- Email: [email protected]
Vulnerability and livelihood restoration of landless households after land acquisition: Evidence from peri-urban China
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint
Vulnerability and livelihood restoration of landless households after land acquisition: Evidence from peri-urban China
T
Chen Lia,∗, Mark Wanga, Yanan Songb a b
School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Australia Guotai Junan Securities Co. Ltd, China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Vulnerability Livelihood restoration Landless households Land acquisition China
The large-scale rural land acquisition projects for non-agricultural purposes has cast a long shadow on rural households' livelihoods in China. In this paper, by applying Sustainable Livelihood Framework and vulnerability approach, and based on our longitudinal study (2008–2017) on a land acquisition case in S village, Jining city, Shandong province, we discuss the dynamism of households' livelihood changes before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. It is found that households' different vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations in decade after land acquisition, are the results of their different capabilities of building various livelihood capitals. Another evident finding is that land acquisition as it is increasingly practiced with China's rapid urbanisation process has triggered risks to most rural households' livelihoods. The implications of the research indicate the necessity of local governments to guarantee for sustaining rural households' livelihoods after land acquisition.
1. Introduction As China rapidly urbanises, massive amounts of agricultural land in rural areas is being acquired for non-agricultural purposes (Cao, Feng, & Tao, 2008; Mullan, Grosjean, & Kontoleon, 2011). This includes both urban construction uses such as commercial and residential projects to achieve the goal of urban expansion (He, Liu, Webster, & Wu, 2009) and industrial purposes (Chen, Ye, Cai, Xing, & Chen, 2014) often driven by market forces (Zhang, 2000). For instance, a large number of industrial or high-tech parks have been established across the country for the express purpose of advancing industrialisation (Long, Li, Liu, Woods, & Zou, 2012). Consequently, throughout the country, urban built-up areas have largely increased (Chen et al., 2014; Liu, Zhan, & Deng, 2005) while agricultural land has decreased significantly (Ministry of land and resources, 2017; Yang & Li, 2000). These extensive land acquisition projects lead to significant shifts in the livelihoods of rural households in China (Song, Wang, & Lei, 2016; Wang, Yang, & Zhang, 2011). It is from purely agricultural or natural capital, for example land resources, based livelihoods (Li, 2011; Ministry of land and resources, 2010), to livelihoods that require a wider range of capitals to sustain. These include physical capital indicating households' housing infrastructure and facilities after land acquisition; social capital indicating their integration into social networks (Chambers, 1989); and human capital indicating their education
∗
and professional skills other than farming (Bebbington, 1999), which significantly influence their employment transformations after land acquisition, and thus financial capital particularly income. Much recent scholarly attention has been paid to the significantly negative impacts of land acquisition on rural households' livelihoods in China (Hui & Bao, 2013; Long et al., 2012 ). However, these studies do not point to ways to investigate the dynamism of households' livelihood changes due to land acquisition in long-term. Similarly, they do not examine the abilities or inabilities of households to sustain or enhance access to various livelihood capitals in long-term after land acquisition. Given that restoring livelihoods after land acquisition is a dynamic process, which demands significant time for households to build various livelihood capitals, there is a need for studies that help to consider households' ability or inability to adapt to and recover from the impacts of land acquisition. The extent to which this affects their livelihoods can be thought about in terms of vulnerability (Adato & Meinzen-dick, 2002; Kelly & Adger, 2000; Pelling, 2003), and whether their livelihood restorations are sustainable in long-term after land acquisition. In this paper, we assess households' vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations from longitudinal perspective, from 2008 to 2017, based on household level data collected in a single, in-depth case of S village in Jining city, Shandong province. By applying a Sustainable Livelihood Framework that constitutes various livelihood capitals such as natural, financial, human, social and physical capitals (Hall, 2007; Scoones,
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Li).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.08.003 Received 20 February 2018; Received in revised form 30 July 2018; Accepted 4 August 2018 Available online 09 August 2018 0197-3975/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
challenges (Scoones, 1998). This is especially significant in the cultural context of rural China, where commitments to family mediate approaches to change in livelihoods (He & Xue, 2014). In this paper, we describe our longitudinal findings, on a land acquisition project in S village, Jining city, Shandong province, China. Through both quantitative assessment and qualitative techniques, we explore the abilities or inabilities of households to sustain or enhance access to different livelihood capitals, and we also investigate to what extent households transform these capitals to reduce vulnerabilities and restore livelihoods in decade after land acquisition in S village. We then explain how some households are more vulnerable in some aspects of livelihoods than another, as well as how most rural households in this region are exposed to threats in their livelihoods.
