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience; Department for International Development London: London, UK, 1999; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  18. Amalric, F.; Chambers, R.; Conway, G. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: General Report of the Sustainable Livelihoods Project 1995–1997; Society for International Development: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; Institute of Development Studies (UK): Falmer, UK, 1992; ISBN 0903715589. [Google Scholar]
  20. Scoones, I. Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development. J. Peasant Stud. 2009, 36, 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brammer, H.; Ravenscroft, P. Arsenic in Groundwater: A Threat to Sustainable Agriculture in South and South-East Asia. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Min, S.; Wang, X.; Liu, M.; Huang, J. The Asymmetric Response of Farmers to an Expected Change in the Price of Rubber: The Roles of Sunk Costs and Path Dependency. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Talukder, A.; Haq, I.; Ali, M.; Drope, J. Factors Associated with Cultivation of Tobacco in Bangladesh: A Multilevel Modelling Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Isaac, M.E.; Erickson, B.H.; Quashie-Sam, S.J.; Timmer, V.R. Transfer of Knowledge on Agroforestry Management Practices: The Structure of Farmer Advice Networks. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, Y.; Zhou, L. Farmers’ Perception of the Decade-Long Grazing Ban Policy in Northern China: A Case Study of Yanchi County. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Vista, B.M.; Nel, E.; Binns, T. Land, Landlords and Sustainable Livelihoods: The Impact of Agrarian Reform on a Coconut Hacienda in the Philippines. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gao, Y.; Zheng, J.; Bu, M. Rural-Urban Income Gap and Agricultural Growth in China: An Empirical Study on the Provincial Panel Data, 1978–2010. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2014, 6, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Häuser, I.; Martin, K.; Germer, J.; He, P.; Blagodatskiy, S.; Liu, H.-X.; Krauß, M.; Rajaona, A.; Shi, M.; Pelz, S. Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of Rubber Cultivation in the Mekong Region: Challenges for Sustainable Land Use. CABI Rev. 2015, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahlheim, M.; Börger, T.; Frör, O. The Ecological Price of Getting Rich in a Green Desert: A Contingent Valuation Study in Rural Southwest China; FZID Discussion Paper: Stuttgart, Germany, 2012; Available online: http://opus.ub.unihohenheim.de/volltexte/2012/751/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  30. Xiao, C.; Li, P.; Feng, Z. Monitoring Annual Dynamics of Mature Rubber Plantations in Xishuangbanna during 1987–2018 Using Landsat Time Series Data: A Multiple Normalization Approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 77, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, J.; Xu, J.; Zhai, D.L. Integrating Phenological and Geographical Information with Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Map Rubber Plantations in Xishuangbanna. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aenis, T.; Wang, J. From information giving to mutual scenario definition: Stakeholder participation towards Sustainable Rubber Cultivation in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. In Farming Systems Facing Global Challenges: Capacities and Strategies; Aenis, T., Knierim, A., Riecher, M., Ridder, R., Schobert, H., and Fischer, H., Eds.; Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität: Berlin, Germany, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 618–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, J.; Aenis, T.; Hofmann-Souki, S. Triangulation in Participation: Dynamic Approaches for Science-Practice Interaction in Land-Use Decision Making in Rural China. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Min, S.; Huang, J.; Bai, J.; Waibel, H. Adoption of Intercropping among Smallholder Rubber Farmers in Xishuangbanna, China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, J.; Aenis, T. Stakeholder Analysis in Support of Sustainable Land Management: Experiences from Southwest China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fu, Y.; Chen, J.; Guo, H.; Hu, H.; Chen, A.; Cui, J. Agrobiodiversity Loss and Livelihood Vulnerability as a Consequence of Converting from Subsistence Farming Systems to Commercial Plantation-Dominated Systems in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China: A Household Level Analysis. L. Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dzanku, F.M. Rational but Poor? An Explanation for Rural Economic Livelihood Strategy. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 69, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ellis, F. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; ISBN 0198296967. [Google Scholar]
  39. Liu, Z.; Liu, L. Characteristics and Driving Factors of Rural Livelihood Transition in the East Coastal Region of China: A Case Study of Suburban Shanghai. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 43, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Van den Berg, M. Household Income Strategies and Natural Disasters: Dynamic Livelihoods in Rural Nicaragua. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 592–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Walelign, S.Z.; Pouliot, M.; Larsen, H.O.; Smith-Hall, C. Combining Household Income and Asset Data to Identify Livelihood Strategies and Their Dynamics. J. Dev. Stud. 2017, 53, 769–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hua, X.