Analysis on Coupling Coordination Degree Between Livelihood Strategy for Peasant Households and Land Use Behavior in Ecological Conservation Areas—A Case Study of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Ecological Greenheart Area

Abstract

The interaction between rural household livelihood strategies and land use behavior constitutes the core of the human–land relationship in a region, especially in protected area villages with high ecological sensitivity that require the integration of social–economic and ecological benefits. This study, grounded in the concept of sustainable livelihoods, utilizes survey data from 399 households in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Protection Zone. By employing the entropy method to calculate indicator weights, a coupling coordination degree model is constructed to analyze the coupling degree, coordination degree, and spatial differentiation patterns between household livelihood strategies and land use behavior. The findings reveal that (1) there is a coupling relationship between household livelihood strategies and land use behavior in the protected area, characterized by moderate coupling coordination. (2) Agricultural sideline households exhibit the highest degree of coupling coordination. The sideline activities of these households not only enhance income but also exert positive impacts on the ecological environment while they are engaged in agricultural production. (3) There is a significant spatial differentiation in the coupling coordination degree of different types of households in the protected area: it increases with the distance from the urban center, with higher values in the central areas than in the peripheral regions. The results of this study provide a basis for understanding micro-level land use changes and guiding household land use behavior, as well as offering theoretical and practical references for improving sustainable livelihoods of households in the study area, promoting rural revitalization, and implementing ecological protection policies.

1. Introduction

The term “livelihood” was first proposed by Robert Chambers and refers to the ways in which people make a living. It is constructed based on capabilities; assets (including savings, resources, claims, and means); and activities [1]. In rural areas, livelihoods are primarily characterized by rural households influencing land space through land use behavior. In turn, land space provides feedback to household behavior via land use benefits [2]. Meanwhile, the level of land space benefit output also influences the selection and adjustment of rural household livelihood strategies [3,4]. In short, rural household livelihood strategies adjust land use behavior through the feedback of land space benefits, forming a dynamic interactive process. This process not only reflects the adaptability and flexibility of rural households under resource constraints but also reveals the intrinsic link between land use and livelihood sustainability.

Since the 1980s, driven by China’s rapid urbanization and the implementation of land transfer policies, rural households have gradually shifted away from traditional agricultural production as their sole livelihood strategy. They have increasingly diversified into non-agricultural activities, sideline occupations, agricultural specialization, and other directions [5,6]. As the dominant agents in arable land management, rural households’ livelihood strategies influence land use behavior patterns and rural socioeconomic development. Moreover, these strategies profoundly affect the utilization of natural resources and the protection of the ecological environment. In the context of ecological civilization construction and high-quality development of urban and rural areas, the establishment of ecological conservation areas is important for protecting the natural environment, ecological resources, and biodiversity, as well as maintaining the balance of natural ecosystems. Particularly, establishing natural ecological conservation areas in urban agglomerations is not only a far-sighted measure for future urban planning but also an important strategy for achieving the country’s dual-carbon goals. However, the establishment of ecological conservation areas will restrict farmers’ utilization of resources to a certain extent. Farmers lose their management and usage rights over these resources, development opportunities are reduced, and the economic development of local communities is impacted to varying degrees. The growing prominence of the contradiction between ecological conservation and farmers’ livelihood development will significantly impact farmers’ livelihood capital, traditional production methods, and land use behaviors. It may also undermine the effectiveness of ecological conservation efforts and the realization of sustainable development goals. Therefore, exploring the coupling and coordination between the livelihood strategies of farmers in ecological conservation areas and their land use behaviors is crucial for achieving sustainable development of farmers and rational utilization of land resources.

Regarding the relationship between farmers’ livelihood strategies and land use behaviors, extensive research has been conducted by scholars both domestically and internationally. Early studies predominantly treated these two as independent variables, considering one as the driving factor of the other, thereby forming two main research emphases. On the one hand, scholars have focused on analyzing how the transformation of farmers’ livelihood strategies affects land use behaviors, such as the phenomena of livelihood strategy transformation [7,8,9], part-time employment [10,11], livelihood diversification [12,13,14,15,16], and non-agricultural livelihoods [17,18], and further explore their impacts on land use types [19], utilization patterns [20] and efficiency [21], and beyond. On the other hand, the study focuses on the feedback mechanisms of land use changes on rural household livelihood strategies, such as the potential impacts of policies or measures like land transfer [22,23,24], land reform [25,26], cropland reversion to forests or wetlands [27], types of crops cultivated [28,29,30], and land ownership [31,32], on the choices of household livelihood strategies.

Subsequently, scholars both domestically and internationally have gradually realized that farmers’ livelihood strategies and land use behaviors are not independent but rather exist in complex coupling and symbiotic relationships [33,34]. Therefore, research has begun to employ different theories, methodological models, and analytical frameworks in specific regions to systematically investigate the interrelationships between the two. In this process, two main viewpoints have gradually emerged among scholars both domestically and internationally. The first viewpoint suggests that farmers, influenced by internal and external conditions such as arable land quality [35], land transfer [36], and land reclamation [37], adopt different livelihood strategies to enhance their sustainable livelihood levels. The second viewpoint emphasizes that changes in livelihood elements such as farmers’ perception of livelihood risks [38], livelihood capital structure [39], and opportunities for livelihood diversification [40] have accelerated the rapid shift from traditional agriculture to part-time and non-agricultural activities, leading to significant changes in land use. These studies have provided an important theoretical foundation for understanding the complex relationship between farmers’ livelihood strategies and land use behaviors. However, further exploration is needed on the coupling and symbiotic mechanisms between them, especially systematic research in special areas such as ecological conservation areas and analysis of the feedback mechanisms of integrated land use changes on livelihood strategies. In particular, systematic research on special areas such as ecological protection zones, as well as analysis of the feedback mechanisms of comprehensive land use changes on livelihood strategies, is relatively limited. This paper provides a detailed exploration of these aspects.

The Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area, also referred to as the “Lungs of Chang-Zhu-Tan”, is the only large-scale urban agglomeration green heart in China. Situated at the junction of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan in Hunan Province, it has a triangular shape and covers an area more than three times that of the Randstad urban agglomeration green heart in the Netherlands (about 150 square kilometers). Since the formal promulgation and implementation of the “Regulations on the Protection of the Ecological Green Heart Area of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Urban Agglomeration in Hunan Province” and the “Master Plan for the Ecological Green Heart Area of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Urban Agglomeration (2010–2030) 2018 Amendment”, the ecological green heart area has been placed under legal protection through legislation, thereby forming an urban agglomeration-level ecological conservation area. The area has been divided into prohibited development zones, restricted development zones, and controlled construction zones, where only ecological construction, landscape protection, land reclamation, and necessary public welfare facility construction are allowed. Additionally, comprehensive real-time monitoring is carried out in the green heart area to ensure strict protection of the ecological environment. Under this context, the livelihood structure of farmers within the ecological green heart area has undergone significant changes, leading to a variety of livelihood strategy patterns, which, in turn, have led to corresponding changes in land use behaviors. Therefore, exploring the relationship between the livelihood strategies and land use behaviors of different types of farmers in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Ecological Green Heart area and the level of coordinated development, as well as clarifying the feedback mechanisms of farmers’ land use behaviors on their livelihood strategy choices, is of great practical significance. This not only helps optimize farmers’ livelihood strategies but also promotes the rational use of land resources, providing a scientific basis for the sustainable development of the ecological conservation area.

2. Overview of the Study Area and Data Sources

2.1. Study Area Overview

The Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area (E 112°53′~113°18′, N 27°43′~28°7′), located at the junction of Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan, is tasked with the mission of being constructed as an ecological barrier for the Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration and a high-quality, internationally influential urban agglomeration green heart. The area extends to the east to Liuyang Bajia Town, to the south to Xiangtan County Meilin Bridge Town, to the west to the Changtan West Expressway, and to the north to the Changsha Ring Expressway and the Liuyang River. It encompasses 7 sub-districts (Muyun, Tongtangwan, Qingshuitang, Jinglong, Xuelin, Hetang, and Shuangma) and 6 towns (Tiaoma, Bajia, Zhentou, Yuntian, Xianyu, and Zhaoshan) across the three cities of Chang-Zhu-Tan, covering a total area of 530.25 square kilometers (Figure 1).

The conservation area features highly undulating terrain, dominated by hills and including various types of land use such as mountains, water bodies, forests, farmlands, lakes, and grasslands (Figure 2).

The population distribution is denser in the north and sparser in the south, with higher concentrations around the periphery and lower in the center. Under the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Plan, the area has been divided into three spatial management zones: prohibited development zones, restricted development zones, and controlled construction zones, with respective proportions of 50.28%, 45.76%, and 3.96% (Figure 3).

According to the data from the seventh population census of Hunan Province, at the end of 2020, the population in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Central Park area was 333,500 people. The population in Changsha, Zhuzhou, and Xiangtan were 272,300, 37,300, and 23,900 people, respectively. The urban–rural population ratio was 1:1.15. The population distribution in the Green Heart Central Park is characterized by higher concentrations in the north than in the south and more around the periphery than in the central area. The population is mainly concentrated in Muyun Subdistrict of Tianxin District in Changsha, Tiaoma Town of Yuhua District, Zhen Tou Town of Liuyang City, Qingshuitang Subdistrict and Tongtangwan Subdistrict of Zhuzhou, and Zhaoshan Town of Xiangtan.

The Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart area has historically been an agricultural region, with farmers primarily engaged in traditional agricultural activities such as rice cultivation and fishery. Historically, the lifestyle of the local farmers has been relatively stable, dominated by a self-sufficient smallholder economy.

Since the mid-20th century, with the acceleration of industrialization and urbanization in the Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration, the farmers in the green heart area have gradually been impacted by these processes. Some farmers began to participate in industrial production or work in cities. After the formal introduction of the green heart concept and the implementation of regulatory protection measures, the farmers in the green heart area have faced new opportunities and challenges.

With the construction of the ecological green heart, local farmers have gradually transitioned from traditional smallholder production to modern agriculture. For example, Panlong Grand View Garden in Xiangtan has centralized farmers’ land through land transfer for modern agricultural development. Farmers have participated in cooperatives and engaged in modern agricultural activities such as flower cultivation and fruit and vegetable production. In addition to agriculture, farmers in the green heart area have also actively participated in local tourism and service industries. For example, in the green heart area of Zhuzhou, farmers have developed rural tourism projects such as farmhouses and pick-your-own gardens, achieving employment and entrepreneurship opportunities close to home.