2009), we offer an understanding of different vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations in decade after land acquisition, and argue that difference in households' experiences are the results of their different capabilities in building various livelihood capitals within this period. 2. Literature review While the continuously increasing numbers of landless farmers (BAO & Peng, 2016), are deemed to be the sources of substantial social unrest in China (Ding & Lichtenberg, 2011), they are also the group of people who have suffered the most in land acquisition in various aspects (Chen & Zhang, 2007; Liang, Lu, & Wu, 2014; Liang & Zhu, 2015; Tan, Li, Xie, & Lu, 2005; Zhu & Prosterman, 2007). The impacts of land acquisition on landless farmers are also found to vary among different ages (Tong, Zhang, Lo, Chen, & Gao, 2017), different genders (Fan, 2004), and different spatial location and land acquisition degree (Zhang, Lu, & Mi, 2006). However, common impact is reduced employment opportunities for farmers and difficulties in restoring their livelihoods in urban settings (Chen, Cai, Liu, Zhou, & Zhang, 2013; Chuang, 2014; Long et al., 2012; Zhen, Fu, Lü, & Zheng, 2014). This is mainly due to the fact that many landless farmers have limited educational attainments, as well as the fact that job skill trainings and social networks are less accessible in urban areas (He et al., 2009). At a more interpersonal level, there are issues with recognition and identity politics between urban and rural residents (Liang & Zhu, 2015), which can often mean newly arrived rural residents continue to be unemployed (Cao et al., 2008). In fact, many landless farmers are involved in temporary and parttime jobs with harsh working conditions and low, unstable salaries (Shen, 2002; Wang & Fan, 2012). For example, based on 162 effective questionary surveys in suburban areas in Wuhan, Chen and Zhang (2007) find that more than 80% of landless farmers are either unemployed or rely on unstable temporary employment. As the consequence, the financial conditions of landless farmers have become deteriorated (Chen et al., 2013; Ding, 2007; Hui & Bao, 2013). For example, Zhang and Liu (2005) mention a survey conducted by National Bureau of Statistics of China, in which nearly half of landless farmers' net incomes decrease, while their living costs increase due to extra purchase on foods and increased water and electricity payments. Furthermore, without an urban hukou (urban residential registration), those landless farmers, who migrate to urban areas, are significantly discriminated with their urban counterparts (Cheng & Selden, 1994). For example, rural residents are restricted to enjoy government-provided social services and welfares (Chan & Buckingham, 2008), such as education, medical facilities and better employment opportunities (Wang, 2005). However, we find that studies comprehensively comparing households' livelihoods before, and in decade after land acquisition by applying livelihood vulnerability analytical framework are rare. Filling this empirical gap allows for the examination of the dynamic livelihood changes over the years as often households can either gain or lose relevant livelihood capitals in long-term. The integration of a Sustainable Livelihood Framework and vulnerability approach enables consideration of different types of livelihood capitals, as means (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Ellis, 1999) to identify vulnerabilities of rural households encountering external changes (for example land acquisition) on their livelihoods at local scale (Rogers & Xue, 2015). The approach also reveals their capabilities to adapt to and recover from the changes (Linnekamp, Koedam, & Baud, 2011). Such integration is emerging for land related issues (Hesselberg & Yaro, 2006; Huang, Li, Bai, & Cui, 2012), and is particularly useful in the Chinese context where we are seeing tremendous transformations of rural households' livelihoods (Huang, Huang, He, & Yang, 2017). Additionally, there is a lack of studies which describe livelihood outcomes at a household level over long-time scales after land acquisition. The net livelihood effects within a household allow for an understanding of the combinations of adaptations to different livelihood capitals as a means of confronting
3. Method We selected a land acquisition project, in S village, southeast Jining city, Shandong province, as our case study due to a series of primary concerns. Firstly, our extensive local contacts in S village allowed access to sufficient numbers of households, which also facilitated the follow up visits in decade after land acquisition. Secondly, being located in a suburban area, S village has a broad demographic profile and contains villagers with various socioeconomic status, which is important for research that seeks to understand variation in access to different livelihood capitals in decades after land acquisition. Thirdly, S village was resettled because it is in a coal mining site in which land was acquired by local government for a state-owned enterprise. The broader context of land acquisition in S village therefore also gives insights into whether land acquisition projects, in the name of local economic growth and rural industrialisation development, have benefits for local households. The land acquisition officially commenced in November 2002. In early 2003, local government, the state-owned coal mining enterprise and the villagers, had decided the compensation standard. According to the land acquisition plan, released in 2005 that was based on most of the villagers' opinions, all the land in S village would be expropriated and the villagers would be provided newly built apartments in new S village. The resettled apartments on the site were completely built in the end of 2010 and we have maintained attention on the project since 2005. The first round of fieldwork was conducted from April to June in 2008, in which we conducted face-to-face surveys of 300 households in their preferred locations. This is about 85% of the total households in S village. This approach helped to establish a representative sample and avoid any biases, which is often the result of selecting a small group of households. The average household size was 4.2 people, while the number of single-headed households was 8. There were 3 people of working age on average for each household. Survey questions included household demographics, household members' pre-land acquisition occupations, households' pre-land acquisition net income per year and income sources. Based on household net income per year, we calculated the per capita incomes within each household. The second round of fieldwork was conducted from March to September in 2017. Again, we issued 300 face-to-face surveys to the same households with the same questions. Then, we combined the data of households' annual income changes and its members' employment status after land acquisition, to know who had increased, steadied or decreased annual incomes, and why. In interpreting the quantitative results, we also conducted 100 interviews with households that were randomly selected to avoid selection bias. These interviews were held in the households' preferred places, including homes, restaurants and workplaces, with no one present besides the interviewees and researchers and local facilitators during the interviews. Each semi-structured interview was about 1 h, allowing in-depth exploration of households' less visible experiences of livelihood change in decade after land acquisition (Adato & MeinzenDick, 2002). 110
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
income levels decreased dramatically in decade after land acquisition. Generally, more households fall into low income levels.
Table 1 The employment changes in S village. Employment
Farmer Working outside S village Worker in government or stateowned-enterprises Private business owner Village cadre Student Unemployed Others
Before land acquisition
In decade after land acquisition
441 (43.8%) 304 (30.2%) 28 (2.8%)
41 (4.1%) 386 (38.5%) 27 (2.7)
42 (4.2%) 4 (0.4%) 65 (6.5%) 118 (11.7%) 4 (0.4%)
47 (4.7%) 4 (0.4%) 60 (6.0%) 431 (43.0%) 6 (0.6%)
4.3. Changed livelihood conditions In this section, we describe the different impacts of land acquisition on households in S village. Based on households' financial conditions in decade after land acquisition, we divide households into three groups. We have 270 effective household surveys regarding their annual incomes and their members' employment status before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. 4.3.1. Lucky minority: enhanced financial conditions There are only 12 households (4.8%) that increased their annual incomes in decade after land acquisition, therefore, we define these households as the lucky minority. Table 2 below shows the households members' employment status before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. The italic words denote households' members' occupations before land acquisition. In order to understand why these households increased their incomes, some context is needed. Household 1 is an old couple, who retired before land acquisition. Their income increase because their two children, both working in Beijing, are managerial elites with increasing salaries over the past years, and provide pensions to their parents. Household 2, 3, 5 and 11 all engage in private business, including small restaurants and shops in new S village. These households seized the business opportunities that came after land acquisitions due to increasing numbers of villagers needing their services. For example, F from Household 2 said “although my father is unemployed after land acquisition, my mother and I have gradually improving business experiences, and hence our business is gradually getting better in the past few years”. L from Household 3 said “after land acquisition, both my parents are unemployed. My wife and I are running a shop. I think that the better business is because most villagers have no land, they need to purchase foods and other daily necessities in my shop”. Household 5 and Household 11 are in a similar situation, although the numbers of people in their households run the business remain the same after land acquisition, (and even one more person is unemployed in Household 5), the large demand for daily necessities have benefited their business. The rest of the households share a common feature: fewer farmers and more people working outside the village in decade after land acquisition. For example, Household 4 used to have 4 farmers pre-land acquisition. During land acquisition period, the parents passed away, and their son and daughter-in-law went to cities to work as labour and cashers respectively in supermarkets. Household 6 had two farmers before land acquisition, and after land acquisition, one of these two are unemployed, while the other went to work as construction labourer with higher income. Z from Household 7 said that “before land acquisition, my son was studying; now he has graduated from university and is working as middle-level leader in a private company in Shanghai; also, I had worked as a truck driver in Jining since 2010. Our family's increased annual income is mainly due to my son's graduation and his increasing salary over the past years”. Y from Household 8 said “after our land is acquired, I ask my older son to go to the city to join his brother”. Y's wife added that “my two sons are waiters in a restaurant in the city”. In Household 9, before land acquisition, the son and his wife, both graduated from university, and worked as designers in Jinan city; their salaries increased stably every year. After land acquisition, his father went to Jinan as well, and worked as casual labour. In Household 10, after land acquisition, the couple went to Jining city, and the man worked as a cook and the woman worked as a cleaner in a private real estate company. P from household 12 said that “our annual income increased largely in past years compared with before land acquisition, because my wife, son and I quickly found jobs in a food producing factory. We quickly learnt relevant skills and have become qualified”.
