EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2021 , Vol. 12 >Issue 4: 480 - 488

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.006

Resource Economy

The Evaluation of Food and Livelihood Security in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Site

  • YANG Lun , 1 ,
  • YANG Jianhui 2 ,
  • JIAO Wenjun 1 ,
  • LIU Moucheng 1 ,
  • LI Wenhua , 1, 3, *
Expand
  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
  • 2. School of Economics and Management, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, Shandong 271018, China
  • 3. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*LI Wenhua, E-mail:

YANG Lun, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-01-20

  Accepted date: 2021-03-30

  Online published: 2021-09-30

Supported by

The National Natural Science Foundation of China(42001249)

Fold

Abstract

Based on the basic selection criteria of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) and food and livelihood security research trends, this paper established an evaluation framework and indicator system for food and livelihood security in GIAHS and selected the first GIAHS site in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau as a case for empirical evaluation. The results demonstrate that the food and livelihood security of farmers at this site was at a medium level, with an average evaluation value of 2.91, which still lagged behind the level of better food and livelihood security. Specifically, the average values of farmers’ evaluation of food security and livelihood security were 1.43 and 1.48, respectively, which show that farmers’ food security in the study area was at a medium level and that of livelihood security was relatively good. Simultaneously, the more simple a farmers’ economic activities (i.e., agriculture-oriented economic activities or non-agriculture-oriented economic activities), the worse their food and livelihood security; while the more diversified the economic activities (i.e., engaged in part-time economic activities), the better the food and livelihood security.

Key words： Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS); food security; livelihood security; concept framework; evaluation indicator; Biebu Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System

Cite this article

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 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.006

1 Introduction

As a category of living agricultural production systems worldwide, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) are also typical social-economic-natural complex ecosystems. They boast rich biodiversity, which can meet the needs of local socio-economic and cultural development, and are conducive to promoting regional sustainable development (Li et al., 2010; Li et al., 2012; Li, 2014). For the purpose of better designation and conservation of the GIAHS sites, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has established five essential selection criteria for GIAHS sites. These criteria are as follows: 1) Food and livelihood security; 2) Agro-biodiversity; 3) Local and traditional knowledge systems; 4) Cultures, value systems and social organisations; and 5) Landscapes and seascapes features. Thus, maintaining the food and livelihood security of farmers is one of the primary conditions for obtaining the GIAHS site designation (FAO, 2019). Currently, food and livelihood security is one of the hot issues of global sustainable development. In the vast majority of studies, food security is defined as the material, social and economic availability of a sufficient quantity and quality of food for all people at any time to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life in terms of variety, diversity, nutrition and safety, as well as the access to a healthy environment, adequate medical services, and proper education and care (FAO, 1974; FAO, 2012; Su et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020). The livelihood security of farmers is defined as the capability of a family or community to maintain and improve income, assets, and social welfare, and to ensure that the family recovers from the risk of sustainable development. In essence, the livelihood security of farmers is a security system composed of capacity security, asset security and action security, aimed at the sustainable development of farmers, and it is used to promote harmony and unity among the economy, society and environment (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Ellis, 1998; Scoones, 1998; DFID, 2000; Zhao, 2011; Wang and Yang, 2012; Mao et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020).
However, relatively few studies have been conducted thus far on the food and livelihood security of GIAHS. The few available studies are mainly based on the sustainable livelihood framework proposed by the Department for International Development (DFID) and carried out in specific GIAHS sites, with an emphasis on empirical studies but a lack of theoretical discussion (DFID, 2000; Zhang et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). Furthermore, the characteristics of GIAHS were less reflected in these studies (Yang et al., 2020). In addition, there is a lack of an essential paradigm for the expression of food and livelihood security in the current draft of the guidelines for generating a GIAHS proposal document. For this reason, an analytical framework for food security and livelihood security which is applicable to GIAHS needs to be established in order to provide support for farmer livelihood studies on GIAHS on the one hand, and a theoretical basis for the designation and conservation of GIAHS on the other hand. In this paper, an evaluation framework of food and livelihood security applicable to GIAHS was established based on a combination of theoretical framework construction and empirical case analysis. The Diebu Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System (Zhagana System), a typical representative GIAHS site for the comprehensive development of planting, forestry, and animal husbandry, was selected as a case study for empirical analysis.