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Y. Evaluating the Role of Livelihood Assets in Suitable Livelihood Strategies: Protocol for Anti-Poverty Policy in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 78, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Panichvejsunti, T.; Kuwornu, J.K.M.; Shivakoti, G.P.; Grünbühel, C.; Soni, P. Smallholder Farmers’ Crop Combinations under Different Land Tenure Systems in Thailand: The Role of Flood and Government Policy. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change in Kenya: Household Strategies and Determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Oyinbo, O.; Chamberlin, J.; Vanlauwe, B.; Vranken, L.; Kamara, Y.A.; Craufurd, P.; Maertens, M. Farmers’ Preferences for High-Input Agriculture Supported by Site-Specific Extension Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Nigeria. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Smit, B.; McNabb, D.; Smithers, J. Agricultural Adaptation to Climatic Variation. Clim. Change 1996, 33, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, W.; Gong, J.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Y. Exploring the Effects of Rural Site Conditions and Household Livelihood Capitals on Agricultural Land Transfers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, H.; Yi, Z.F.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Ahrends, A.; Beckschäfer, P.; Kleinn, C.; Ranjitkar, S.; Xu, J. Pushing the Limits: The Pattern and Dynamics of Rubber Monoculture Expansion in Xishuangbanna, SW China. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Hammond, J.; van Wijk, M.T.; Smajgl, A.; Ward, J.; Pagella, T.; Xu, J.; Su, Y.; Yi, Z.; Harrison, R.D. Farm Types and Farmer Motivations to Adapt: Implications for Design of Sustainable Agricultural Interventions in the Rubber Plantations of South West China. Agric. Syst. 2017, 154, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Emtage, N.; Herbohn, J.; Harrison, S. Landholder Profiling and Typologies for Natural Resource–Management Policy and Program Support: Potential and Constraints. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Tittonell, P.; Muriuki, A.; Shepherd, K.D.; Mugendi, D.; Kaizzi, K.C.; Okeyo, J.; Verchot, L.; Coe, R.; Vanlauwe, B. The Diversity of Rural Livelihoods and Their Influence on Soil Fertility in Agricultural Systems of East Africa–A Typology of Smallholder Farms. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1982; ISBN 0198284632. [Google Scholar]
  53. Chambers, R. Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Reality Counts? Environ. Urban. 1995, 7, 173–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. DFID, U.K. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development. 1999. Available online: https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/- (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  55. Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; IDS: Brighton, Australia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, L.D.; Lippe, R.S.; Grote, U. Determinants of Farmers’ Land Use Decision-Making: Comparative Evidence From Thailand and Vietnam. World Dev. 2017, 89, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Moreno, S.I.C.; Cutler, J.; Kinkel, C.; Kuebke, L.; Larson, M.; Liebig, G.; Longanecker, J.; Martin, F.; Ohlendorf, K.; Ridder, R. Rubber Cultivation and Livelihood-A Stakeholder Analysis in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Available online: https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/14229/29jESAnTGIY2.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 10 June 2021).
  58. Polkinghorne, D.E. Language and Meaning: Data Collection in Qualitative Research. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005, 52, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Misra, M. Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Change Adaptation in Bangladesh: Questioning the Technological Optimism. Clim. Dev. 2017, 9, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1998; ISBN 0761909613. [Google Scholar]
  62. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990; ISBN 0803937792. [Google Scholar]
  63. Anzul, M.; Downing, M.; Ely, M.; Vinz, R. On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; ISBN 0203451422. [Google Scholar]
  64. Pham, N.T.T.; Nong, D.; Garschagen, M. Farmers’ Decisions to Adapt to Flash Floods and Landslides in the Northern Mountainous Regions of Vietnam. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 252, 109672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Habtemariam, L.T.; Gandorfer, M.; Kassa, G.A.; Sieber, S. Risk Experience and Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Decision. Clim. Dev. 2020, 12, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nicod, T.; Bathfield, B.; Bosc, P.M.; Promkhambut, A.; Duangta, K.; Chambon, B. Households’ Livelihood Strategies Facing Market Uncertainties: How Did Thai Farmers Adapt to a Rubber Price Drop? Agric. Syst. 2020, 182, 102846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ashraf, M.; Routray, J.K.; Saeed, M. Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Coping and Adaptation Measures to the Drought Hazard in Northwest Balochistan, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1451–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Onyeneke, R.U. Does Climate Change Adaptation Lead to Increased Productivity of Rice Production? Lessons from Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pelling, M.; High, C. Understanding Adaptation: What Can Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 308–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Blackmore, I.; Rivera, C.; Waters, W.F.; Iannotti, L.; Lesorogol, C. The Impact of Seasonality and Climate Variability on Livelihood Security in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yang, H.; Huang, K.; Deng, X.; Xu, D. Livelihood Capital and Land Transfer of Different Types of Farmers: Evidence from Panel Data in Sichuan Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kuang, F.; Jin, J.; He, R.; Ning, J.; Wan, X. Farmers’ Livelihood Risks, Livelihood Assets and Adaptation Strategies in Rugao City, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, M.; Li, M.; Jin, B.; Yao, L.; Ji, H. Does Livelihood Capital Influence the Livelihood Strategy of Herdsmen? Evidence from Western China. Land 2021, 10, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Solís, J.D.; Martinez-Juarez, P. Framing Vulnerability and Coffee Farmers’ Behaviour in the Context of Climate Change Adaptation in Nicaragua. World Dev. 2020, 126, 104733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ricart, S.; Olcina, J.; Rico, A.M. Evaluating Public Attitudes and Farmers’ Beliefs towards Climate Change Adaptation: Awareness, Perception, and Populism at European Level. Land 2018, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Fisher, M.; Holden, S.T.; Thierfelder, C.; Katengeza, S.P. Awareness and Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi: What Difference Can Farmer-to-Farmer Extension Make? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 310–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Eakin, H.; Tucker, C.M.; Castellanos, E.; Diaz-Porras, R.; Barrera, J.F.; Morales, H. Adaptation in a Multi-Stressor Environment: Perceptions and Responses to Climatic and Economic Risks by Coffee Growers in Mesoamerica. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Darnhofer, I. Resilience and Why It Matters for Farm Management. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 41, 461–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vongvisouk, T.; Dwyer, M. Falling Rubber Prices in Northern Laos: Local Responses and Policy Options. Project Report 2016. pp. 1–59. Available online: https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/dataset/falling-rubber-prices-in-northern-laos-local-responses-and-policy-options (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  80. Slothuus, C.F.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Mertz, O. Navigating between Tea and Rubber in Xishuangbanna, China: When New Crops Fail and Old Oneswork. Land 2020, 9, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Ellis, F. The Determinants of Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing Countries. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Xie, H. Influence of the Farmer’s Livelihood Assets on Livelihood Strategies in the Western Mountainous Area, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Yang, L.; Liu, M.; Min, Q.; Li, W. Specialization or Diversification? The Situation and Transition of Households’ Livelihood in Agricultural Heritage Systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pour, M.D.; Barati, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J. Revealing the Role of Livelihood Assets in Livelihood Strategies: Towards Enhancing Conservation and Livelihood Development in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ullah, A.; Arshad, M.; Kächele, H.; Khan, A.; Mahmood, N.; Müller, K. Information Asymmetry, Input Markets, Adoption of Innovations and Agricultural Land Use in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Balana, B.B.; Mathijs, E.; Muys, B. Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: An Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Community Forests in Northern Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1294–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Shiferaw, B.A.; Okello, J.; Reddy, R.V. Adoption and Adaptation of Natural Resource Management Innovations in Smallholder Agriculture: Reflections on Key Lessons and Best Practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. He, X.; Yan, J.; Yang, L.E.; Zhou, H.; Wu, Y.; Wu, S. The Role of Government Interventions in Household Climate Adaptation on the Tibetan Plateau. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 95, 544–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kiani, A.K.; Sardar, A.; Khan, W.U.; He, Y.; Bilgic, A.; Kuslu, Y.; Raja, M.A.Z. Role of Agricultural Diversification in Improving Resilience to Climate Change: An Empirical Analysis with Gaussian Paradigm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Perret, S.R.; Kirsten, J.F. Studying the Local Diversity of Rural Livelihoods Systems: An Application of Typological Techniques for Integrated Rural Development Support in the Eastern Cape (South Africa); Working Papers 18083; University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development: Pretoria, South Africa, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  91. Whittard, D.; Ritchie, F.; Musker, R.; Rose, M. Measuring the Value of Data Governance in Agricultural Investments: A Case Study. Exp. Agric. 2022, 58, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Whatmore, S. Farm Household Strategies and Styles of Farming: Assessing the Utility of Farm Typologies. In Born from Within-Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural Development; Royal Van Gorcum BV: Assen, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  93. Huynh, P.T.A.; Le, N.D.; Le, S.T.H.; Tran, T.N. Adaptive Livelihood Strategies among Small-Scale Fishing Households to Climate Change-Related Stressors in Central Coast Vietnam. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 13, 492–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Staub, C.G.; Clarkson, G. Farmer-Led Participatory Extension Leads Haitian Farmers to Anticipate Climate-Related Risks and Adjust Livelihood Strategies. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pham, N.T.T.; Nong, D.; Sathyan, A.R.; Garschagen, M. Vulnerability Assessment of Households to Flash Floods and Landslides in the Poor Upland Regions of Vietnam. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 28, 100215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 00281 g001 550
Figure 1. Sustainable livelihood framework [54].