During these interviews, we explore how households in S village have managed through the application of various livelihood capitals to restore their livelihoods in decade after land acquisition. More explicitly, in relation to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, we explore households' possessions of land as natural capital in decade after land acquisition; the conditions of their housing infrastructure and facilities in decade after land acquisition, which reflects physical capital; their integration into social networks in decade after land acquisition, which reflects social capital; and also, their education and professional skills gained or lost in decade after land acquisition, which significantly influences their employment transformation and financial capital. 4. Results 4.1. Farmers become unemployed Among 300 households' surveys, there were 285 effective surveys. As Table 1 below shows, in decade after land acquisition, the numbers of farmer decrease by 90.6%; while the numbers of working outside the village and unemployed increase by 27.5% and by 267.5% respectively. As a supplement to Table 1 that deals with individuals, similar results can be discovered when counting at household level. In S village, households' annual incomes were from three sources: farming, working outside S village and non-farming sectors in the village such as owning private business and child support. According to our survey data, before land acquisition, there were 263 households (92.35%) that had incomes from farming, but in decade after land acquisition, only 23 households (8.1%) had incomes from farming. Also, before land acquisition, there were 235 households (82.5%) that had incomes from working outside S village, but in decade after land acquisition, the number increased to 252 households (88.4%). Although the numbers differ when dealing with households and with individuals, both illustrate that post land acquisition, both the number of individual farmers and the households with farming income decreased substantially, and both the number of working outside S village and the households with incomes from working outside S village increased. 4.2. Deteriorated financial conditions Our household survey data show that before land acquisition, the households' average annual income was 69,646.0 Yuan; while decade after land acquisition, the number decreased to 49,590.9 Yuan. Per capita incomes in S village also dropped substantially in decade after land acquisition. As Fig. 1 below shows, no single households had per capita income as zero before land acquisition, while in decade after land acquisition, 4 households have no incomes. These 4 households rely on previous savings including compensations and their relatives' helps for subsistence. Also, only villagers that belong to relatively low-income levels, including 0–5000 Yuan, 5000–10,000 Yuan and 10,000–15,000 Yuan, increased in decade after land acquisition. In contrast, villagers that belong to relatively higher
111
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Fig. 1. The per capita income in S village.
4.3.2. Financially stable households There are 48 households (17.7%) that have steady annual incomes in decade after land acquisition. Among them, 14 households have no members farming before land acquisition. As T said “my two sons graduated from universities, and had worked as white-collar in cities since 2002; they bought an apartment for my wife and I, and we had moved to the city for nearly 5 years, before land acquisition”. Similarly, X stated that “our family had not worked as farmers since 2003. We opened a small local style restaurant in Jining city. The income has been stable over the past years”. After land acquisition, 28 households have members starting working in cities. For example, W said “after land acquisition, my wife and my daughter-in-law stay home to look after my two grandchildren. My son and I had worked with a decoration team in Jinan since 2011”.
In decade after land acquisition, the principle reason for the lucky minority's financially improved livelihoods is that they have been able to integrate into urban markets and engage in a range of non-farm sectors for livelihood restorations (Wilmsen, Webber, & Yuefang, 2011b). For example, these households have the capacities to enter certain human capitals: with tertiary education, young people can find advanced jobs in the Chinese metropolis, and thus are able to support their family; with qualified skills, households can temporally or permanently move to nearby places (Mcdowell & De haan, 1997). These are mainly urban areas which are seen as places of opportunity (Gu & Ma, 2013) for employment transformations (Bebbington, 1999). With business acumen, households can take advantage of market demands to achieve economic profits, as in this case, they supply essential services to landless households. Table 2 The lucky minority's employment status. Household
Annual income change (%)
Occupation change
Household
Annual income change (%)
Occupation change
1
2677.8
U→U U→U
7
25
2
900.0
F→U P→P P→P
8
20.0
3
900.0
9
14.3
4
33.3
U→U F→U P→P P→P F→D F→D F→W F→W F→U W→W P→P U→U F→U F→W W→W U→U
10
6.7
F→F F→W S→W F→W W→W U→U U→U F→F F→W W→W W→W F→W
5
33.3
6
28.5
W→W 11
1.7
12
1.6
(F: Farmer; W: Working outside S village; P: Private business owner; S: Student; U: Unemployed; D: Died).
