Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (4): 480-488.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.006
• Resource Economy • Previous Articles Next Articles
YANG Lun1(
), YANG Jianhui2, JIAO Wenjun1, LIU Moucheng1, LI Wenhua1,3,*()
Received:2021-01-20
Accepted:2021-03-30
Online:2021-07-30
Published:2021-09-30
Contact:
LI Wenhua
About author:YANG Lun, E-mail: yanglun@igsnrr.ac.cn
Supported by:YANG Lun, YANG Jianhui, JIAO Wenjun, LIU Moucheng, LI Wenhua. The Evaluation of Food and Livelihood Security in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Site[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 480-488.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.006
Fig. 1 The concept framework of food and livelihood security in GIAHS
| Indicator category | Code | Indicator name | Weight | Indicator definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core food products security (FS1) | F1 | The quantity of core food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of core food products per household (kg) |
| F2 | The quality of core food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of core food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F3 | The environmental quality of core food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of core food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F4 | The diversity of core food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of core food products (Simpson, | |
| F5 | The proportion of traditional varieties in core food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total core food products per household (%) | |
| Relevant food products security (FS2) | F6 | The quantity of relevant food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of relevant food products per household (kg) |
| F7 | The quality of relevant food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of relevant food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F8 | The environmental quality of relevant food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of relevant food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F9 | The diversity of relevant food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of relevant food products (Simpson, | |
| F10 | The proportion of traditional varieties in relevant food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total relevant food products per household (%) | |
| Relevant non-food products security (FS3) | F11 | The quantity of relevant non-food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of relevant non-food products per household (kg) |
| F12 | The quality of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of relevant non-food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F13 | The environmental quality of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of relevant non-food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F14 | The diversity of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of relevant non-food products (Simpson, | |
| F15 | The proportion of traditional varieties in relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total relevant non-food products per household (%) | |
| Livelihood background security (LS1) | L1 | External natural background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional natural environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., |
| L2 | External economic background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional economic environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L3 | External social background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional social environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L4 | Family geographical characteristic | 1/4 | The distance between house and downtown (km) | |
| Livelihood assets security (LS2) | L5 | Natural asset | 1/7 | The area of farmland/woodland/grassland per household (ha) |
| L6 | Physical asset | 1/7 | The quantity of instrument of production per household | |
| L7 | Human asset | 1/7 | The size of agricultural labor force per household | |
| L8 | Social asset | 1/7 | The number of relatives within the core area of GIAHS site | |
| L9 | Financial asset | 1/7 | The total amount of financial and alternative savings owned by the household (yuan) | |
| L10 | Cultural asset | 1/7 | The degree of knowledge of the main labor force regarding traditional farming knowledge (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L11 | Informational asset | 1/7 | The number of informational pieces of equipment (such as smartphones, computers) | |
| Livelihood outcomes security (LS3) | L12 | Total income level | 1/3 | The annual total income per household (yuan) |
| L13 | Per capita income level | 1/3 | The annual total income per capita (yuan) | |
| L14 | Agricultural income level | 1/3 | The annual total income from agricultural-oriented activities per household (yuan) |
Table 1 The evaluation indicators of food and livelihood security in GIAHS
| Indicator category | Code | Indicator name | Weight | Indicator definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core food products security (FS1) | F1 | The quantity of core food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of core food products per household (kg) |
| F2 | The quality of core food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of core food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F3 | The environmental quality of core food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of core food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F4 | The diversity of core food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of core food products (Simpson, | |
| F5 | The proportion of traditional varieties in core food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total core food products per household (%) | |
| Relevant food products security (FS2) | F6 | The quantity of relevant food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of relevant food products per household (kg) |
| F7 | The quality of relevant food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of relevant food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F8 | The environmental quality of relevant food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of relevant food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F9 | The diversity of relevant food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of relevant food products (Simpson, | |