2 Methods

2.1 The framework and indicators of food and livelihood security in GIAHS

Based on previous research results, the food and livelihood security of GIAHS was divided into two parts: food security and livelihood security, which were evaluated separately via induction, summary, and extraction in this paper (Yang et al., 2020), and specific evaluation indicators were established on the scale of individual farmers (Fig. 1).
The food security of GIAHS is reflected in the fact that the essential grain and nutritional needs of local farmers can be satisfied by the stable, high-quality, and abundant material products provided by GIAHS. Currently, food security evaluations carried out on the individual farmer scale are relatively rare. However, the farmers are the most basic behavioral unit in GIAHS, and the farmers’ ability to supply food in terms of food quantity, quality, and diversity should be the prerequisite for GIAHS food security. Thus, the GIAHS food security evaluation should emphasize the household food supply capacity on the farmer scale. This capacity can be characterized by the three major evaluation indicators, namely, core food products security, relevant food products security, and the security of relevant non-food products that have an essential supporting role in the production of food products (Yang et al.,2020).
The livelihood security of GIAHS is reflected in the mutual adaptation of local farmers to the regional environmental background; that is, the basic livelihood needs of local farmers can be satisfied by various livelihood activities carried out within GIAHS. The livelihood security is characterized by three major evaluation indicators, namely, livelihood background security, livelihood assets security and livelihood outcomes security (Table 1).
Fig. 1 The concept framework of food and livelihood security in GIAHS

2.1.1 The evaluation indicators of food security in GIAHS

In this paper, the evaluation indicators for food security in GIAHS cover the quantity, quality, and diversity of core food products, relevant food products, and relevant non-food products. Among them, the evaluation of the quality of a material product includes not only the quality of the product itself, but also the environmental quality of its production. The evaluation of the diversity of a material product should not only include the diversity of the product itself but also highlight the proportion of traditional varieties that are represented (Table 1). In GIAHS, food products can be divided into core food products and relevant food products according to their importance. Core food products, as the main food source for local farmers, can be regarded as key elements of GIAHS and have a certain “flagship” and “landmark” character in the process of GIAHS designation, conservation and development (Yang et al., 2020). Relevant food products are other food products that coexist with the core food products to provide farmers with essential food supplements.
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.,1989)
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., 1989)
F4 The diversity of core food products 1/6 The species diversity index of core food products (Simpson, 1949)
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., 1989)
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., 1989)
F9 The diversity of relevant food products 1/6 The species diversity index of relevant food products (Simpson, 1949)
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., 1989)
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., 1989)
F14 The diversity of relevant non-food products 1/6 The species diversity index of relevant non-food products (Simpson, 1949)
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., 1989)
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., 1989)
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., 1989)
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., 1989)
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)
At the same time, non-food products used as energy and fertilizer play an essential role in the production of food products. Consequently, the evaluation of food security of GIAHS in this paper will focus on the core food products, relevant food products and relevant non-food products. In terms of evaluation indicators, the quantity and quality of non-food products are the basis of the food security of GIAHS. The diversity of non-food products is not only the core of GIAHS conservation, but can also effectively help those farmers at a low-income level to manage various risks (Yang et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020). In the Zhagana System, the core food products include highland barley, Potentilla anserina pig, yak and pien niu (offspring of a bull and a female yak), which are widely distributed and many in number, and are the main ingredients in the daily diet of local farmers. Relevant food products include wheat and vegetables co-planted with highland barley, restorative materials and fungi under the forest, and goats co-cultured with yaks, with a small total number. Relevant non-food products mainly include highland barley straw, corn straw, yak manure, and other livestock manure. As essential energy sources and fertilizers, such products can not only provide energy for the daily life of farmers, but also serve as raw materials for the production of “green fertilizer” and provide support for the maintenance of soil fertility of the cultivated land (Yang et al.,2019).