112
P→P P→P U→U U→U F→U F→W F→W W→W
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Additionally, S stated that “my daughter was in primary school at the time of land acquisition. Now she is studying high school; my wife looks after her at home. I went to Shandong province's capital city Jinan to work as a construction worker. The company provides us meals, so I can save the salary”. In addition, people in another 6 households were retired before land acquisition; they are not working and are living on saving and pensions. The features present in these households with steady annual incomes are that, firstly, before land acquisition, they did not rely on land and farming: some have successfully engaged into urban life, and some are retired. Hence, they are not influenced much by land acquisition itself. Secondly, with relevant skills, they can find employment opportunities, mainly concentrating on low-end services, in decade after land acquisition. However, it appears that most of these 60 households (households with increased annual incomes and households with steady annual incomes) also stand in a vulnerable position as many aspects of their livelihoods are out of their own control. With relatively limited human capitals (Wu, 2004), most of them concentrate on low-end services: temporary and periodical jobs, and dangerous and stressful working environments. As Z mentioned, “driving truck is a dangerous job, I need to drive fast for transportation and considering the crowded traffic and people on the roads, I am stressed”. Similarly, P said, “working in a food producing factory has strict rules and processes, such as sanitation. We need to be very careful, we cannot make any mistakes, otherwise we will be fired and easily substituted by others”. However, they are unable to respond to and recover from the stresses placed on their livelihoods, and their long-term subsistence and livelihood become unsecured (Long, 2014). Also, the dispossession of urban hukou (official urban household registration) create significant discriminations between these households with urban residents, in the ways in which these households are not eligible to enjoy most of the state-provided rights, subsidies and opportunities (Gu & Ma, 2013; Zhang, 2008; Zhu, 2007). For example, S said “I used to consider sending my daughter to Jinan, but the fees are high and most importantly, we do not have Jinan city hukou, so she cannot study in Jinan”. Many villagers emphasise the missing social networks urban areas. For example, K mentioned that “working in cities maintains our lives to the same standard as before land acquisition economically, but not socially. We do not have as many friends and networks in the city”. W added “when we lost land, we lost our traditional asset; I am proud of being a farmer and I feel isolated in city, for me it is just a place to earn money, it is not my home”. In this circumstance, people regard cities as more of a place of working and earning money, and their social capitals have certainly deteriorated through the process of land acquisition.
Elderly people suffered the most among these households, mainly because of their insufficient adaptation to urban life and the lack of professional skills for non-farm employment. As C said, “I used to cook at my front yard, but now, I am living in apartment, there is no yard, this is not convenient for me. One time, I cooked in the public space of our community, I was warned by people not to cook there, and my son thought this was shameful. I do not have alternative options, just listen to my son and learn to live in an urban way”. According to J's interview, his problems with adaptation to urban lifestyles were even worse. He was not allowed to use the toilet at home as his son expressed distaste toward his old behaviours of using the facilities. As he stated, “The community does not have a public toilet, I can only go to the nearby green belt”. “I was thinking of finding a job in cities, so I can move out, but I am already 67. I know only farming, and it is impossible for me re-employed. I feel I am useless”. Meanwhile, these households' living costs increased much more than their annual incomes. For example, H explained that, “Before we moved to this new place, we were heated by fireplace burning coal, but now, we need to pay heating fees for government-provided heating or we use air-conditioners, which increases the amount of electricity and relevant electricity costs. Before, we used to drink underground water, now, we need to pay for running water; also, before land acquisition, we could plant vegetables, now we need to buy them”. A added that, “We now live in enhanced housing infrastructures and living facilities, but deteriorated living standards exist more pervasively in our village. We lost land, the living costs increased, and many households suffered serious livelihood issues”. In terms of social and physical capitals, many of these households have experienced enhanced housing infrastructure such as improved electricity and water facilities and services; and there are no significant loses of social capital, as most people stay at home so that they have largely retained their social networks in new S village. For example, J said that “the whole village moved to this new place, my old friends are still around me”; B said that “at least, our old neighbours can catch up as frequently as before to talk, to have a tea and play together”. 5. Discussion and conclusion In this paper, we show that in decade after land acquisition in S village, only small numbers of households have maintained financial conditions; most experienced emerging danger, stress and isolation and insecure social well-being. Most households have suffered deteriorated financial security, serious unemployment, however many have also maintained social networks and have even enhanced housing infrastructure and living facilities. Overall, households became more vulnerable in their livelihoods after land acquisition. With reduced human capital, they find it difficult to adapt to a variety of risks, and often fail to sustain material well-being and sustainability in their livelihoods (Ellis, 1999). We provide evidence that differentiation in vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations of different households are the result of different capabilities to take advantages of diversified livelihood capitals to enact change in their lives (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002). During decade-long period of this research, some households were able to gain relevant livelihood capitals, so that they can find employment opportunities, either in urban areas or in the resettlement site, and subsequently they were able to maintain their families' incomes. On the other hand, households with lack access to necessary human capitals, suffered the most from the loss their dependent natural capital and land resources, as this ultimately led to significant unemployment and financial insecurity, which in turn greatly constrained the potential sustainable livelihoods for these households.
4.3.3. The majority: decreased annual incomes There are 210 households (77.5%) that have decreased annual incomes in decade after land acquisition. Among them, nearly half have decreased annual incomes by more than 20%; nearly 20% have decreased annual incomes by more than 50% and 17 households have decreased annual incomes by more than 80%. Our survey data shows slightly increased labour, while dramatically increased unemployment and decreased number of people employed as farmers in decade after land acquisition in these households. This indicates their high reliance on land and farming before land acquisition as primary source of income, and the difficult employment transformation in decade after land acquisition. Losing land resources means losing modes of survival for them, and hence leaves these households in a vulnerable position, in which they are exposed to the risk of unavailable land resources and reduced employment opportunities. In decade after land acquisition, without sufficient human capitals such as specialised knowledge, education and professional skills (Brocklesby & Fisher, 2003) in urban markets, incomes from off-farm sectors failed to supplement the loss of farm income. 113
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
take place. In this context, protecting and reconstructing the sustainability of rural households' livelihoods in long-term is of great concern (Cernea, 1997). The lessons from this study therefore have deeper policy relevance; they call of policy makers to avoid involuntary displacement (Wilmsen, Webber, & Duan, 2011a) by empowering rural households so that they become more vocal in expressing their concerns; to consider not only one-time material compensation (Wilmsen & Webber, 2015) but also the intangible loss of values such as land (Barnett & Webber, 2009) and the provision of skills for their future livelihood sustainability. The study also suggest the need for decision makers to stay committed to support rural households to reduce their vulnerability and enhance sustainability of their livelihoods with appropriate policies and institutions (Chang & Tipple, 2009).