2.2. Data Sources

The socioeconomic data used in this study primarily originate from the statistical yearbooks of various cities and districts in 2023, as well as the statistical bulletins on national economic and social development. The land use data are sourced from the “Master Plan for the Ecological Green Heart Area of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Urban Agglomeration (2010–2030) 2018 Amendment”. The economic data of farmers were obtained through the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) method, involving observation, questionnaire surveys, and semi-structured interviews during field visits. In July 2024, this study conducted a household survey in 72 administrative villages, including Shiyanhu Village, Xintian Village, Wuxing Village, etc., under the jurisdiction of Tiaoma Town, Yuntian Town, Zhaoshan Town, etc., using a combination of stratified sampling and simple random sampling methods. The sampling was stratified according to the geographical distribution of resident groups within the villages, and then, households were randomly selected within each resident group. A total of 412 households were randomly surveyed, and 399 valid questionnaires were collected, with an effective response rate of 96%. Additionally, consultations were conducted with local village governments and heads of enterprises and institutions to ensure the reliability of the data. Additionally, consultations were conducted with local village governments and enterprise leaders to ensure the reliability of the data.

The questionnaire primarily covers basic information on farmers’ households, the ownership status of their livelihood capital, existing land assets and their utilization, future livelihood intentions, and so forth.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Classification of Farmer Livelihood Types

Livelihood types represent the specific external manifestations of farmers’ livelihood strategy choices. In current research practice, the classification of farmers’ livelihood types is predominantly based on the sources and structure of their income [41]. This study synthesizes existing research on farmer type classification from both domestic and international sources, referencing the classification standard based on the proportion of agricultural income in farmers’ households by the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2012. Using data on income sources collected from surveyed households through the questionnaire survey, and considering the structure of household income sources, farmers are categorized into four types: pure agricultural cultivation, agricultural sideline, non-agricultural sideline, and pure non-agricultural (

Table 1. Classification criteria of farmers’ livelihood strategies.

Types of Rural Household Livelihood Strategies	Livelihood Methods	Main Sources of Income and Their Proportions	Sample Size (Households)
Pure agricultural cultivation 1	Agricultural cultivation	Agricultural cultivation income ≥ 90%	68
Agricultural sideline	Agricultural cultivation (main) + Non-agricultural	50% ≤ Agricultural cultivation income ≤ 90%	65
Non-agricultural sideline	Non-agricultural (main) + Agricultural cultivation	10% ≤ Agricultural cultivation income ≤ 50%	142
Pure non-agricultural	Non-agricultural	Agricultural cultivation income ≤ 10%	124

¹ Since the pure non-agricultural strategy does not involve agricultural production activities, it is excluded from the analysis of the coupling relationship between farmers’ livelihood strategies and land use in this study. The analysis focuses solely on the relationship between land use and the first three livelihood types.

).

3.2. The Development of the Evaluation Index System

Starting from the principles of systematicness and scientificity in the establishment of the index system, this study draws on the Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis Framework proposed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) [42]. The framework posits that the sustainability of livelihoods is manifested as a closed loop formed by three elements: livelihood capital, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes. Livelihood strategies are the external manifestation of the effective utilization of livelihood capital, while livelihood capital also provides substantial guidance for livelihood strategies. Land use behavior is the behavioral outcome of the interplay between these two systems. Livelihood capital refers to the capabilities and resources that people must possess in order to make a living and is the foundation for implementing livelihood strategies. Under certain external conditions, the stock of livelihood capital (including human capital, physical capital, social capital, financial capital, and natural capital) influences the choice of livelihood strategies and ultimately affects the outcomes of livelihoods [43]. Therefore, this study integrates the results of field surveys and identifies the two subsystems of livelihood strategies and land use behavior as the target level of the evaluation index system. It reflects the livelihood strategies of rural households through five dimensions of livelihood capital: natural capital, human capital, physical capital, social capital, and financial capital. It characterizes the land use behaviors of rural households from three aspects: land ownership, land input intensity, and land output. Based on the actual situation of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area and the availability of data, a total of 20 evaluation indicators have been selected (

Table 2. Farmer’s livelihood strategy–comprehensive evaluation index system of land use behavior system.

Subsystems	Primary Indicators	Secondary Indicators	Explanation	Direction of Influence 1	Weight
Livelihood strategies	Natural capital	Average arable land area per household X1	Total arable land area owned by households/hectare	+	0.093
		Actual arable land area per household X2	Actual cultivated area owned by households/hectare	+	0.096
	Human capital	Household head’s age X3	1 = Aged 65 and above; 2 = 56–65 years old; 3 = 36–55 years old; 4 = 20–35 years old	+	0.052
		Household head’s education level X4	1 = Primary school and below; 2 = Junior high school; 3 = Senior high school or vocational school; 4 = Junior college and above	+	0.075
		Family population size X5	Total family population	+	0.081
	Physical capital	Area of auxiliary production housing owned X6	1 = 10 m2 and below; 2 = 11–50 m2; 3 = 51–120 m2; 4 = 120–500 m2	+	0.087
		Labor force proportion X7	Number of family labor force/Total family population	+	0.143
		Number of housing units X8	1 = 1 room and below; 2 = 2 rooms; 3 = 3 rooms; 4 = More than 3 rooms	+	0.068
	Social capital	Presence of village officials in the household X9	1 = Yes; 0 = No	+	0.052
		Expenditure on social obligations X10	Total annual expenditure on social obligations per family/ten thousand yuan	+	0.049
	Financial capital	Agricultural income X11	Annual agricultural income per rural household/ten thousand yuan	+	0.129
		Subsidy opportunities X12	1 = Yes; 0 = No	+	0.077
Land use behavior	Land holding situation	Per capita arable land area X13	Total arable land area/Total family population	+	0.188
		Actual cultivated area X14	Actual cultivated arable land area/hectare	+	0.192
		Forest land holding area X15	Total forest land area owned by households/hectare	+	0.092
	Land input situation	Fertilizer input X16	Fertilizer input/Total arable land area	+	0.106
		Pesticide input X17	Pesticide input/Total arable land area	+	0.094
		Degree of mechanization use X18	Mechanized farming area/Total arable land area	+	0.113
	Land output situation	Average grain yield per unit area X19	Total grain output/Total arable land area	+	0.095
		Average grain output value per unit area X20	Total grain output value/Total arable land area	+	0.120

¹ In the entropy method, the “direction of influence” of the indicator is distinguished by the symbols “+” and “−”. The “+” in the table indicates a positive indicator, i.e., the greater the value of the indicator, the greater the contribution to the comprehensive evaluation results.