2.1.2 The evaluation indicators of livelihood security in GIAHS

The evaluation indicators of livelihood security for GIAHS in this paper include (i) the livelihood background security, composed of external environment background and family characteristics; (ii) the livelihood assets security, consisting of natural, physical, human, social, financial, cultural and information assets; and (iii) the livelihood outcomes security, reflecting income (Table 1). Generally speaking, the regions where GIAHS sites are located are faced with apparent contradictions among population, economy and environment, which results in the livelihood of farmers always depending on their external natural, economic, and social environment backgrounds and family geographical characteristics (Zhao, 2017; Yang et al., 2020). Therefore, in order to evaluate the livelihood security of farmers, the livelihood background of farmers in the process of livelihood maintenance should be paid attention to first. In addition, among all kinds of livelihood analysis frameworks (DFID, 2000), livelihood assets and livelihood outcomes are the most prominent indicators for evaluating farmers’ livelihood status. Livelihood assets are the resources and foundation farmers use to build their livelihood, generally including natural, material, human, social, and financial assets (DFID,2000; Zhao, 2017). However, farmers in GIAHS have formed and accumulated rich traditional knowledge during their long-term production and lives. Simultaneously, with the rapid development of the mobile Internet, the pathways by which farmers can accept emerging agricultural technologies are continually expanding (Yang et al., 2019). Therefore, the evaluation of farmers’ livelihood assets in GIAHS should also include cultural and information assets. Livelihood outcomes represent the output of farmers engaged in livelihood activities, such as increased income and improved welfare. Most of the GIAHS sites are located in economically underdeveloped areas, where the income from agricultural production is an essential source of income for farmers. Meanwhile, most of the GIAHS sites boast a unique agricultural landscape, and tourism reception based on agricultural landscapes has gradually made a prominent contribution to farmers’ income. As a result, agricultural income should be highlighted in the evaluation of the livelihood outcomes of GIAHS farmers.

2.2 Data analysis

2.2.1 Data collection

The Diebu Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System (Zhagana System) was selected, as it became the first GIAHS site in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in December 2017, with its core area located in Zhagana Village, northwest of Diebu County, Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Gansu Province (34°09'40"-34°11'20"N, 103°08'49"-103°10'15"E). The Zhagana System is a composite agricultural system with farmers’ livelihood activities as the core, including planting, forestry and animal husbandry, which can be used to comprehensively verify the applicability of the evaluation framework and indicator system constructed in this study. There are 212 households in Zhagana Village, all of which are Tibetan. In this paper, 77 local farmers were randomly selected as samples for conducting a questionnaire survey from August to September 2017, The survey samples accounted for 36.32% (77 out of 212) of the total number of local farmers, so as to achieve the baseline evaluation of food and livelihood security in the year when the Zhagana System was included in GIAHS.

2.2.2 Data processing

In view of the broad range of dimensions and orders of magnitude of the evaluation indicators designed in this paper, the maximum difference normalization method was adopted to normalize the initial data in order to achieve effective evaluation. On this basis, the weighted average of the standardized evaluation indicators was taken as the final evaluation result. The weights are subjectively empowered based on the preferences of the farmers who were interviewed and relevant local experts (Table 1). According to the data set in this paper, the maximum evaluation value of farmers’ food and livelihood security is 6, with the threshold value set to 3. In other words, when the evaluation value of farmers is greater than 3, the food and livelihood security of farmers is considered to be better; when the evaluation value of farmers is less than 3, the food and livelihood security of farmers is considered to be poor. Among the six categories of evaluation indicators, the maximum value of each category of evaluation indicator is 1, with the threshold value set to 0.5. In other words, when a certain category of evaluation indicator of farmers is greater than 0.5, the status of this category of indicator is considered to be better; when a certain category of evaluation indicator of farmers is less than 0.5, the status of this category of indicator is considered to be poor. The equation for data standardization processing is:
x'ij=(xij-xmin)/(xmax-xmin)
where, x'ij is the standardized value of the jth evaluation indicator of the ith sample, xij is the actual value of the jth evaluation indicator of the ith sample, and xmax and xmin are the maximum and minimum values of the jth evaluation indicator, respectively.