It has long been recognised that as industrialisation or urbanisation have led to resettlement (Liu, Zhang, & Lo, 2014; Tang, Hao, & Huang, 2016), land acquisition has had adverse consequences on the livelihoods of rural households in China (Lo & Wang, 2018). As concluded in other relevant literature, a lack of success in employment transformations of these landless farmers have been deemed to be the key reason of their deteriorated livelihoods after land acquisition. Additionally, as this research also shows, external supporting projects such as job training from local governments are clearly inadequate (Xue, Wang, & Xue, 2013). As in S village, no efforts have been made to improve the villagers' human capitals and no off-farm employment opportunities have been provided to the villagers after land acquisition. Rather than taking the villagers' long-term livelihood security into account, the local government often prioritises development over human conditions (Molotch, 1976), in which it solely focus on potentially economic profits (Webber, 2012). The deprivation of land resources has irretrievably led the villagers to lose their previous primary income source. However, the resettled housing as the compensation, although complete with enhanced physical capital, cannot bring significant economic gains for the villagers to substitute the roles of the deprived land. Therefore, the value of their land is not appropriately compensated by the onetime compensation (Barnett & Webber, 2009). In rural China, land resources play a significantly important role in maintaining households' livelihoods. With China's upcoming reforms that aim to allow rural land transfer and capitalisation (Sohu, 2018), land resources are becoming even more valuable in the fact that rural households can take advantage of land not only as natural capital, but also as financial capital, to achieve economic gains. However, these potential economic profits will not be realised if the land is deprived through land acquisition, which is often carried out by local government under the guise of urbanisation and industrialisation (Shen & Wu, 2017). In other words, rural households may not have experienced deterioration of livelihood conditions without such urbanisation and rural industrialisation. Particularly in S village, as the main vegetable supplier for Jining city, most households' livelihoods heavily relied on land resources. Without land acquisition, households in S village may have had the potential to continuously benefit from land resources, as in other suburban areas of China (Shen & Wu, 2013). Unfortunately, all the land was expropriated in S village. A limitation of the study is that although the same households were surveyed with the interval of a decade, it may not guarantee that the same person was surveyed within the household. There may be some misunderstanding between household members, leading to inconsistences in the collected data. However, these do not substantially affect the reliability of the main conclusion. This is because more than 80% of our informants for the surveys and the interviews were household heads, whose answers can represent the whole families. This research focuses on the issue on household-level, rather than individuallevel, in which all the informants were asked to share the whole household concerns rather than personal experiences only. Therefore, regardless who were surveyed and interviewed, their answers can represent household-level concerns. The potential methodological critique of gender aspects, as most of the informants in this study are male, is an important concern in data collection. Without a pilot study, our design of survey and interview questions may be complicated for some villagers, as they may not have been able to completely understand the questions and then to answer correctly. This has therefore led some ineffective surveys and interviews in data collection. More importantly, the specific purpose of land acquisition in S village to mine coal, may not be necessarily representative of other villages in China. Therefore, in order to provide more solid implications for future research and resettlement practice, we suggest the need for broader research on different villages with different purposes and degrees of land acquisition. In summary, with China's announcement of its continuing urbanisation and industrialisation for many years to come, substantial land acquisition projects in the country's suburban areas will continue to
References Adato, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. Bao, H., & Peng, Y. (2016). Effect of land expropriation on land-lost farmers' entrepreneurial action: A case study of Zhejiang province. Habitat International, 53, 342–349. Barnett, J., & Webber, M. (2009). Accommodating migration to promote adaptation to climate change. The Commission on Climate Change and Development. accessed on, 5 www.ccdcom.mission.org. Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 27, 2021–2044. Brocklesby, M. A., & Fisher, E. (2003). Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches–an introduction. Community Development Journal, 38, 185–198. Cao, G., Feng, C., & Tao, R. (2008). Local “land finance” in China's urban expansion: Challenges and solutions. China and World Economy, 16, 19–30. Cernea, M. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations. World Development, 25, 1569–1587. Chambers, R. (1989). Editorial introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 20, 1–7. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Studies (UK): Institute of Development. Chan, K. W., & Buckingham, W. (2008). Is China abolishing the hukou system? The China Quarterly, 195, 582–606. Chang, Y., & Tipple, G. (2009). Realities of life and housing in a poor neighbourhood in urban China: Livelihoods and vulnerabilities in Shanghai Lane, Wuhan. International Development Planning Review, 31, 165–198. Chen, Q., Cai, Y., Liu, F., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, H. (2013). Farmers' perception to farmland conversion: A questionnaire survey in Xining city, Qinghai province, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 23, 634–646. Cheng, T., & Selden, M. (1994). The origins and social consequences of China's hukou system. The China Quarterly, 139, 644–668. Chen, R., Ye, C., Cai, Y., Xing, X., & Chen, Q. (2014). The impact of rural out-migration on land use transition in China: Past, present and trend. Land Use Policy, 40, 101–110. Chen, Y., & Zhang, A. (2007). Nongdi zhuanyong guochengzhong nongmin de renzhi yu fuli bianhua fenxi - jiyu wuhanshi chengxiang jiehebu yu cunji wenjuan diaocha (Analysis of farmers' perception and welfare change during the process of farmland land conversion - based on household and village levels questionnarie survey in suburban areas in Wuhan city). China Rural Survey, 11–21. Chuang, J. (2014). China's rural land politics: Bureaucratic absorption and the muting of rightful resistance. The China Quarterly, 219, 649–669. Ding, C. (2007). Policy and praxis of land acquisition in China. Land Use Policy, 24, 1–13. Ding, C., & Lichtenberg, E. (2011). Land and urban economic growth in China. Journal of Regional Science, 51, 299–317. Ellis, F. (1999). Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: Evidence and policy implications. Overseas Development Institute. Natural Resource Perspectives 40. Fan, P. (2004). In X. Y. Lu, & P. L. Li (Eds.). 2003 nian zhongguo nongmin fazhan de jiben zhuangkuang (The development situation of China's farmers in 2003). Gu, P., & Ma, X. (2013). Investigation and analysis of a floating population's settlement intention and environmental concerns: A case study in the Shawan river Basin in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 39, 170–178. Hall, R. (2007). The impact of land restitution and land reform on livelihoods. PLAAS, University of the Western Cape. He, S., Liu, Y., Webster, C., & Wu, F. (2009). Property rights redistribution, entitlement failure and the impoverishment of landless farmers in China. Urban Studies, 46, 1925–1949. Hesselberg, J., & Yaro, J. A. (2006). An assessment of the extent and causes of food insecurity in northern Ghana using a livelihood vulnerability framework. Geojournal, 67, 41–55. He, S., & Xue, D. (2014). Identity building and communal resistance against landgrabs in Wukan Village, China. Current Anthropology, 55, S126–S137. Huang, X., Huang, X., He, Y., & Yang, X. (2017). Assessment of livelihood vulnerability of land-lost farmers in urban fringes: A case study of Xi'an, China. Habitat International, 59, 1–9. Huang, Y., Li, F., Bai, X., & Cui, S. (2012). Comparing vulnerability of coastal communities to land use change: Analytical framework and a case study in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 133–143.