| F10 | The proportion of traditional varieties in relevant food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total relevant food products per household (%) | |
| Relevant non-food products security (FS3) | F11 | The quantity of relevant non-food products | 1/3 | The annual quantity of relevant non-food products per household (kg) |
| F12 | The quality of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The quality grade of relevant non-food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F13 | The environmental quality of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The environmental quality grade of relevant non-food products based on self-evaluation by farmers (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| F14 | The diversity of relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The species diversity index of relevant non-food products (Simpson, | |
| F15 | The proportion of traditional varieties in relevant non-food products | 1/6 | The percentage of traditional varieties in total relevant non-food products per household (%) | |
| Livelihood background security (LS1) | L1 | External natural background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional natural environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., |
| L2 | External economic background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional economic environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L3 | External social background | 1/4 | Farmers’ evaluation of regional social environment (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L4 | Family geographical characteristic | 1/4 | The distance between house and downtown (km) | |
| Livelihood assets security (LS2) | L5 | Natural asset | 1/7 | The area of farmland/woodland/grassland per household (ha) |
| L6 | Physical asset | 1/7 | The quantity of instrument of production per household | |
| L7 | Human asset | 1/7 | The size of agricultural labor force per household | |
| L8 | Social asset | 1/7 | The number of relatives within the core area of GIAHS site | |
| L9 | Financial asset | 1/7 | The total amount of financial and alternative savings owned by the household (yuan) | |
| L10 | Cultural asset | 1/7 | The degree of knowledge of the main labor force regarding traditional farming knowledge (1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good, 5=very good; Jaeschke et al., | |
| L11 | Informational asset | 1/7 | The number of informational pieces of equipment (such as smartphones, computers) | |
| Livelihood outcomes security (LS3) | L12 | Total income level | 1/3 | The annual total income per household (yuan) |
| L13 | Per capita income level | 1/3 | The annual total income per capita (yuan) | |
| L14 | Agricultural income level | 1/3 | The annual total income from agricultural-oriented activities per household (yuan) |
Fig. 2 The evaluation values of food and livelihood security in the Zhagana System
Fig. 3 The evaluation values of food security in the Zhagana System
Fig. 4 The evaluation values of livelihood security in the Zhagana System
| [1] | Chambers R, Conway G. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper, 296:1-29. |
| [2] | DFID. 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods “Building on Strengths”. London, UK: Department for International Development. |
| [3] | Ellis F. 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. The Journal of Development Studies, 35(1):1-38. |
| [4] | FAO. 1974. Communication from the Commission to the Council. Rome, Italy: Report of the World Food Conference. |
| [5] | FAO. 2012. The state of food insecurity in the world, 2012: Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome, Italy: FAO. |
| [6] | FAO. 2019. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS): Selection criteria and action plan.. |
| [7] |
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G H. 1989. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4):407-415.
PMID |
| [8] | Li W H, Liu M C, Min Q W. 2010. Progress and perspectives of China’s ecological agriculture. Resources Science, 32(6):1015-1021. (in Chinese) |
| [9] |
Li W H, Liu M C, Min Q W. 2012. Agricultural heritage conservation: New opportunity for developing eco-agriculture. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 20(6):663-667. (in Chinese)
DOI URL |
| [10] | Li W H. 2014. The conservation and development of Agricultural Heritage Systems in Asia. World Agriculture, (6):74-77, 227. (in Chinese) |
| [11] |
Liu Z X, Liu L M. 2016. Characteristics and driving factors of rural livelihood transition in the east coastal region of China: A case study of suburban Shanghai. Journal of Rural Studies, 43:145-158.
DOI URL |
| [12] | Mao S X, Shen Y, Deng H B. 2018. Changes in traditional rural minority livelihoods and household livelihood security in Southwest China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(24):8873-8878. (in Chinese) |
| [13] |
Melvani K, Bristow M, Moles J, et al. 2020. Multiple livelihood strategies and high floristic diversity increase the adaptive capacity and resilience of Sri Lankan farming enterprises. Science of the Total Environment, 739:139120. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139120.
DOI URL |
| [14] |
Paul S, Das T K, Pharung R, et al. 2020. Development of an indicator based composite measure to assess livelihood sustainability of shifting cultivation dependent ethnic minorities in the disadvantageous Northeastern region of India. Ecological Indicators, 110:105934. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105934.
DOI URL |
| [15] | Scoones I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper, 72:1-22. |
| [16] |
Simpson E H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148):688. DOI: 10.1038/163688a0.
DOI URL |
| [17] | Wang C C, Yang Y S. 2012. An overview of farmers’ livelihood strategy change and its effect on land use/cover change in developing countries. Progress in Geography, 31(6):792-798. (in Chinese) |
| [18] |
Wang P, Yan J Z, Hua X B, et al. 2019. Determinants of livelihood choice and implications for targeted poverty reduction policies: A case study in the YNL river region, Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Indicators, 101:1055-1063.
DOI |
| [19] |
Yang L, Liu M C, Lun F, et al. 2019. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood capitals on planting decisions: A case study of Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System. Land Use Policy, 86:208-217.
DOI |
| [20] |
Yang L, Liu M C, Min Q W, et al. 2018. Specialization or diversification? The situation and transition of households’ livelihood in Agricultural Heritage Systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(6):455-471.
DOI URL |
| [21] | Yang L, Wang G P, Ma N, et al. 2020. Assessment framework of food and livelihood security in Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 28(9):1330-1338. (in Chinese) |
| [22] | Zhang C Q, Min Q W, Zhang H Z, et al. 2017. Analysis on the rural households livelihoods aiming at the conservation of Agricultural Heritage Systems. China Population, Resources and Environment, 27(1):169-176. (in Chinese) |
| [23] | Zhao J W. 2011. Research on livelihood security of farmers household. Diss., Yangling, China: Northwest A&F University. (in Chinese) |
| [24] | Zhao X Y. 2017. Sustainable livelihoods research from the perspective of geography: The present status, questions and priority areas. Geographical Research, 36(10):1859-1872. (in Chinese) |
| [1] | MIN Qingwen. Agri-cultural Heritage: An Interdisciplinary Field with Development Prospects [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 437-443. |
| [2] | MA Nan, YANG Lun, MIN Qingwen, BAI Keyu, LI Wenhua. The Significance of Traditional Culture for Agricultural Biodiversity—Experiences from GIAHS [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 453-461. |
| [3] | DING Lubin, HE Siyuan, MIN Qingwen, LI Heyao, MA Nan, LI Wenhua. Perceptions of Local People toward Wild Edible Plant Gathering and Consumption: Insights from the Q-method in Hani Terraces [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 462-470. |
| [4] | WANG Bin, SUN Yehong, JIAO Wenjun. Ecological Benefit Evaluation of Agricultural Heritage System Conservation—A Case Study of the Qingtian Rice-Fish Culture System [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 489-497. |
| [5] | JIAO Wenjun, WANG Bojie, SUN Yehong, LIU Moucheng. Design and Application of the Annual Report of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Monitoring [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 498-512. |
| [6] | GU Xingguo, JIAO Wenjun, SUN Yehong, WANG Bin. Conservation of the Important Agricultural Heritage Systems in the Economically Developed Area：Experiences, Problems and Solutions—A Case Study of Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 513-521. |
| [7] | WANG Guoping, YANG Lun, LIU Moucheng, LI Zhidong, HE Siyuan, MIN Qingwen. The Role of Local Knowledge in the Risk Management of Extreme Climates in Local Communities: A Case Study in a Nomadic NIAHS Site [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 532-542. |
| [8] | INAGAKI Hidehiro, UNNO Nahoko, SAKAKIBARA Takumi, KUBOTA Sakiko, HASEGAWA Kana. Effect of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) Mulching on Continuous Potato Cropping: Modern Evaluation of Traditional Japanese Knotweed-mulch Farming in Nishi-Awa Steep Slope Land Agriculture System, Japan [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(2): 254-259. |
| [9] | CAO Xiaochang, LIU Xiaojie, CHENG Shengkui, LIU Yao, ZHANG Panpan. A Study of Food Waste in the Catering Industry in Beijing [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2020, 11(6): 562-569. |
| [10] | LI Fadong, LENG Peifang, ZHANG Qiuying, SONG Shuai, QIAO Yunfeng, GU Congke, ZHANG Qian, WU Liang, Mulubrhan Balehegn, Dagne Mojo, ZHU Nong, ZHAO Xin. Understanding Agriculture Production and Food Security in Ethiopia from the Perspective of China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(3): 237-249. |
| [11] | WU Qing, XIE Hualin. A Review and Implication of Land Fallow System Research [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017, 8(3): 223-231. |
| [12] | KUSUMOTO Yoshinobu, INAGAKI Hidehiro. Symbiosis of Biodiversity and Tea Production Through Chagusaba [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(3): 151-154. |
| [13] | Park Yoon-Ho, Yoon Won-Keun, Gordon Dabinett. A Study of the Improvement of Planning Systems for Land Use Control in Agricultural Heritage Sites [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(3): 180-186. |
| [14] | ZHANG Yongxun, MIN Qingwen, JIAO Wenjun, LIU Moucheng. Values and Conservation of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces System as a GIAHS Site [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(3): 197-204. |
| [15] | LI Jing, JIAO Wenjun, MIN Qingwen, LI Wenhua. Effects of Traditional Ecological Knowledge on the Drought- resistant Mechanisms of the Hani Rice Terraces System [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2016, 7(3): 211-217. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