).

3.3. Data Standardization and Weight Determination of Indicators

3.3.1. Data Standardization

The two subsystems of livelihood strategies and land use behavior encompass multiple evaluation indicators that vary in dimensions and units, rendering them incomparable. To facilitate calculations, it is necessary to eliminate differences in dimensions, orders of magnitude, and numerical variations among the indicators to obtain values with the same polarity. Therefore, this study first homogenizes the trends of all indicators and subsequently applies the range standardization method to standardize the data.

For indicators that are positively correlated with system development, the calculation is conducted as positive indicators:

$${X\prime }_{ij}=(X_{ij}-m_{i min})/(M_{i max}-m_{i min})$$

(1)

For indicators that are negatively correlated with system development, the calculation is conducted as negative indicators:

$${X\prime }_{ij}=(M_{i max}-X_{ij})/(M_{i max}-m_{i min})$$

(2)

In the formula, X_ij represents the original data of the i-th indicator for the j-th quantified object, X′_ij represents the normalized value of the i-th indicator for the j-th quantified object after standardization, X_ij is the original value of the indicator, and M_i-max and m_i-min are the maximum and minimum values of the i-th indicator, respectively.

Some data have a value of zero after standardization. To avoid the issue of meaningless entropy weight calculation, a value of 0.0001 is added to the zero values, performing a data translation process. The translated values of the indicators are as follows:

$${X\prime \prime }_{ij}={X\prime }_{ij}+0.0001$$

(3)

3.3.2. Determination of Indicator Weights

This study employs the entropy weight method to determine the indicator weights. Entropy, a concept originally from thermodynamics, measures the degree of disorder in a system. A smaller entropy value indicates a greater amount of obtainable information and thus a higher weight for the indicator. Conversely, a larger entropy value corresponds to a lower weight. Using the entropy method effectively reduces the subjectivity of the evaluators. The main components of the calculation include entropy values, difference coefficients, indicator weights, and the comprehensive level. The calculation process is as follows:

(1)

Based on the results of data standardization, calculate the proportion P_ij of the i-th sample under the j-th indicator using the following expression, where U_ij is the standardized value of the j-th indicator for the i-th sample:

$$P_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{U_{ij}}{\sum _{i=1}^n{U}_{ij}}}$$

(4)

(2)

Calculate the entropy value of the evaluation indicators:

$$e_j=-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\ln n}}·\sum _{i=1}^n{P}_{ij}·\ln P_{ij}$$

(5)

(3)

Calculate the difference coefficient of the indicators:

$$f_j=1-e_j, 0\le f_j\le 1$$

(6)

(4)

Determine the weights of the evaluation indicators:

$$W_j={\displaystyle \frac{f_j}{{\sum }_{j=1}^m{f}_j}}$$

(7)

3.4. Coupling Coordination Model

3.4.1. Calculate the Coupling Degree Between Rural Household Livelihood Strategies and Land Use Behaviors

The coupling coordination model reflects the strength of interaction and the degree of mutual influence between two subsystems. Rural livelihoods and land use are interrelated and interact with each other in a coupled relationship. Firstly, livelihood strategies are the result of the comprehensive effects of land use. The mode of land use influences the selection and development of rural household livelihood strategies. Secondly, the choice of livelihood strategies by rural households also exerts a guiding influence on land use patterns. Therefore, in accordance with the actual conditions of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area, this study constructs a coupling degree model between the two subsystems of rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors, which is specifically expressed as follows:

$$C=2\times {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{f\left(x\right)·g\left(y\right)}}{\left[f\left(x\right)+g\left(y\right)\right]}}$$

(8)

$$\mathrm{Among} \mathrm{them}: f\left(x\right)={\sum }_{j=1}^k{W\left(x\right)}_j·U(x); g\left(y\right)={\sum }_{j=1}^t{W\left(x\right)}_j·U(y)$$

In the calculation formula, C represents the coupling degree, with C ∈ (0, 1). It reflects the level of coordinated development between the livelihood strategies and land use behaviors of rural households in the Chang-Zhu-Tan urban agglomeration’s ecological green heart area. When C = 0, it indicates that there is no coupling relationship between livelihood strategies and land use. The closer C is to 1, the higher the coupling degree and the stronger the interactive influence between the systems. f(x) represents the comprehensive evaluation value of the rural household livelihood strategy system, and g(x) represents the comprehensive evaluation value of the land use behavior system. U(x) and U(y) denote the standardized values of the evaluation indicators for each subsystem, W(x)_j and W(y)_j are the weights of the respective indicators, and k and t represent the number of evaluation indicators for the two subsystems. Based on the existing research, the coupling degree is divided into the following four levels from low to high (

Table 3. Classification of the coupling degree levels for the rural household livelihood strategies–land use behavior system.

Coupling Degree	Coupling State
0.0 < C ≤ 0.3	Low-level coupling state
0.3 < C ≤ 0.5	Antagonistic state
0.5 < C ≤ 0.8	Break-in state
0.8 < C ≤ 1.0	High-level coupling state

).

3.4.2. Calculate the Coupling Coordination Degree Between the Rural Household Livelihood Strategy System and the Land Use System

The coupling degree can reflect the strength of the interaction between the rural household livelihood strategy system and the land use behavior system, but it cannot indicate the level of coordination of their interaction. To further describe the coordination relationship between the two systems, measure the degree of positive coupling between them, and evaluate the quality of their coordinated state, this study introduces the coupling coordination model:

$$D=\sqrt{C·T}$$

(9)

$$\mathrm{Among} \mathrm{them}: T=\alpha ·f\left(x\right)+\beta ·g\left(y\right)$$

In the formula, D represents the coupling coordination degree, with D∈(0, 1). T represents the comprehensive development level evaluation index of the livelihood strategy–land use behavior system. In the human–land relationship system, both “human” and “land” are equally important for the sustainable development of the system. Therefore, in the coupling coordination model, α and β are both set to 0.5.

To assess the degree of coordination between the rural household livelihood strategy subsystem and the land use behavior subsystem, this study categorizes the coupling coordination degree of livelihood strategies and land use behaviors into three macro types: disordered decline, transitional, and coordinated development, as well as 10 detailed coordination levels (

Table 4. Classification criteria for the coupling coordination degree of rural household livelihood strategies and land use behavior patterns.

Macro Types	Coupling Coordination Degree	Types of Coordinated Development
Disordered decline class	[0.00, 0.10)	Extremely disordered decline class
	[0.10, 0.20)	Severely disordered decline class
	[0.20, 0.30)	Moderately disordered decline class
	[0.30, 0.40)	Mildly disordered decline class
Transition class	[0.40, 0.50)	On the verge of disordered decline class
	[0.50, 0.60)	Barely coordinated development class
	[0.60, 0.70)	Primary coordinated development class
Coordinated development class	[0.70, 0.80)	Intermediate coordinated development class
	[0.80, 0.90)	Good coordinated development class
	[0.90, 1.00]	High-quality coordinated development class

).

4. Results Analysis

4.1. Analysis of the Coupling Relationship Between Rural Household Livelihood Strategies and Land Use Behavior Systems

As shown in

Table 5. Evaluation results of the coupling degree and coupling coordination degree of farmers’ livelihood strategies and land use behavior.

Type of Rural Household Livelihood	$\mathbf{Livelihood} \mathbf{Strategy} \mathbf{Evaluation} \mathbf{Index} \mathbf{f}\left(\mathbf{x}\right)$	$\mathbf{Land} \mathbf{Use} \mathbf{Behavior} \mathbf{Evaluation} \mathbf{Index} \mathbf{g}\left(\mathbf{x}\right)$	Coupling Degree C	Comprehensive Evaluation Index T	Coupling Coordination Degree D
Pure agricultural cultivation type	0.303	0.318	0.998	0.310	0.557
Agricultural sideline type	0.433	0.533	0.995	0.483	0.693
Non-agricultural sideline type	0.383	0.162	0.914	0.273	0.499

, the coupling degree C between different rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors is ranked in the following order: pure agricultural cultivation type, agricultural sideline type, and non-agricultural sideline type. Although the numerical differences are not substantial, these results still effectively reflect the actual situation in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area.

(1)

The coupling degree value for pure agricultural cultivation households is 0.998. This indicates that their livelihood focus is highly concentrated on agricultural production, with over 95% of their income derived from agricultural planting. These households have extensive planting experience, and almost all, or the vast majority of, their livelihood capital is invested in land use. For example, in Bajia Town, Liuyang, some households engage in mechanized planting by contracting large areas of land, devoting their main efforts and resources to agricultural production. Thus, a strong correlation exists between their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors.

(2)

Agricultural sideline households engage in both agricultural production and non-agricultural activities. Their income structure is predominantly agricultural, with agricultural income accounting for over 60%. These households typically use traditional planting methods, have low levels of specialization, small production scales, and fragmented land use. Their production activities display a pronounced “tidal” pattern, focusing on agricultural cultivation during busy seasons such as spring plowing and autumn harvest and shifting to non-agricultural activities during other times. For example, in Yuntian Town, Zhuzhou City, households mainly engage in the cultivation of flowers and seedlings during the off-season. In Bajia Town, Liuyang City, households are involved in the breeding of agricultural products. In Tiaoma Town, Yuhua District, households develop the tourism industry in reliance on Shiyan Lake Park. This production model leads to a lower correlation between their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors compared to pure agricultural cultivation households.

(3)

Non-agricultural sideline households primarily engage in non-agricultural production, with agricultural production as a secondary activity. The allocation of their livelihood capital is mainly focused on non-agricultural activities. Survey data indicate that this type of household is the youngest among the three types and has the highest level of education. Their sources of income are diverse. Since some of these households reside in the suburban areas of urban districts, their cultivated land is often located at a considerable distance from their residences, leading to inconvenient land use, high rates of idle arable land, and even vacant rural housing. For example, surveys in Tiaoma Town, Yuhua District, and Yuntian Town, Zhuzhou City, show that approximately 18 village collectives within the ecological protection area of the Green Heart have vacant homesteads. Therefore, these households significantly reduce their time, labor, and agricultural material inputs in land use, resulting in the lowest correlation between their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors and the weakest degree of interaction compared to pure agricultural cultivation households.

Overall, the coupling degree values between the livelihood strategy systems and land use behaviors of the three different types of rural households range from 0.9 to 1, indicating a high level of overall coupling. This suggests that the coupling relationship is in the high-level coupling stage. It shows that there is a strong correlation between the livelihood strategies and land use behaviors of these three types of households. Among them, the correlation between the livelihood strategies and land use behaviors of pure agricultural cultivation households is the strongest. The interaction between the two is expected to reach a peak rapidly in the future and enter a new stage of positive coupling development.

4.2. Analysis of the Coupling Coordination Relationship—Rural Household Livelihood Strategies and Land Use Behavior Systems

As shown in Table 5, the differences in coupling coordination degree between livelihood strategies and land use behaviors among different types of rural households in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area are relatively significant.

(1)

The coupling coordination degree of pure agricultural cultivation households is 0.557, indicating a barely coordinated development stage. Despite having relatively large planting areas and per capita arable land areas, these households exhibit low land use efficiency. Moreover, the soil in the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Conservation Area is contaminated with heavy metals, and the excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers has caused a decline in soil fertility. This has not only reduced crop yields but also decreased household incomes. The evaluation indices for their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors are relatively low at 0.303 and 0.318, respectively. These figures suggest that, without adjustments and guidance to their livelihood strategies, the coupling relationship of these households may further deteriorate, potentially disrupting the coordinated development of regional ecology and economy.

(2)

Non-agricultural sideline households have the smallest land management scale. Their agricultural production is primarily for self-sufficiency, resulting in low comprehensive land use effects. The improvement of their livelihood conditions mainly depends on non-agricultural activities, such as working or engaging in business. As a result, their livelihood strategy evaluation index is higher than that of pure agricultural cultivation households, reaching 0.437. However, the degree of coordinated development between their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors is the lowest at only 0.499, indicating a stage close to disordered decline. This suggests that, among non-agricultural sideline households, the support of land use behavior for livelihood strategies is relatively weak. As shown in Figure 3, households with low coupling coordination degrees are mainly concentrated in the transitional areas between the ecological protection zone and urban areas, such as Mu Yun Street, Tongsheng Lake Street, Jinglong Street, and Shuangma Street. In these areas, land and households are significantly affected by urban expansion and urban suction phenomena. On the one hand, land transfer phenomena increase, and some households lose their land and gradually become urban residents. On the other hand, the opportunities for diversified livelihoods for households increase and the attractiveness and utilization rate of land for households gradually decrease. Therefore, the coupling coordination relationship between land use structure and livelihood strategies urgently needs to be optimized to enhance the overall coordination and sustainability of the system.

(3)

The livelihood activities of agricultural sideline households are primarily focused on agricultural production. Compared to non-agricultural sideline households, they have significant advantages in natural capital. However, compared to pure agricultural cultivation households, their land input arrangements, particularly in labor capital input and time allocation, are more scientific, resulting in relatively higher land use efficiency. Therefore, the land use behavior evaluation index of this type of household is the highest at 0.533. The improvement of their livelihood capital status mainly depends on agricultural production, with non-agricultural activities serving as supplementary means. Based on this, the coordinated development degree of livelihood strategies and land use behaviors for agricultural sideline households is 0.693, indicating an initial coordinated development stage. This stage suggests that the coupling coordination relationship between their livelihood strategies and land use behaviors has been preliminarily formed but still requires further optimization to enhance the overall coordination and sustainability of the system.

Overall, according to the classification criteria for coupling coordination degree, the coupling coordination degrees of the three types are all in the transitional category. Among them, the coupling coordination degrees of pure agricultural cultivation and non-agricultural sideline types are relatively low, falling into the categories of disordered decline and barely coordinated development. The coupling coordination degree of the agricultural sideline type is the highest, falling into the category of initial coordinated development (Figure 4).

4.3. Regional Differences in the Coupling Coordination Degree of Rural Household Livelihood Strategies and Land Use Behaviors Within the Green Heart Ecological Protection Area

Referring to Figure 4, further reveal the regional differentiation patterns of the coupling coordination degree of rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors within the Green Heart Ecological Protection Area, according to regional locations and protection zones.

(1)

Overall, the coupling coordination degree of rural areas in the central region of the Green Heart Ecological Protection Area is higher than that in the peripheral regions. Specifically, the coupling coordination degree in some rural areas of Tiaoma Town, Yuntian Town, and Zhaoshan Town is generally higher than that in other rural areas. The main reasons for this differentiation are as follows: ① The relatively flat terrain in the central region provides more favorable transportation conditions for agricultural production. This not only reduces the transportation costs of agricultural products but also creates favorable prerequisites for the commercialization of agriculture, making the production and living functions of land more significant. Additionally, since this area is located in the central position and is farther from the surrounding cities, it is less affected by urban expansion and urban suction effects. The stability of agricultural production land is ensured, providing strong support for the sustainable development of agricultural production. ② In the central areas, the population is more concentrated, and the labor force is more abundant. There is a sufficient number of workers engaged in sideline activities, and the educational level of the labor force is significantly higher. These workers are proactive in receiving agricultural technical training and are willing to try and adopt more advanced agricultural production and management methods, resulting in a higher input–output ratio. ③ The livelihood strategies of agricultural sideline households in the central areas are more diverse. For example, in Tiaoma Town, in addition to cultivating crops, households also grow a large number of ornamental plants, such as palm trees, camphor trees, magnolias, and pines. The total area for the cultivation of flowers and seedlings has reached approximately 86,667 acres. Relying on the resource advantages of Shiyan Lake Ecological Park, Tiaoma Town actively participates in tourism services, forming a diversified livelihood pattern.