114
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Sohu. 2018. Available: http://www.sohu.com/a/215256356_715772 [Accessed 5.4 2018]. Song, Y., Wang, M. Y., & Lei, X. (2016). Following the money: Corruption, conflict, and the winners and losers of suburban land Acquisition in China. Geographical Research, 54, 86–102. Tang, S., Hao, P., & Huang, X. (2016). Land conversion and urban settlement intentions of the rural population in China: A case study of suburban Nanjing. Habitat International, 51, 149–158. Tan, M., Li, X., Xie, H., & Lu, C. (2005). Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China—a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Land Use Policy, 22, 187–196. Tong, W., Zhang, P., Lo, K., Chen, T., & Gao, R. (2017). Age‐differentiated impact of land appropriation and resettlement on landless farmers: A case study of Xinghua village, China. Geographical Research, 55, 293–304. Wang, F.-L. (2005). Organizing through division and exclusion: China's hukou system. Stanford University Press. Wang, W. W., & Fan, C. C. (2012). Migrant workers' integration in urban China: Experiences in employment, social adaptation, and self-identity. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53, 731–749. Wang, C., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration: Evidence from China. Ambio, 40, 78–87. Webber, M. J. (2012). Making capitalism in rural China. Edward Elgar Publishing. Wilmsen, B., & Webber, M. (2015). What can we learn from the practice of developmentforced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements in response to climate change? Geoforum, 58, 76–85. Wilmsen, B., Webber, M., & Duan, Y. (2011a). Involuntary rural resettlement: Resources, strategies, and outcomes at the three Gorges dam, China. The Journal of Environment & Development, 20, 355–380. Wilmsen, B., Webber, M., & Yuefang, D. (2011b). Development for whom? Rural to urban resettlement at the three Gorges dam, China. Asian Studies Review, 35, 21–42. Wu, F. (2004). Urban poverty and marginalization under market transition: The case of Chinese cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 401–423. Xue, L., Wang, M. Y., & Xue, T. (2013). ‘Voluntary’poverty alleviation resettlement in China. Development and Change, 44, 1159–1180. Yang, H., & Li, X. (2000). Cultivated land and food supply in China. Land Use Policy, 17, 73–88. Zhang, T. (2000). Land market forces and government's role in sprawl: The case of China. Cities, 17, 123–135. Zhang, L. (2008). Conceptualizing China's urbanization under reforms. Habitat International, 32, 452–470. Zhang, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Rang shidi nongmin de shengji kechixu (Make landless farmers' living sustainable). Shehui zhengce wang (Social policy network). Zhang, X., Lu, H., & Mi, H. (2006). Study on impoverishment risk and measures on resettlement of the farmers involved in land Requisition. China Land Science, 1 000. Zhen, N., Fu, B., Lü, Y., & Zheng, Z. (2014). Changes of livelihood due to land use shifts: A case study of yanchang county in the loess plateau of China. Land Use Policy, 40, 28–35. Zhu, Y. (2007). China's floating population and their settlement intention in the cities: Beyond the Hukou reform. Habitat International, 31, 65–76. Zhu, K., & Prosterman, R. (2007). Securing land rights for Chinese farmers: A leap forward for stability and growth. Cato Development Policy Analysis Series.
Hui, E. C., & Bao, H. (2013). The logic behind conflicts in land acquisitions in contemporary China: A framework based upon game theory. Land Use Policy, 30, 373–380. Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change andFacilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325–352. Li, X. (2011). Farmland grabs by urban sprawl and their impacts on peasants' livelihood in China: An overview. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, 6–8. Liang, Y., Lu, W., & Wu, W. (2014). Are social security policies for Chinese landless farmers really effective on health in the process of Chinese rapid urbanization? A study on the effect of social security policies for Chinese landless farmers on their health-related quality of life. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 5. Liang, Y., & Zhu, D. (2015). Subjective well-being of Chinese landless peasants in relatively developed regions: Measurement using PANAS and SWLS. Social Indicators Research, 123, 817–835. Linnekamp, F., Koedam, A., & Baud, I. (2011). Household vulnerability to climate change: Examining perceptions of households of flood risks in Georgetown and Paramaribo. Habitat International, 35, 447–456. Liu, J., Zhan, J., & Deng, X. (2005). Spatio-temporal patterns and driving forces of urban land expansion in China during the economic reform era. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34, 450–455. Liu, S., Zhang, P., & Lo, K. (2014). Urbanization in remote areas: A case study of the Heilongjiang Reclamation Area, Northeast China. Habitat International, 42, 103–110. Long, H. (2014). Land use policy in China: Introduction. Elsevier. Long, H., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Woods, M., & Zou, J. (2012). Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy, 29, 11–22. Lo, K., & Wang, M. (2018). How voluntary is poverty alleviation resettlement in China? Habitat International, 73, 34–42. Mcdowell, C., & de Haan, A. (1997). Migration and sustainable livelihoods: A critical review of the literature. Ministry of land and resources. 2010. Available: http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zljc/201010/ t20101017_782930.htm [Accessed 3.8 2017]. Ministry of land and resources. 2017. Available: http://www.mlr.gov.cn/xwdt/jrxw/ 201705/t20170504_1506781.htm [Accessed 3.8 2017]. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 309–332. Mullan, K., Grosjean, P., & Kontoleon, A. (2011). Land tenure arrangements and rural–urban migration in China. World Development, 39, 123–133. Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan. Rogers, S., & Xue, T. (2015). Resettlement and climate change vulnerability: Evidence from rural China. Global Environmental Change, 35, 62–69. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 171–196. Shen, J. (2002). A study of the temporary population in Chinese cities. Habitat International, 26, 363–377. Shen, J., & Wu, F. (2013). Moving to the suburbs: Demand-side driving forces of suburban growth in China. Environment & Planning A, 45, 1823–1844. Shen, J., & Wu, F. (2017). The suburb as a space of capital accumulation: The development of new towns in Shanghai, China. Antipode, 0066-481249(3), 761–780.
