The Impact of Geographical Location of Households’ Residences on the Livelihoods of Households Surrounding Protected Areas: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Nature Reserves Across Three Provinces in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Framework
3. Data Sources
4. Research Methods
4.1. Construction of Explanatory Variables
4.1.1. Households’ Well-Being
4.1.2. Natural Resource Dependence
4.2. Variable Selection
4.2.1. Core Explanatory Variables
4.2.2. Control Variable
4.3. Construction of the Model
4.3.1. Four-Quadrant System
4.3.2. MNL Model
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
5.1.1. Explanatory Variable
5.1.2. Descriptive Statistics of Control Variables
5.2. Comparison of Livelihood Strategies Under Different Livelihood Outcomes
5.3. Analysis of Variance of Natural Resource Dependence Under Different Livelihood Outcomes
5.4. Analysis of Variance of Households’ Well-Being Under Different Livelihood Outcomes
5.5. Multinomial Logistic Regression Model
5.5.1. Multicollinearity Test
5.5.2. Analysis of Regression Results
5.5.3. Marginal Analysis
- Comparative analysis of livelihood outcomes within and outside protected areas
- 2.
- Impact of distance from residence to marketplace on livelihood outcomes
- 3.
- Analysis on the relations between resource utilization in protected areas and market opportunities
5.6. Robustness Test
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhang, C. How can rural China achieve sustainable development through inclusive innovation? A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 469, 143126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.X.; Gu, T.C.; Xiang, J.W.; Luo, T.; Zeng, J. Assessing the conservation effectiveness of national nature reserves in China. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 161, 103125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.N.; Gu, T.C.; Wang, S.J. Effectiveness of nature reserves in China: Human footprint and ecosystem services perspective. Appl. Geogr. 2024, 171, 103359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langle-Flores, A.; Quijas, S. A systematic review of ecosystem services of Islas Marietas National Park, Mexico, an insular marine protected area. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.S.; Barioni, D.; Danelutti, C.; Barnias, A.; Bračanov, V.; Piscè, G.C.; Chappaz, G.; Đuković, B.; Guarneri, D.; Lang, M.; et al. Ecological Footprint and Tourism: Development and Sustainability Monitoring of Ecotourism Packages in Mediterranean Protected Areas. J. Outdoor Rec. Tour. 2022, 38, 100513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forje, G.W.; Tchamba, M.N. Ecotourism governance and protected areas sustainability in Cameroon: The case of Campo Ma’an National Park. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 4, 100172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlin, L.; Leguizamón, A. Agriculture-driven deforestation in Ecuador’s Mache-Chindul Ecological Reserve: The farm households’ perspective. J Rural. Stud. 2024, 107, 103263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazant-Fabre, O.; Muñoz-Piña, C.; Martínez, M.L. Debora Lithgow, Martha Bonilla-Moheno, Assessing the impact of three biosphere reserves on the conservation of coastal ecosystems. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 366, 121671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Chen, C. Case investigation on the construction mode of rural landscapes in the Qinghai Tibet Plateau, Mengda National Nature Reserve. Heliyon 2024, 10, e37033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nad, C.; Basu-Roy, T. Association between people’s attitudes towards human-elephant conflict and their locational, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics in Buxa Tiger Reserve and its adjoining area, India. Reg. Sustain. 2024, 5, 100109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broch, S.W.; Strange, N.