2.2.3 The classification of farmer types

Based on the dominant economic activities of the sample households given according on their subjective judgments, farmers can be divided into three types. Farmer type I includes the farmers whose agriculture-oriented economic activity is their dominant economic activity. Farmer type II represents the farmers whose dominant economic activity is part-time activity, which means that they are switching between agriculture-oriented economic activity and non-agriculture-oriented economic activity. Farmer type III is comprised of the farmers whose non-agriculture-oriented economic activity is their dominant economic activity. On this basis, the food and livelihood security of each of these different categories of farmers were evaluated in this paper.

3 Results

3.1 Food and livelihood security in the Zhagana System

According to the evaluation framework and indicators constructed in this paper, farmers’ food and livelihood security includes a total of 29 evaluation indicators in six categories. The results of the empirical evaluation showed that the average evaluation value of farmers’ food and livelihood security in the Zhagana System was 2.91. Among the six categories of indicators, livelihood outcomes security ranked the highest by the evaluation value (0.55), while core food products security ranked the lowest (0.42); the other four categories of indicators ranked from high to low according to their evaluation values were: relevant food products security (0.51), relevant non-food products security (0.50), livelihood background security (0.48), and livelihood assets security (0.45). Among the three categories of farmers, Farmer type II had the best overall status in terms of food and livelihood security, with an evaluation value of 3.31. The evaluation values of relevant food products security, relevant non-food products security, and livelihood outcomes security were the highest, while that of the livelihood background security was the lowest. In terms of food and livelihood security, Farmer type I had an overall situation that is slightly worse than that of Farmer type II and lower than the average level of the Zhagana System, with an assessment of 2.90. The evaluation values of core food products security and livelihood background security were the highest, while those of relevant food products security, livelihood assets security, and livelihood outcomes security were the lowest. Farmer type III had the worst overall status in terms of food and livelihood security, with an estimated value of 2.56. The evaluation value of livelihood assets security was the highest, while those of core food products security and relevant non-food products security were the lowest (Fig. 2). The overall status of food and livelihood security of farmers in the Zhagana System was at a medium level, which still lagged behind the level of better food and livelihood security. In particular, the status of livelihood background security and livelihood assets security were generally poor, but those of the livelihood outcomes security and relevant food products security were generally better. At the same time, the food and livelihood of farmers engaged in a greater range of different economic activities were quite different. The more simple their dominant economic activities (Farmer type I and Farmer type III), the worse their food and livelihood security; while the more diversified the dominant economic activities (Famer type II), the better the food and livelihood security.
Fig. 2 The evaluation values of food and livelihood security in the Zhagana System

3.2 Food security in the Zhagana System

The food security evaluation system constructed in this paper contains a total of 15 evaluation indicators in three categories. According to the evaluation values of food security, the value of the overall food security of farmers in the Zhagana System was 1.43 (Fig. 3). The three categories of farmers in descending order of their food security evaluation values were: Farmer type II (1.82), Farmer type I (1.75), and Farmer type III (0.92). The food security of farmers in the Zhagana System was at a medium level, which still lagged behind the level of better food and livelihood security. However, the food security of farmers engaged in part-time economic activities was generally better, followed by those engaged in agriculture-oriented economic activities. The food security of farmers engaged in non-agriculture-oriented economic activities was generally poor (Fig. 3).
(1) Core food products security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, among the five specific evaluation indicators, the evaluation value of core food quantity was the highest, followed by the production environment quality of core food products, and the evaluation values of the other three indicators were relatively similar. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the the categories of farmers, Farmer type I had the highest security evaluation value of core food products, but with the lowest product yield. Farmer type II had a slightly lower evaluation value than Farmer type I in terms of core food products security, but this type has an outstanding yield advantage, with the highest quantity of its products. Farmer type III had the lowest evaluation value in terms of core food products security, especially the lowest diversity of core food products and proportion of traditional varieties. The quantity of core food and the production environment quality of core food products constitute an important part of the core food products security. Farmers engaged in agriculture-oriented economic activities and part-time economic activities have advantages in maintaining the security and yield of core food products.
Fig. 3 The evaluation values of food security in the Zhagana System
(2) Relevant food products security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, among the five specific evaluation indicators, the evaluation value of the quantity of relevant food products was the highest, while the values of the remaining four indicators were relatively similar. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the three categories of farmers, the evaluation value and product quantity of relevant food products security of Farmer type I were the lowest, while those of Farmer type II were the highest, but the quality and production environment quality of relevant food products were generally the worst. Farmer type III had a slightly higher evaluation value and product quantity than Farmer type I in terms of relevant food products security, but with the lowest diversity of relevant food products and the lowest proportion of traditional varieties. The quantity of relevant food products constitutes an important component of relevant food products security. Farmers engaged in part-time economic activities have advantages in maintaining the security and yield of relevant food products.
(3) Relevant non-food products security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, among the five specific evaluation indicators, the evaluation value of the quantity of relevant food products was the highest, while the values of the remaining four indicators were relatively similar. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the three categories of farmers, Farmer type I had a higher evaluation value of relevant non-food products security, but with the lowest product yield. Farmer type II had the highest evaluation value and product quantity of relevant non-food products security. Farmer type III had the lowest evaluation value of relevant non-food products security, especially the four indicators other than the product yield. The quantity of relevant food products constitutes an important component of relevant food products security. Farmers engaged in part-time economic activities have advantages in maintaining the security and yield of relevant non-food products.

3.3 Livelihood security in Zhagana System

The livelihood security evaluation system constructed in this paper contains a total of 14 evaluation indicators in three categories. As can be seen from the evaluation value of livelihood security, the evaluation value of the overall livelihood security of farmers in the Zhagana System was 1.48 (Fig. 4). The three categories of farmers in descending order of their livelihood security evaluation values were: Farmer type III (1.64), Farmer type II (1.49), and Farmer type I (1.15). The livelihood security of farmers in the Zhagana System was at a relatively good level, especially those engaged in non-agriculture-oriented economic activities, which are generally good, followed by those engaged in part-time economic activities. The livelihood security of farmers engaged in agriculture-oriented economic activities was generally poor (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 The evaluation values of livelihood security in the Zhagana System
(1) Livelihood background security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, among the four specific evaluation indicators, the evaluation value of the external economic background was the highest, followed by the external social background, and the values of the other two indicators were relatively similar. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the three categories of farmers, Farmer type I had the highest evaluation value of livelihood background, but with the lowest value of external economic background. Farmer type II had the lowest evaluation value of livelihood background security. Farmer type III had a higher evaluation value of livelihood background security, especially the highest values for the external economic background and external social background. The external economic background constitutes an important component of livelihood background security. Farmers engaged in non-agriculture-oriented economic activities and agriculture-oriented economic activities have advantages in terms of livelihood background security.
(2) Livelihood assets security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, among the seven specific evaluation indicators, social assets ranked the highest, followed by cultural assets, and the remaining five assets were relatively similar. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the three categories of farmers, Farmer type I had the lowest evaluation value of livelihood assets security, especially the lowest values for material, social, financial, and cultural assets. Farmer type II had a high evaluation value of livelihood assets security, but with the highest values for material and human assets. Farmer type III had the highest evaluation value of livelihood assets security, especially the highest values for social, cultural and information assets. Social assets and cultural assets constitute an important part of livelihood assets security. Farmers engaged in non-agriculture-oriented economic activities and part-time economic activities have advantages in livelihood capital security.
(3) Livelihood outcomes security. According to the average level of farmers in the Zhagana System, the total household income and per capita income were generally higher among the three specific evaluation indicators. As can be seen from the comparative analysis of the three categories of farmers, Farmer type I had the lowest evaluation value of livelihood outcomes security, especially the lowest values of total household income and per capita income. Farmer type II had the highest evaluation value of livelihood outcomes security, especially the highest value of agricultural income. Farmer type III had a slightly lower evaluation value than Farmer type I in terms of livelihood outcomes security, but this group had the highest total household income and per capita income. The total household income and per capita income constitute an important part of livelihood outcomes security. Farmers engaged in part-time economic activities and non-agriculture-oriented economic activities have advantages in terms of livelihood outcomes security.

4 Discussion

As a composite agricultural system, the Zhagana System includes plantations, forestry, and animal husbandry. The empirical evaluation of the Zhagana System shows that the evaluation framework constructed in this paper has applicability for carrying out food and livelihood security evaluation on the GIAHS sites at the farmer level. However, after the assessment, we still found some problems with the framework. 1) The evaluation of food security on the farmer scale is necessary but frequently gives unusual results. We tried to assess it from the perspective of the farmers’ food supply capacity. Although this evaluation strategy partially achieved that goal, it still weakens the general food security assessment method and needs to be verified in further relevant research. 2) We established the threshold based on the quantitative interval for the food and livelihood security status. However, due to the lack of comparisons with other GIAHS sites, this threshold’s rationality still needs to be further tested.
Despite these limitations, the results of the empirical evaluation verified that the overall food and livelihood security of farmers in the Zhagana System was at a medium level, especially the generally poor core food products security and livelihood assets security. However, core food products are one of the “key elements” for the conservation of the Zhagana System (Yang et al., 2020), and livelihood assets are an essential basis for farmers to maintain their livelihood (Liu and Liu,2016; Paul et al., 2020). Poor core food products security and livelihood assets security will threaten the dynamic conservation and sustainable development of this GIAHS site. We will give some recommendations to try to improve the situation. On the one hand, from the perspective of the evaluation framework, the yield of core food and the production environment quality of core food products, social assets and cultural assets are crucial components of the core food products security and the livelihood assets security, respectively. Based on previous experience, measures such as agricultural technology training and environmental quality monitoring can be taken to improve the yield and the production environment quality of core food products. Meanwhile, by increasing community exchange activities and popularizing agricultural knowledge, the social assets and cultural assets of families can be improved. On the other hand, the comparative evaluation results of the three types of farmers show that farmers’ dominant economic activities will affect the security of core food products and livelihood assets. In particular, part-time economic activities can simultaneously contribute to maintaining core food products security and livelihood assets security. One likely reason may be that compared with farmers engaged in a single economic activity (such as agriculture-oriented or non-agriculture-oriented economic activity), farmers with diverse economic activities (such as part-time activities) have better resilience to deal with various risks to food and livelihood security (Melvani et al.,2020). In addition, the policy factors have significant associations with the choices of dominant economic activities by farmers (Wang et al., 2019). Thus, policy interventions (such as transfer payments) can be adopted to encourage farmers to participate in diversified economic activities on the basis of sticking to agricultural activities, especially to avoid their reliance on only a single non-agricultural economic activity.

5 Conclusions

Based on the research trends of food security and livelihood security, this paper constructed an evaluation framework for food and livelihood security in GIAHS. Among them, the food security of GIAHS was characterized by core food products security, relevant food products security, and relevant non-food products security. The livelihood security of GIAHS was characterized by livelihood background security, livelihood assets security, and livelihood outcomes security.
In addition to developing the framework, we selected the only GIAHS site in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau region, Zhagana System, as a case for empirical evaluation. Regarding the overall evaluation results of food and livelihood security, the food and livelihood security of farmers in the Zhagana System was at a medium level (the evaluation value was 2.91), so it still lagged behind the better food and livelihood security situation. More specifically, the food security was at a medium level (evaluation value: 1.43), and the livelihood security was at a relatively good level (evaluation value: 1.48). Yet, farmers’ food and livelihood security will be worse when their economic activities are more simple. And their food and livelihood security will be better when the economic activities are more diversified.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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)

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