115
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint
Vulnerability and livelihood restoration of landless households after land acquisition: Evidence from peri-urban China
T
Chen Lia,∗, Mark Wanga, Yanan Songb a b
School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Australia Guotai Junan Securities Co. Ltd, China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Vulnerability Livelihood restoration Landless households Land acquisition China
The large-scale rural land acquisition projects for non-agricultural purposes has cast a long shadow on rural households' livelihoods in China. In this paper, by applying Sustainable Livelihood Framework and vulnerability approach, and based on our longitudinal study (2008–2017) on a land acquisition case in S village, Jining city, Shandong province, we discuss the dynamism of households' livelihood changes before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. It is found that households' different vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations in decade after land acquisition, are the results of their different capabilities of building various livelihood capitals. Another evident finding is that land acquisition as it is increasingly practiced with China's rapid urbanisation process has triggered risks to most rural households' livelihoods. The implications of the research indicate the necessity of local governments to guarantee for sustaining rural households' livelihoods after land acquisition.
1. Introduction As China rapidly urbanises, massive amounts of agricultural land in rural areas is being acquired for non-agricultural purposes (Cao, Feng, & Tao, 2008; Mullan, Grosjean, & Kontoleon, 2011). This includes both urban construction uses such as commercial and residential projects to achieve the goal of urban expansion (He, Liu, Webster, & Wu, 2009) and industrial purposes (Chen, Ye, Cai, Xing, & Chen, 2014) often driven by market forces (Zhang, 2000). For instance, a large number of industrial or high-tech parks have been established across the country for the express purpose of advancing industrialisation (Long, Li, Liu, Woods, & Zou, 2012). Consequently, throughout the country, urban built-up areas have largely increased (Chen et al., 2014; Liu, Zhan, & Deng, 2005) while agricultural land has decreased significantly (Ministry of land and resources, 2017; Yang & Li, 2000). These extensive land acquisition projects lead to significant shifts in the livelihoods of rural households in China (Song, Wang, & Lei, 2016; Wang, Yang, & Zhang, 2011). It is from purely agricultural or natural capital, for example land resources, based livelihoods (Li, 2011; Ministry of land and resources, 2010), to livelihoods that require a wider range of capitals to sustain. These include physical capital indicating households' housing infrastructure and facilities after land acquisition; social capital indicating their integration into social networks (Chambers, 1989); and human capital indicating their education
∗
and professional skills other than farming (Bebbington, 1999), which significantly influence their employment transformations after land acquisition, and thus financial capital particularly income. Much recent scholarly attention has been paid to the significantly negative impacts of land acquisition on rural households' livelihoods in China (Hui & Bao, 2013; Long et al., 2012 ). However, these studies do not point to ways to investigate the dynamism of households' livelihood changes due to land acquisition in long-term. Similarly, they do not examine the abilities or inabilities of households to sustain or enhance access to various livelihood capitals in long-term after land acquisition. Given that restoring livelihoods after land acquisition is a dynamic process, which demands significant time for households to build various livelihood capitals, there is a need for studies that help to consider households' ability or inability to adapt to and recover from the impacts of land acquisition. The extent to which this affects their livelihoods can be thought about in terms of vulnerability (Adato & Meinzen-dick, 2002; Kelly & Adger, 2000; Pelling, 2003), and whether their livelihood restorations are sustainable in long-term after land acquisition. In this paper, we assess households' vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations from longitudinal perspective, from 2008 to 2017, based on household level data collected in a single, in-depth case of S village in Jining city, Shandong province. By applying a Sustainable Livelihood Framework that constitutes various livelihood capitals such as natural, financial, human, social and physical capitals (Hall, 2007; Scoones,
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Li).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.08.003 Received 20 February 2018; Received in revised form 30 July 2018; Accepted 4 August 2018 Available online 09 August 2018 0197-3975/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
challenges (Scoones, 1998). This is especially significant in the cultural context of rural China, where commitments to family mediate approaches to change in livelihoods (He & Xue, 2014). In this paper, we describe our longitudinal findings, on a land acquisition project in S village, Jining city, Shandong province, China. Through both quantitative assessment and qualitative techniques, we explore the abilities or inabilities of households to sustain or enhance access to different livelihood capitals, and we also investigate to what extent households transform these capitals to reduce vulnerabilities and restore livelihoods in decade after land acquisition in S village. We then explain how some households are more vulnerable in some aspects of livelihoods than another, as well as how most rural households in this region are exposed to threats in their livelihoods.