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Wilson, K.A. Farm households’ willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisui, S.; Shit, P.K. Assessing the role of forest resources in improving rural livelihoods in West Bengal of India. Reg. Sustain. 2024, 5, 100141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, A.J.; Wei, Y.; Zhong, F.L.; Wang, P.L. How do climate change perception and value cognition affect farm households’ sustainable livelihood capacity? An analysis based on an improved DFID sustainable livelihood framework. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 2022, 33, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.Q.; Zhao, X.Y. Farm households’ perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Land Use Policy 2023, 132, 106768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hailemicheal, H.G.; Senbeta, F.; Tefera, T.; Seyoum, A. Rural household livelihood strategy, household reliance on forest goods, and its effect on protected area: Evidence from communities living adjacent to Kafta-Sheraro national park, Tigray, northern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 17, 101233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, A.T.; Sims, K.R.E.; Yi, Y.Y. Economic development and conservation impacts of China’s nature reserves. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2023, 121, 102848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, N.; Hu, X.H.; Hussain, J. The dependency of rural livelihood on forest resources in Northern Pakistan’s Chaprote Valley. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 22, e01001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P.P.; Li, X.; Yu, Y. Relationship between ecosystem services and farm households’ well-being in the Yellow River Wetland Nature Reserve of China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliva, M.; Frapolli, E.G. Conservation backfire: Local effects of international protected area policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 153, 103676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birendra, K.C.; Dhungana, A.; Dangi, T.B. Tourism and the sustainable development goals: Stakeholders’ perspectives from Nepal. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 38, 100822. [Google Scholar]
- Suresh, K.; Wilson, C.; Quayle, A.; Managi, S.; Khanal, U. Are farm households willing to accept compensation from tourism revenue for elephant crop damage and coexistence support? Evidence from Sri Lanka. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 224, 108300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, H.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Apan, A.; Aryal, K. Unlocking the tapestry of conservation: Navigating ecological resettlement policies in Nepal. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 946, 174335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt-Soltau, K.; Brockington, D. Protected Areas and Resettlement: What Scope for Voluntary Relocation? World Dev. 2007, 35, 2182–2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Li, Q.Q.; Xue, W.H.; Xu, Z.H. Impacts of nature reserves on local residents’ income in China. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 199, 107494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seufert, V.; Austin, S.E.; Badami, M.G.; Turner, S.; Ramankutty, N. The diversity of organic farmer motivations and livelihoods in the Global South—A case study in Kerala, India. Geoforum 2023, 138, 103670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tebkew, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Worku, A. The role of agroforestry systems for addressing climate change livelihood vulnerability of farm households of Northwestern Ethiopia. Heliyon 2024, 10, e36196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Wu, Z.H. Factors influencing farm households’ adaptation willingness under landslide risks: Using an extended sustainable livelihood framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2024, 107, 104512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, Y. A systematic approach to evaluate and validate the spatial accuracy of farm households market locations using multi-geocoding services. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 41, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.C.; Zheng, H.; Wang, X.K.; Peng, W.J.; Ma, D.C.; Li, C. Classification of the relationship between household welfare and ecosystem reliance in the Miyun reservoir watershed, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.Y.; Xia, H.M.; Chen, Z.Y.; Duan, M.M.; Pei, J.J. Spatiotemporal characteristics and driving mechanisms of household energy transition in rural China: Micro-evidence from 2005 to 2017. Sci. Total. Environ. 2024, 909, 168554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.X.; Li, Y.B.; Wang, Q.R.; Shao, J.A. Evolutionary characteristics of sloping cultivated land under functional diversification in mountain areas: A case of Fengjie County, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 50, e02854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Wang, X.Y.; Lin, Q. Spatial pattern characteristics and influencing factors of mountainous rural settlements in metropolitan fringe area: A case study of Pingnan County, Fujian Province. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, F.R.; Sun, Z.L.; Zhao, Y.F. The effects of social capital and family income on farm households’ participation in rural public goods provision. J. Rural. Stud. 2024, 109, 103332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Q.; Zhang, B.; Cai, X.; Wang, X.; Morrison, A.M. Does the Livelihood Capital of Rural Households in National Parks Affect Intentions to Participate in Conservation? A Model Based on an Expanded Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 474, 143604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natarajan, N.; Newsham, A.; Rigg, J.; Suhardiman, D. A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Dev. 2022, 155, 105898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.; Cai, L.A. Self-fulfilling prophecy in livelihood sustainability: Rural tourism in Pingqian Village, China. Tour. Manag. 2025, 106, 104988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasrnia, F.; Ashktorab, N. Sustainable livelihood framework-based assessment of drought resilience patterns of rural households of Bakhtegan basin, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 128, 107817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerbois, C.; Fritz, H. Patterns and perceived sustainability of provisioning ecosystem services on the edge of a protected area in times of crisis. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiao, X.; Walelign, S.Z. Martin Reinhardt Nielsen, Carsten Smith-Hall, Protected areas, household environmental incomes and well-being in the Greater Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 106, 101948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtale, R. Filipe Batista e Silva, Paola Proietti, Ricardo Barranco, Impact of COVID-19 on tourism demand in European regions—An analysis of the factors affecting loss in number of guest nights. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insight. 2023, 4, 100112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chebby, F.; Mmbaga, N.; Ngongolo, K. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on tourism, income of local communities and biodiversity conservation: Evidence from Burunge wildlife management area, Tanzania. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.Q.; Peng, C.; Zhou, D.Y. Guanghui Jiang, Pastoral household natural resource dependence and contributions of grassland to livelihoods: A case study from the Tibetan Plateau in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 402, 136751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondo, J.M.; Chuma, G.B.; Muke, M.B.; Fadhili, B.B.; Kihye, J.B.; Matiti, H.M.; Sibomana, C.I.; Kazamwali, L.M.; Kajunju, N.B.; Mushagalusa, G.N.; et al. Utilization of Non-Timber Forest Products as Alternative Sources of Food and Income in the Highland Regions of the Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Trees For. People 2024, 16, 100547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amadu, F.O.; Miller, D.C. The impact of forest product collection and processing on household income in rural Liberia. For. Policy Econ. 2024, 158, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.J.; Zhong, L.S.; Yu, H. Sustainability assessment of tourism in protected areas: A relational perspective. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 35, e02074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majewski, L. Economic impact analysis of nature tourism in protected areas: Towards an adaptation to international standards in German protected areas. J. Outdoor Rec. Tour. 2024, 45, 100742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birendra, K.C.; Adhikari, H.; Stainback, G.A. Tourism and national collaboration in protected areas. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insight. 2024, 5, 100151. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Z.Y.; Li, J.; Chen, R.Y.; Wei, X.; Chen, W.H. Estimating the impact of wildlife damage compensation policy on farm households’ incomes. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 81, 126709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.C.; Rao, D.D.; Yang, L.; Min, Q.W. Subsidy, training or material supply? The impact path of eco-compensation method on farm households’ livelihood assets. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Zhao, Y.W. Improving farm households’ livelihoods through the eco-compensation of forest carbon sinks. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2024, 198, 114401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, Y.C.; Bai, Y.; Ali, M.; Ashraf, A.; Li, M.; Li, B. Exploring residents’ perceptions of ecosystem services in nature reserves to guide protection and management. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 158, 111535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonye, S.Z.; Yiridomoh, G.Y.; Nsiah, V. Our forest, our livelihood: Natural resources’ use controversies and community livelihood sustainability in the Mole National Park, Ghana. Land Use Policy 2023, 127, 106589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jing, Z.; Yu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Su, X.; Qiu, X.; Yang, X.; Xu, Y. Study on the Mechanism of Livelihood Behavior Decision of Rural Residents in Ethnic Tourism Villages in Western Sichuan. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamal, S.; Ghosh, A.; Hazarika, R.; Sen, A. Livelihood, Conflict and Tourism: An Assessment of Livelihood Impact in Sundarbans, West Bengal. Int. J. Geoheritage Parks 2022, 10, 383–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Török, Á.; Kovács, S.; Maró, G.; Maró, Z.M. Understanding the Relevance of Farmers’ Markets from 1955 to 2022: A Bibliometric Review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 16, 101108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, L.; Malacarne, J. What role can farm households markets play in the larger context of food access? A simulation model with application to the state of Maine. Appl. Geogr. 2023, 158, 103053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, W.L.; Rahut, D.B.; Sonobe, T.; Gong, B.L. Linking farm households to markets: Barriers, solutions, and policy options. Econ. Anal. Policy 2024, 82, 1102–1112. [Google Scholar]
- Sisay, K. Impacts of multiple livelihood diversification strategies on diet quality and welfare of smallholder farm households: Insight from Kaffa zone of Ethiopia. Clean Respons. Consum. 2024, 12, 100161. [Google Scholar]