Figure 1. Sustainable livelihood framework [54].
Land 12 00281 g001
Land 12 00281 g002 550
Figure 2. The study area (adapted from [57]).
Figure 2. The study area (adapted from [57]).
Land 12 00281 g002
Land 12 00281 g003 550
Figure 3. The importance of determinants of IGAs adoption.
Figure 3. The importance of determinants of IGAs adoption.
Land 12 00281 g003
Land 12 00281 g004 550
Figure 4. Farmers’ attitudes towards IGAs influenced by various factors.
Figure 4. Farmers’ attitudes towards IGAs influenced by various factors.
Land 12 00281 g004
Table
Table 1. Data collection methods.
Table 1. Data collection methods.
TimeMethodNumber of Participants
Village HeadsFarmers
2013.03Semi-structured interviews847
2013.11Focus group 17
2013.12Focus group 26
2014.04Focus group 326
2015.03Semi-structured interviews431
2015.03Focus group 46
Table
Table 2. An overview of the current situation of IGA adoption.
Table 2. An overview of the current situation of IGA adoption.
VillagesNr. of IntervieweesNumber of IGA Practitioners
INOCCLMPTJLRO
Na Ban11600109
Zhong Zhi Chang855140
Cha Chang943012
Pan Bing1351254
Ban Qian Di624100
Ke Mu1155440
Man Dian1045336
SUM683123112721
Table
Table 3. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (in general).
Table 3. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (in general).
CategorySub-CategoryDeterminantDescription
Livelihood assetsNaturalAge of rubber plantationThe not-yet-tapped young rubber trees (less than 6–8 years) and tapped matured rubber trees
Mutual suitability with rubberThe synergy or reciprocity between rubber and intercropping species
Land availabilityAvailable land can be used to conduct certain IGAs
Maturation periodThe time IN/OCC species will take to be harvested for marketing
FinancialPrice/rental/wageThe economic return farmers acquire from IGAs
Financial investmentThe money invested in IGAs to pursue specific livelihood objectives
SocialPeer exampleThe IGAs practice of surrounding farmers
Collective actionPeople act together to practice certain IGAs
Decision powerLand ownership and the right to decide non-farm and off-farm activities
InformationRelated information on IGAs required by the potential adopters before acting
PhysicalInfrastructureTransportation conditions and the irrigation system
HumanLabor availabilityLabor quantity and quality to meet the requirement of implementing certain IGAs
Knowledge and technologySpecific knowledge and technology required by certain IGAs
Vulnerability contextShockPrice changeGlobal rubber price decrease
Environmental degradationSoil erosion, soil fertility loss, landslide
SeasonalitySeasonality of rubber cultivationSeasonal rubber cultivation restraining farmers’ time to perform IGAs
Instability of PTJ opportunitiesThe endogenous characteristic of PTJ in the busy season and off-season of rubber cultivation
Transforming structure and processesStructureExtension serviceAgricultural extension services provided by government and research institutes
ProcessEnvironmental-friendly rubber plantationThe transition towards a more environmental-friendly way of rubber cultivation led by local government
Table
Table 4. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (for specific IGAs).
Table 4. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (for specific IGAs).
DeterminantINOCCLMPTJLRO
Livelihood assets
Age of rubber plantation√√
Mutual suitability with rubber√ √
Land availability √ √
Maturation period√√
Price/rental/wage√√√√√
Financial investment√√ √
Peer example√√
Collective action √ √
Decision power √
Information√√√
Infrastructure √
Labor availability √√ √
Knowledge and technology√ √√
Vulnerability context
Price change √√√√
Environmental degradation√ √
Seasonality of rubber cultivation √ √
Instability of PTJ opportunities √
Transforming Structures and Processes
Extension service√√√ √
Environmental-friendly rubber plantation√
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Jiang, H.; He, Y. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Land 2023, 12, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281

AMA Style

Wang J, Jiang H, He Y. Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Land. 2023; 12(2):281. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jue, Haiwei Jiang, and Yuan He. 2023. "Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on Sustainable Livelihood Framework" Land 12, no. 2: 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop