1. Introduction
Earthquakes have caused the most devastating natural disasters in the 20th and 21st centuries [
1,
2], which is an important factor that influences a household’s livelihood. Unlike many other types of natural disasters, no warning system is available for earthquakes. A serious earthquake can not only destroy an entire society’s production and infrastructure systems but also seriously interfere with daily life and reduce opportunities to earn income in earthquake-affected areas. Because a household’s livelihood system is likely to be seriously affected by the earthquake, many households face a greater probability of poverty in the future; it is difficult for these households to even restore their income levels to pre-disaster levels.
China is frequently affected by earthquakes, which affect most regions. Since 1900, an average of four earthquakes of over
Ms 6.0 (surface wave magnitude) have occurred every year in mainland China, and six major earthquakes of
Ms 8.0 and over have occurred in the same period [
3]. For example, an
Ms 8.0 earthquake occurred in 2008 in Wenchuan County, Sichuan—the largest earthquake in China for over 50 years. The earthquake caused more than 80,000 deaths (including missing people) and significantly damaged houses, public buildings, and infrastructure. The losses were estimated at a minimum of 121.53 billion USD (exchange rate in May 2008). Household incomes were seriously affected by the disaster. Due to the relatively weak disaster mitigation measures and limited conditions of social and economic development, the livelihood vulnerability of rural households is relatively higher than urban households. The ability for a rural household to manage the aftermath of a disaster is much weaker, and the frequent occurrence of natural disasters has the potential to cause serious harm to the local agricultural economy, which is also a key cause of rural poverty. In contrast with urban households, rural households are more likely to experience daily hardship as the result of an earthquake. For example, a study of rural household vulnerability in an earthquake-stricken area of Wenchuan showed that although the average income of a relatively small number of households was below the poverty line after receiving a government post-disaster subsidy, a much larger number of households had a higher probability of living in poverty in the future [
4]. Therefore, it is very important for rural households to enhance their ability to protect against the earthquakes themselves and minimize the losses from earthquakes by reducing livelihood vulnerability in earthquake-stricken areas.
The ability to measure vulnerability is increasingly being seen as a key step towards effective risk reduction and the promotion of a disaster-resilient culture. In the light of the increasing frequency of disasters and continuing environmental degradation, measuring vulnerability is a crucial task if science is to help support the transition to a more sustainable world [
5]. The declaration of the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, indicates that the starting point for reducing disaster risks and promoting a culture of disaster resilience lies in the knowledge of the hazards; the physical, social, economic, and environmental vulnerabilities to disasters that most societies face; and the ways in which hazards and vulnerabilities are changing in the short and long term, followed by action taken on the basis of that knowledge [
6].
The “sustainable livelihood framework” has been seen as a framework or vade-mecum for vulnerability assessment. A livelihood involves all aspects of human production and life, which is the combination of resources used by people and livelihood activities, and comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living [
7,
8,
9]. The assets lie at the core of the livelihood framework “within” the vulnerability context. The livelihood framework identifies five core asset categories or types of capital upon which livelihoods are built: human capital, physical capital, natural capital, financial capital, and social capital [
10]. Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, the ability to work, and good health, which together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives. At a household level, human capital is considered the amount and quality of labor available; this varies according to household size, skill level, leadership potential, health status,
etc. Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods. Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resources flow and services (e.g., nutrient cycling, erosion protection) necessary to ensure livelihoods are derived. Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives. Financial capital is probably the most versatile of the five categories of assets; it can be converted into other types of capital and can be used for the direct achievement of livelihood outcomes. Social capital refers to the social resources from which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives, such as networks and connectedness, membership of more formalized groups, relationships of trust, reciprocity, and exchanges,
etc. It is important to note that a single physical asset can generate multiple benefits. If one has secure access to land (natural capital), they may also be well-endowed with financial capital as they are able to use the land not only for direct production activities but also as collateral for loans. Similarly, livestock may generate social capital (prestige and connectedness to the community) for owners while also being used as productive physical capital. Therefore, the key elements of this approach are the five livelihood assets or capital; the “vulnerability context”, which is viewed as shocks, trends, and seasonality; and the influence of transforming structures for improved livelihood strategies and their outcomes. The approach underlines the necessity of empowering local marginalized groups to reduce vulnerability effectively (for more details, see [
7,
11]). A central objective of the approach was to provide a method that views people and communities on the basis of their daily needs instead of implementing ready-made, general interventions and solutions without acknowledging the various capabilities that poor people offer [
12]. The approach views vulnerability as a broad concept, encompassing livelihood assets and their access and vulnerable context elements such as shocks, seasonality, and trends as well as institutional structures and processes.