- Negi, D.S.; Birthal, P.S.; Roy, D.; Khan Md, T. Farmers’ Choice of Market Channels and Producer Prices in India: Role of Transportation and Communication Networks. Food Policy 2018, 81, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyola, M.; Nelson, J.D.; Clifton, G.; Ho, C.Q. Factors Influencing the Patronage of Flexible Transport in Urban and Rural Areas. A Case Study in NSW, Australia. Res. Transp. Econ. 2023, 99, 101295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.N.; Cai, J.Y.; Chen, W.F. How does transport development contribute to rural income in China? Evidence from county-level analysis using structural equation model. Travel Behav. Soc. 2024, 34, 100708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Chen, D.; Yang, Q.; Sun, X.; Zheng, W. Rural Land Consolidation as an Instrument for Decreasing Farmers’ Dependence on Ecosystem Services: Heterogeneity Analysis Based on Consolidation Modes and Topographic Types. Ecol. Inform. 2024, 82, 102715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saavedra, S. Economic Development and Environmental Conservation: Evidence from Ecotourism. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 2025, 73, 1297–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Song, J.; Yang, L.; Zhong, L.; Yan, K. Ecotourism certification and regional low-carbon sustainable development: A quasi-experimental study based on the Prototype-zone of National Ecotourism Attractions in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 423, 138731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Primary Indicators | Weights | Secondary Indicators | Weights | Combined Weights |
---|---|---|---|---|
HWS-life | 0.1070 | A1: Degree of burden of access to food | 0.1582 | 0.0169 |
A2: Degree of ease of access to water | 0.1606 | 0.0172 | ||
A3: Degree of burden of access to other necessities | 0.1598 | 0.0171 | ||
A4: Degree of ease of access to VDC services | 0.1797 | 0.0192 | ||
A5: Satisfaction with household housing conditions | 0.1728 | 0.0185 | ||
A6: Satisfaction with household’s arable land resources | 0.1690 | 0.0181 | ||
HWS-health | 0.0875 | B1: Physical health | 0.2233 | 0.0195 |
B2: Mental health | 0.2139 | 0.0187 | ||
B3: Mood | 0.2439 | 0.0213 | ||
B4: Rest | 0.3189 | 0.0279 | ||
HWS-safety | 0.0659 | C1: Personal safety | 0.1904 | 0.0125 |
C2: Property security | 0.1771 | 0.0117 | ||
C3: Low crime rate | 0.3360 | 0.0221 | ||
C4: Government’s efforts to fight crime | 0.2019 | 0.0133 | ||
C5: Food safety | 0.0946 | 0.0062 | ||
HWS-society | 0.2253 | D1: Neighborhood friendliness | 0.0761 | 0.0171 |
D2: Trusted community friends | 0.1447 | 0.0326 | ||
D3: Trustworthiness of community neighbors | 0.1607 | 0.0362 | ||
D4: Funeral and wedding participation | 0.6185 | 0.1393 | ||
HWS-choice | 0.5143 | E1: Degree of freedom of access to resources | 0.2550 | 0.1311 |
E2: Equity in access to education | 0.2483 | 0.1277 | ||
E3: Degree of freedom to build infrastructure | 0.2224 | 0.1144 | ||
E4: Freedom of agricultural production | 0.2743 | 0.1411 |
Variables | Options | Frequency | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Whether the household is in a protected area | Inside protected areas | 352 | 31.83% |
Outside protected areas | 754 | 68.17% | |
Distance of the household from the bazaar | Within 5 km | 182 | 16.46% |
5 km–10 km | 450 | 40.69% | |
Beyond 10 km | 474 | 42.86% |
Variables | Description of Indicators | Mean | Std.dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Year | 50.31 | 11.1957 | 20 | 78 |
Number of working people in the family | People | 2.77 | 1.1445 | 0 | 6 |
Family population number | People | 4.23 | 1.4621 | 1 | 10 |
Family land area | Acres | 4.43 | 2.3026 | 0 | 28 |
Number of large assets in the household | Individuals | 7.57 | 3.1093 | 0 | 30 |
Total income | CNY | 37,931.18 | 44,669.32 | 120 | 722,570 |
Variables | Options | Freq. | Percent | Variable | Options | Freq. | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ease of travel | Inconvenient | 740 | 66.91% | Highest education level of family members | Illiterate | 12 | 1.09% |
Average | 212 | 19.17% | Elementary school | 93 | 8.42% | ||
Convenient | 154 | 13.92% | Junior high school | 411 | 37.19% | ||
Gender | Male | 623 | 56.33% | High school | 362 | 32.76% | |
Female | 483 | 43.67% | Secondary school and vocational high school | 115 | 10.41% | ||
Health status | Fully healthy | 754 | 68.17% | University undergraduate or above | 112 | 10.14% | |
Sick but able to work | 270 | 24.41% | Skill training | Not attended training | 862 | 77.94% | |
Sick and unable to work | 76 | 6.87% | Attended training | 244 | 22.06% | ||
Unable to take care of oneself | 6 | 0.54% | Whether family members are village cadres | Yes | 295 | 26.67% | |
Marital status | Married | 1047 | 94.67% | No | 811 | 73.33% | |
Unmarried | 23 | 2.08% | Family housing | Earth (grass) wood | 378 | 34.18% | |
Divorced | 7 | 0.63% | Brick wood | 372 | 33.63% | ||
Widowed | 29 | 2.62% | Brick and concrete | 223 | 20.16% | ||
Ethnicity | Han nationality | 635 | 57.41% | Reinforced cement soil | 133 | 12.03% | |
Minority nationality | 471 | 42.59% | Family receives cash | Not acquired | 949 | 85.8% | |
Acquired | 157 | 14.2% |
Livelihood Outcomes | L-L | L-H | H-L | H-H | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative livelihoods do not exist | N = 245 | N = 188 | N = 86 | N = 190 | N = 709 |
34.56% | 26.52% | 12.13% | 26.80% | 100% | |
Alternative livelihoods exist | N = 112 | N = 8 | N = 110 | N = 167 | N = 397 |
28.21% | 2.02% | 27.71% | 42.07% | 100% | |
Total | N = 357 | N = 196 | N = 196 | N = 357 | N = 1106 |
L-L | L-H | H-L | H-H | Mean | Adjusted R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Protected Area Product Index | 0.028 (2,4) | 0.26 (1,2,4) | 0.033 (2,4) | 0.16 (1,2,3) | 0.11 | 0.285 |
Protected Area Tourism Index | 0.0012 (2,4) | 0.033 (1,4) | 0.0061 (4) | 0.26 (1,2,3) | 0.092 | 0.309 |
Compensation Index | 0.00083 (4) | 0.0078 | 0.0012 (4) | 0.018 (1,3) | 0.0078 | 0.013 |
NRD | 0.030 (2,4) | 0.30 (1,3,4) | 0.040 (2,4) | 0.44 (1,2,3) | 0.21 | 0.502 |
L-L | L-H | H-L | H-H | Mean | Adjusted R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HWS-life | 0.70 (2,3,4) | 0.66 (1,3,4) | 0.88 (1,2) | 0.89 (1,2) | 0.78 | 0.355 |
HWS-health | 0.67 (3,4) | 0.69 (3,4) | 0.81 (1.2,4) | 0.88 (1,2,3) | 0.76 | 0.186 |
HWS-safety | 0.75 (2,3,4) | 0.80 (1,3,4) | 0.86 (1,2,4) | 0.91 (1,2,3) | 0.83 | 0.217 |
HWS-society | 0.31 (2,3,4) | 0.37 (1,3,4) | 0.68 (1,2,4) | 0.80 (1,2,3) | 0.55 | 0.591 |
HWS-choice | 0.11 (3,4) | 0.13 (3,4) | 0.30 (1,2,4) | 0.45 (1,2,3) | 0.26 | 0.515 |
HWS | 0.29 (2,3,4) | 0.31 (2,3,4) | 0.52 (1,2,4) | 0.63 (1,2,3) | 0.44 | 0.702 |
Variables | VIF | 1/VIF |
---|---|---|
ln(total income) | 2.02 | 0.494661 |
Number of working people in the family | 1.91 | 0.524152 |
Livelihood strategy | 1.75 | 0.570518 |
Family population number | 1.62 | 0.616304 |
Age | 1.39 | 0.718117 |
Number of large assets in the household | 1.36 | 0.73483 |
Health status | 1.3 | 0.76703 |
Highest education level of family members | 1.16 | 0.864025 |
Family receives cash | 1.16 | 0.865014 |
Gender | 1.08 | 0.924438 |
Family land area | 1.07 | 0.931487 |
Marital status | 1.05 | 0.951954 |
Whether family members are village cadres | 1.04 | 0.961914 |
Ethnicity | 1.02 | 0.977433 |
Family housing | 1.02 | 0.979836 |
Skill training | 1.01 | 0.985596 |
Vars | Model 1 (L-L) | Relative Risk Ratio | Model 2 (L-H) | Relative Risk Ratio | Model 3 (H-L) | Relative Risk Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whether the household is in a protected area | −2.284 *** | 0.102 *** | 1.010 * | 2.744 * | -2.371 *** | 0.0934 *** |
(0.293) | (0.0299) | (0.610) | (1.674) | (0.315) | (0.0294) | |
Distance of the household from the bazaar | −0.539 *** | 1.715 *** | 0.194 | 0.824 | −0.404 * | 1.497 * |
(0.192) | (0.329) | (0.249) | (0.205) | (0.216) | (0.324) | |
Ease of travel | −1.421 *** | 0.241 *** | −1.010 *** | 0.364 *** | −0.873 *** | 0.418 *** |
(0.158) | (0.0381) | (0.212) | (0.0774) | (0.153) | (0.0638) | |
Individual characteristics control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Livelihood strategy control variable | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Livelihood capital control variable | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Constant | 1.924 | 6.849 | 10.517 *** | 36,924.58 *** | −4.755 ** | 0.0861 ** |
(1.810) | (12.394) | (2.192) | (80,936.15) | (2.131) | (0.0183) | |
Observations | 1106 | 1106 | 1106 |
Vars | Options | L-L | L-H | H-L | H-H |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whether the household is in a protected area | Inside protected areas | 0.575 *** | 0.0114 * | 0.286 *** | 0.127 *** |
(0.0446) | (0.00662) | (0.0408) | (0.0235) | ||
Outside protected areas | 0.252 *** | 0.136 *** | 0.112 *** | 0.499 *** | |
(0.0233) | (0.0236) | (0.0153) | (0.0281) | ||
Distance of the household from the bazaar | Within 5 km | 0.275 *** | 0.129 * | 0.148 *** | 0.449 *** |
(0.0558) | (0.0715) | (0.0368) | (0.0701) | ||
5 km–10 km | 0.338 *** | 0.0794 *** | 0.156 *** | 0.426 *** | |
(0.0310) | (0.0193) | (0.0227) | (0.0323) | ||
Beyond 10 km | 0.457 *** | 0.050 *** | 0.198 *** | 0.295 *** | |
(0.0380) | (0.0140) | (0.0307) | (0.0321) |
L-L | L-H | H-L | H-H | Mean | Adjusted R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Protected Area Product Index | 0.029 (2,4) | 0.26 (1,3,4) | 0.031 (2,4) | 0.16 (1,2,3) | 0.11 | 0.281 |
Protected Area Tourism Index | 0.0019 (2,4) | 0.043 (1,3,4) | 0.0050 (2,4) | 0.26 (1,2,3) | 0.092 | 0.292 |
Compensation Index | 0.00087 (4) | 0.0081 | 0.0011 (4) | 0.018 (1,3) | 0.0078 | 0.013 |
NRD | 0.031 (2,4) | 0.31 (1,3,4) | 0.037 (2,4) | 0.43 (1,2,3) | 0.21 | 0.497 |
HWS-life | 3.77 (2,3,4) | 3.56 (1,3,4) | 4.47 (1,2) | 4.58 (1,2) | 4.14 | 0.429 |
HWS-health | 3.60 (3,4) | 3.62 (3,4) | 4.43 (1,2,4) | 4.60 (1,2,3) | 4.08 | 0.322 |
HWS-safety | 4.03 (2,3,4) | 4.22 (1,3,4) | 4.58 (1,2,4) | 4.7 (1,2,3) | 4.38 | 0.323 |
HWS-society | 2.82 (2,3,4) | 3.08 (1,3,4) | 4.19 (1,2,4) | 4.52 (1,2,3) | 3.66 | 0.597 |
HWS-choice | 1.54 (2,3,4) | 1.66 (1,3,4) | 2.07 (1,2,4) | 2.73 (1,2,3) | 2.04 | 0.377 |
HWS | 3.15 (2,3,4) | 3.23 (1,3,4) | 3.97 (1,2,4) | 4.23 (1,2,3) | 3.66 | 0.716 |
Vars | Model 1 (L-L) | Relative Risk Ratio | Model 2 (L-H) | Relative Risk Ratio | Model 3 (H-L) | Relative Risk Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whether the household is in a protected area | −2.322 ** | 0.0981 *** | 0.555 | 1.742 | −2.446 *** | 0.0867 *** |
(0.299) | (0.0293) | (0.547) | (0.953) | (0.321) | (0.0278) | |
Distance of the household from the bazaar | −0.414 ** | 1.512 *** | −0.244 | 0.783 | −0.501 ** | 1.650 ** |
(0.193) | (0.292) | (0.252) | (0.197) | (0.220) | (0.363) | |
Ease of travel | −1.353 *** | 0.259 *** | −0.912 *** | 0.402 *** | −0.931 *** | 0.394 *** |
(0.157) | (0.0405) | (0.209) | (0.0839) | (0.158) | (0.0622) | |
Individual characteristics control variables | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Livelihood strategy control variable | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Livelihood capital control variable | Controlled | Controlled | Controlled | |||
Constant | 3.802 ** | 44.804 ** | 11.962 *** | 156,654.8 *** | −5.688 *** | 0.0339 *** |
(1.885) | (84.444) | (2.237) | (350,457.8) | (2.223) | (0.0753) | |
Observations | 1106 | 1106 | 1106 |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, C.; Zhang, W.; Gao, Y.; Sun, J. The Impact of Geographical Location of Households’ Residences on the Livelihoods of Households Surrounding Protected Areas: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Nature Reserves Across Three Provinces in China. Land 2025, 14, 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061231
Wang C, Zhang W, Gao Y, Sun J. The Impact of Geographical Location of Households’ Residences on the Livelihoods of Households Surrounding Protected Areas: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Nature Reserves Across Three Provinces in China. Land. 2025; 14(6):1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061231
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Changhai, Wei Zhang, Yueting Gao, and Jun Sun. 2025. "The Impact of Geographical Location of Households’ Residences on the Livelihoods of Households Surrounding Protected Areas: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Nature Reserves Across Three Provinces in China" Land 14, no. 6: 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061231
APA StyleWang, C., Zhang, W., Gao, Y., & Sun, J. (2025). The Impact of Geographical Location of Households’ Residences on the Livelihoods of Households Surrounding Protected Areas: An Empirical Analysis of Seven Nature Reserves Across Three Provinces in China. Land, 14(6), 1231. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14061231