(2)

As regional protection and control measures are intensified, the coupling coordination degree of rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors within the Green Heart Ecological Protection Area exhibits a progressively increasing trend, specifically Prohibited Development Zones > Restricted Development Zones > Controlled Construction Zones. The primary reasons for the observed differentiation are as follows: ① The strictest project admission management system is implemented in the prohibited development zones, which significantly guides the livelihood strategy choices of rural households and their land use behaviors and patterns. This system not only regulates land development and utilization but also effectively protects the natural environment. The forest land, cultivated land, and garden land within the area, along with the high-quality soil texture, provide unique conditions for efficient agricultural output and the cultivation of flowers and seedlings. These resources also constitute an important livelihood capital for agricultural households. The combined effects of policy and resource endowment lead to a high degree of consistency between the livelihood strategies and land use behaviors of rural households in the area, thereby significantly enhancing the coupling coordination degree. ② In accordance with the “Chang-Zhu-Tan Urban Agglomeration Ecological Green Heart Area Construction Project Admission Management Measures”, restricted development zones permit the moderate development of tourism and leisure facility construction projects. This provides agricultural sideline households with diversified livelihood options. For instance, in Shiyang Lake Village, households leverage the resource advantages of Shiyang Lake Ecological Park to convert idle rural houses into distinctive homestays and develop idle grasslands into tourist landscape areas. They also utilize the surrounding natural landscapes and pastoral scenery to conduct rural homestays, ecological picking, and other leisure agriculture projects. These initiatives not only enhance the comprehensive utilization value of land but also broaden the income sources of rural households, achieving a positive interaction between ecological protection and economic development. The coordination of policy guidance and resource utilization, the transformation of ecological advantages into economic benefits, and the integration and diversification of industries collectively foster the coupling coordination of livelihood strategies and land use behaviors among rural households in the region. ③ Within the controlled construction zone of the Chang-Zhu-Tan Ecological Green Heart Area, the coupling coordination degree is relatively low. Firstly, rural areas in this zone are in close proximity to cities, and frequent land expropriation and transfer disrupt the stability of land use patterns, thereby significantly impacting the livelihood strategies of rural households. Secondly, with the acceleration of urbanization, some local rural households have gradually transitioned to urban residents and engaged in non-agricultural work. This transition weakens the coupling relationship between land use behaviors and livelihood strategies, further reducing the coupling coordination degree. Additionally, the early presence of numerous chemical and building material enterprises in the controlled construction zone led to environmental pollution. These enterprises were ordered by policy to exit, resulting in reduced employment opportunities for local rural households and a further decline in the coupling coordination degree.

4.4. The Coupling and Coordination Mechanism Between Rural Household Livelihood Strategies and Land Use Behavior in the Green Heart Ecological Protection Zone

Research indicates (as shown in Figure 5) that, within the Green Heart Ecological Protection Area, the mechanism of coupling coordination between rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors is unique. This mechanism runs through the dynamic adjustment process of rural household livelihood types, livelihood outputs, and the structure of livelihood capital. When rural households comply with ecological protection policies and respond to policy guidance, their livelihood strategy choices are significantly influenced by multiple factors, including locational conditions, resource endowments, and policy conditions. These factors collectively determine the livelihood types and outputs of rural households, especially the output of land space benefits. The level of these outputs affects the allocation and optimization of the livelihood capital structure, including natural capital, human capital, physical capital, social capital, and financial capital. This, in turn, prompts adjustments in the livelihood capital structure of rural households, facilitating transitions from pure agricultural types to sideline types, from sideline types to non-agricultural types, and from non-agricultural types to returnee entrepreneurship types, thus forming diversified livelihood patterns. During these transitions, rural households enhance their livelihood diversity and risk resistance by reasonably allocating various types of capital. This also promotes the diversification of land use behaviors. Through different land use behaviors, such as agricultural production and land reclamation, development, and conservation activities, rural households exert influence on land space. This dynamic adjustment not only strengthens rural households’ adaptability to ecological protection policies but also promotes the improvement of land use efficiency, forming a virtuous cycle between ecological protection and economic development.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

5.1. Conclusions

This study, from the perspective of sustainable livelihoods, takes rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors as two subsystems. Drawing on the capacity coupling coordination degree model from physics and using the Chang-Zhu-Tan Green Heart Ecological Protection Area as a case study, it constructs a coupling coordination degree model between rural household livelihood strategies and land use behaviors. The study explores the interaction relationship, coordinated development level, and coupling coordination mechanism between the two. The main research conclusions are as follows:

(1)

There is a moderately coupled and coordinated relationship between rural household livelihood strategies and land use behavior. ① In terms of the levels of coupling coordination degree, the coupling coordination degrees of pure agricultural planting households and non-agricultural sideline households are 0.557 and 0.499, respectively, and the overall level is in the moderate coupling range. Among them, the coordination degree of agricultural sideline households is the highest. This is because such households carry out diversified operations on the basis of agricultural production (such as the planting of flowers and seedlings, tourism services, etc.), which not only increases economic income but also reduces ecological pressure. Pure agricultural planting households have a high dependence on single agriculture, with low land use efficiency, and are easily affected by ecological degradation (such as soil pollution). Non-agricultural sideline households have the lowest coordination degree due to high land allocation rates and insufficient investment. ② In terms of the coupling mechanism, households choose livelihood strategies (such as pure agriculture and sideline occupations) through the allocation of livelihood capital (natural, human, physical, etc.), and the efficiency of land resource use affects the structure of the livelihood capital in turn, forming a dynamic feedback loop. Agricultural sideline households achieve a higher positive interaction by scientifically allocating resources (such as reasonably distributing time for farming and sideline occupations).

(2)

The regional differentiation characteristics are significant, with policy and location being the key influencing factors. ① Spatial characteristics: The coupling coordination degree exhibits a pattern of “high in the center, low at the edges”. The central areas of the protection zone (such as Tiaoma Town and Zhaoshan Town) have higher coordination degrees due to flat terrain, convenient transportation, abundant labor force, and strict policy constraints. In contrast, the urban suburban areas (such as the controlled construction zones) are subject to the urbanization spillover effect, characterized by frequent land transfer and an increase in non-agricultural employment, which leads to poor land use stability and a decline in coordination degree. ② Policy zoning differences: The strict conservation policies in the prohibited development zones (with the highest coupling coordination degree) encourage households to intensively utilize limited resources (e.g., developing high-efficiency agriculture). The restricted development zones achieve multifunctional land use through tourism development (e.g., ecotourism). The controlled construction zones, due to loose policy enforcement and economic fluctuations, have the lowest coordination degree.

(3)

The policy optimization path points towards the coordinated development of ecology and economy. ① Land structure optimization: Promote intensive land transfer in marginal areas to alleviate the fragmentation of arable land (e.g., by promoting the cooperative model), thereby enhancing the production efficiency of pure agricultural households. In the central areas, integrate ecological advantages to expand the forestry and tourism industries. ② Empowerment of green economy: Encourage green business forms such as forest-under economy (e.g., intercropping of medicinal plants under trees) and ecotourism (e.g., farmhouses and nature education), reduce the overreliance on traditional agriculture, and enhance the comprehensive value of land. ③ Improvement of the ecological compensation mechanism: In response to the restrictions on farmers’ resource use rights imposed by conservation policies (such as grazing bans and limited cultivation), it is necessary to establish reasonable ecological compensation standards to safeguard the basic income of farmers. For example, this can be achieved through financial subsidies or by feeding back into farmers’ livelihoods through carbon sink trading.

5.2. Discussion

This study advances the understanding of the interplay between livelihood strategies and land use behaviors within ecological conservation areas. By constructing a coupling coordination degree model and integrating spatial differentiation analysis, we provide novel insights into human–land system dynamics under constrained resource utilization. Our findings reveal three critical dimensions for scholarly and policy deliberation.

(1)

Livelihood Diversification as a Catalyst for Coupling Coordination

The superior coupling coordination of agro-subsidiary households (D = 0.693) underscores the resilience-enhancing role of livelihood diversification. This aligns with studies on livelihood transitions in fragmented landscapes [26,28], yet extends the existing frameworks by quantifying how hybrid livelihood portfolios (e.g., modern agriculture + eco-tourism) [44] optimize land use efficiency. Specifically, integrating non-agricultural activities buffers ecological pressures caused by monocropping-induced soil degradation while improving financial capital for reinvestment in sustainable practices (e.g., precision fertilization). Conversely, the low coordination of pure-agricultural households (D = 0.557) mirrors global trends where a rigid dependence on degraded land precipitates livelihood–environment trade-offs [30].

(2)

Spatial Heterogeneity Driven by the Policy–Resource Nexus

The observed “core–periphery” gradient in coordination intensifies debates on spatial targeting in conservation policies. Our results suggest that strict zoning regulations in prohibited development zones (D = highest) synergize with topographic advantages to create “pressure-driven innovation” [25]. Contrastingly, peri-urban areas with laxer controls experience coordination erosion due to urban land grabs and labor outmigration, a pattern resembling Latin American ejido systems undergoing neoliberal reforms [26]. Notably, the bidirectional feedback mechanism highlighted in Figure 5 provides empirical validation to conceptual models positing endogenous adaptation in coupled human–environment systems [2].

(3)

Methodological Contributions and Future Reflections

While our model enhances the capacity to diagnose human–land synergies, two limitations warrant attention: ① Temporal Dynamics: The cross-sectional data obscure how policy shocks (e.g., COVID-19) reshape coordination trajectories. Longitudinal tracking akin to Zimbabwean land reforms [26] could unveil path dependencies. ② Scalability: The typology’s reliance on income thresholds may underserve regions with informal economies. Future work should integrate participatory wealth ranking to refine household categorization.

(4)

Policy Implications for Ecological–Economic Balance

For policymakers, our findings advocate ① Gradual Compensation Decentralization: Establish nested payment-for-ecosystem services schemes, prioritizing transition zones (e.g., restricted development areas) where marginal ecological returns to policy inputs are the highest. ② Smart Zoning via Geospatial Analytics: Machine learning tools (e.g., land suitability modeling) could dynamically adjust zoning based on real-time coordination indices, moving beyond static boundaries. ③ Building an ecological model to achieve local buy-in to enhance the positive feedback [45].

In conclusion, the coupling coordination framework demystifies the coevolution of rural livelihoods and land systems under conservation constraints. By transcending unidirectional impact analyses, this research charts integrative pathways for achieving SDG 15 (Life on Land) without compromising rural prosperity.