The sustainable livelihood approach has proven useful for assessing the ability of households to withstand shocks such as natural disasters, epidemics, or civil conflict. Vulnerability assessments based on the sustainable livelihood framework are widely accepted in case studies for its attention to vulnerable groups. On the basis of the sustainable livelihood framework, vulnerability assessments of rural households had been performed in South Asia, Africa, and Central America. For example, based on the sustainable livelihood framework, Twigg [
13] explored the impact of disasters on livelihoods in South Asia and assessed the livelihood needs and opportunities that result from a disaster. Whitehead [
14] analyzed livelihood changes from theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives from the northern to eastern regions of Ghana. Sharp [
15,
16] qualitatively assessed the destitution in rural Ethiopia by constructing a destitution index based on the livelihood framework. Elasha
et al. [
17] assessed community resilience to climate change using the sustainable livelihood approach in Sudan. Siegel [
18] used an asset-based approach to identify drivers of sustainable rural growth and poverty reduction in Central America and noted that the asset-based approach is an appropriate conceptual framework for understanding poor rural households in Central America and identifying drivers of poverty-reducing growth. For economic growth to be poverty reducing in a sustainable manner, it is critical to have a better understanding of poor households’ asset situations and the way in which assets interact with the context to influence the selection of livelihood strategies that, in turn, determine well-being. Hahn
et al. [
19] analyzed the livelihood vulnerability of communities to climate variability and change in the Moma and Mabote Districts of Mozambique.
Some work on rural household vulnerability had also been conducted in China. For example, Han [
20] analyzed the relationship between vulnerability and rural poverty, and he believed that vulnerability is not only an important aspect of poverty but is also one of the main reasons for falling back into poverty. Chen [
21] gave an integrated conceptual framework for risk and vulnerability assessment, and analyzed 108 rural households’ risk and vulnerability. Based on questionnaires completed by 352 rural households, Luo
et al. [
22] discussed rural households’ disaster vulnerability and influencing factors through an analysis of livelihood assets in the Jianghan Plain. Gu [
23] analyzed the impact of labor migration on the vulnerability of rural households’ livelihoods in Hechuan, Chongqing. Li
et al. [
24] established the indicator system for assessing livelihood assets and analyzed rural households’ vulnerability by qualitatively assessing the income in four rural areas in China. Yan
et al. [
25] developed a livelihood vulnerability assessment index system on the basis of the sustainable livelihood framework and appraise the livelihood vulnerability values of 11 townships based on data from 879 sample households in the eastern Tibetan Plateau. Additionally, Wang
et al. [
26] analyzed the characteristics of seismic disaster in rural areas and relative disaster reduction countermeasures in China and pointed out that the implementation of property insurance and housing loan is the main policy of reducing the seismic risk in rural area. Ge
et al. [
27] assessed the social vulnerability of households in different districts of the Changsha region by constructing a household vulnerability assessment model. Although there are some studies on rural household vulnerability, little research has thus far been performed on livelihood vulnerability in earthquake-stricken areas. Earthquake disaster has the characteristics of suddenness and huge destruction, which was different from many other types of natural disasters. Therefore, it is necessary to continually increase empirical and theoretical research to strengthen the understanding of livelihood vulnerability in earthquake-stricken areas of China. In view of the above, this study aims to provide an empirical study on livelihood vulnerability of rural households in Ning’er, Yunnan Province, which had been struck by an
Ms 6.4 earthquake in 2007, by developing an assessment index of livelihood vulnerability based on the sustainable livelihood framework. In this paper, we focused on three points: (1) developing an assessment index of livelihood vulnerability for rural households in earthquake-stricken areas of China; (2) analyzing the variables associated with the livelihood vulnerability of rural households; (3) discussing the principal factors influencing local rural households’ livelihood vulnerability and offering suggestions for enhancing rural households’ incomes after earthquakes.
5. Conclusions
We presented the LVI assessment method for evaluating relative livelihood vulnerability of rural households to the impact of an earthquake in Ning’er, Yunnan province. The approach provides a detailed depiction of factors driving household livelihood vulnerability in a particular region.
The livelihood vulnerability level of local rural households to earthquake effects is relatively moderate on the whole. The proportion of households with LVI values of over 1.00 (high livelihood vulnerability) are 11.46% (36 households) of the total. However, the proportion of the households with LVI values lower than −1.50 (low livelihood vulnerability) is only 4.46% (14 households) of the total. It is still important for local rural households to reduce earthquake risks and improve the capacity to manage earthquake impact in the area studied.
The shortage of income is the direct reason for high livelihood vulnerability for rural households in the area studied. Income is the basic tool to manage earthquake effects. High livelihood vulnerability of rural households mainly results from the lack of single or multiple income. Therefore, improving the income allocation and transformation level and expanding livelihood methods is an effective way for rural households to decrease livelihood vulnerability in an area with frequent occurrences of strong earthquakes.
The limitations of our approach include the subjectivity involved in selecting sub-components, the directionality of the relationship between the sub-components and vulnerability, the masking of extreme values by utilizing the means to calculate the indices, and the timeliness of livelihood vulnerability data. Future work may include a refinement of the sub-components and indicators to more accurately evaluate livelihood vulnerability. Additionally, livelihood vulnerability changes, especially livelihood capital changes between pre- and post-earthquake periods may be studied based on updated data of local rural households in the future. Overall, it is hoped that the LVI assessment approach will provide a tool to evaluate livelihood vulnerability to earthquake impact at the community level and develop programs to strengthen the most vulnerable households.