2009), we offer an understanding of different vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations in decade after land acquisition, and argue that difference in households' experiences are the results of their different capabilities in building various livelihood capitals within this period. 2. Literature review While the continuously increasing numbers of landless farmers (BAO & Peng, 2016), are deemed to be the sources of substantial social unrest in China (Ding & Lichtenberg, 2011), they are also the group of people who have suffered the most in land acquisition in various aspects (Chen & Zhang, 2007; Liang, Lu, & Wu, 2014; Liang & Zhu, 2015; Tan, Li, Xie, & Lu, 2005; Zhu & Prosterman, 2007). The impacts of land acquisition on landless farmers are also found to vary among different ages (Tong, Zhang, Lo, Chen, & Gao, 2017), different genders (Fan, 2004), and different spatial location and land acquisition degree (Zhang, Lu, & Mi, 2006). However, common impact is reduced employment opportunities for farmers and difficulties in restoring their livelihoods in urban settings (Chen, Cai, Liu, Zhou, & Zhang, 2013; Chuang, 2014; Long et al., 2012; Zhen, Fu, Lü, & Zheng, 2014). This is mainly due to the fact that many landless farmers have limited educational attainments, as well as the fact that job skill trainings and social networks are less accessible in urban areas (He et al., 2009). At a more interpersonal level, there are issues with recognition and identity politics between urban and rural residents (Liang & Zhu, 2015), which can often mean newly arrived rural residents continue to be unemployed (Cao et al., 2008). In fact, many landless farmers are involved in temporary and parttime jobs with harsh working conditions and low, unstable salaries (Shen, 2002; Wang & Fan, 2012). For example, based on 162 effective questionary surveys in suburban areas in Wuhan, Chen and Zhang (2007) find that more than 80% of landless farmers are either unemployed or rely on unstable temporary employment. As the consequence, the financial conditions of landless farmers have become deteriorated (Chen et al., 2013; Ding, 2007; Hui & Bao, 2013). For example, Zhang and Liu (2005) mention a survey conducted by National Bureau of Statistics of China, in which nearly half of landless farmers' net incomes decrease, while their living costs increase due to extra purchase on foods and increased water and electricity payments. Furthermore, without an urban hukou (urban residential registration), those landless farmers, who migrate to urban areas, are significantly discriminated with their urban counterparts (Cheng & Selden, 1994). For example, rural residents are restricted to enjoy government-provided social services and welfares (Chan & Buckingham, 2008), such as education, medical facilities and better employment opportunities (Wang, 2005). However, we find that studies comprehensively comparing households' livelihoods before, and in decade after land acquisition by applying livelihood vulnerability analytical framework are rare. Filling this empirical gap allows for the examination of the dynamic livelihood changes over the years as often households can either gain or lose relevant livelihood capitals in long-term. The integration of a Sustainable Livelihood Framework and vulnerability approach enables consideration of different types of livelihood capitals, as means (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Ellis, 1999) to identify vulnerabilities of rural households encountering external changes (for example land acquisition) on their livelihoods at local scale (Rogers & Xue, 2015). The approach also reveals their capabilities to adapt to and recover from the changes (Linnekamp, Koedam, & Baud, 2011). Such integration is emerging for land related issues (Hesselberg & Yaro, 2006; Huang, Li, Bai, & Cui, 2012), and is particularly useful in the Chinese context where we are seeing tremendous transformations of rural households' livelihoods (Huang, Huang, He, & Yang, 2017). Additionally, there is a lack of studies which describe livelihood outcomes at a household level over long-time scales after land acquisition. The net livelihood effects within a household allow for an understanding of the combinations of adaptations to different livelihood capitals as a means of confronting
3. Method We selected a land acquisition project, in S village, southeast Jining city, Shandong province, as our case study due to a series of primary concerns. Firstly, our extensive local contacts in S village allowed access to sufficient numbers of households, which also facilitated the follow up visits in decade after land acquisition. Secondly, being located in a suburban area, S village has a broad demographic profile and contains villagers with various socioeconomic status, which is important for research that seeks to understand variation in access to different livelihood capitals in decades after land acquisition. Thirdly, S village was resettled because it is in a coal mining site in which land was acquired by local government for a state-owned enterprise. The broader context of land acquisition in S village therefore also gives insights into whether land acquisition projects, in the name of local economic growth and rural industrialisation development, have benefits for local households. The land acquisition officially commenced in November 2002. In early 2003, local government, the state-owned coal mining enterprise and the villagers, had decided the compensation standard. According to the land acquisition plan, released in 2005 that was based on most of the villagers' opinions, all the land in S village would be expropriated and the villagers would be provided newly built apartments in new S village. The resettled apartments on the site were completely built in the end of 2010 and we have maintained attention on the project since 2005. The first round of fieldwork was conducted from April to June in 2008, in which we conducted face-to-face surveys of 300 households in their preferred locations. This is about 85% of the total households in S village. This approach helped to establish a representative sample and avoid any biases, which is often the result of selecting a small group of households. The average household size was 4.2 people, while the number of single-headed households was 8. There were 3 people of working age on average for each household. Survey questions included household demographics, household members' pre-land acquisition occupations, households' pre-land acquisition net income per year and income sources. Based on household net income per year, we calculated the per capita incomes within each household. The second round of fieldwork was conducted from March to September in 2017. Again, we issued 300 face-to-face surveys to the same households with the same questions. Then, we combined the data of households' annual income changes and its members' employment status after land acquisition, to know who had increased, steadied or decreased annual incomes, and why. In interpreting the quantitative results, we also conducted 100 interviews with households that were randomly selected to avoid selection bias. These interviews were held in the households' preferred places, including homes, restaurants and workplaces, with no one present besides the interviewees and researchers and local facilitators during the interviews. Each semi-structured interview was about 1 h, allowing in-depth exploration of households' less visible experiences of livelihood change in decade after land acquisition (Adato & MeinzenDick, 2002). 110
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
income levels decreased dramatically in decade after land acquisition. Generally, more households fall into low income levels.
Table 1 The employment changes in S village. Employment
Farmer Working outside S village Worker in government or stateowned-enterprises Private business owner Village cadre Student Unemployed Others
Before land acquisition
In decade after land acquisition
441 (43.8%) 304 (30.2%) 28 (2.8%)
41 (4.1%) 386 (38.5%) 27 (2.7)
42 (4.2%) 4 (0.4%) 65 (6.5%) 118 (11.7%) 4 (0.4%)
47 (4.7%) 4 (0.4%) 60 (6.0%) 431 (43.0%) 6 (0.6%)
4.3. Changed livelihood conditions In this section, we describe the different impacts of land acquisition on households in S village. Based on households' financial conditions in decade after land acquisition, we divide households into three groups. We have 270 effective household surveys regarding their annual incomes and their members' employment status before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. 4.3.1. Lucky minority: enhanced financial conditions There are only 12 households (4.8%) that increased their annual incomes in decade after land acquisition, therefore, we define these households as the lucky minority. Table 2 below shows the households members' employment status before land acquisition and in decade after land acquisition. The italic words denote households' members' occupations before land acquisition. In order to understand why these households increased their incomes, some context is needed. Household 1 is an old couple, who retired before land acquisition. Their income increase because their two children, both working in Beijing, are managerial elites with increasing salaries over the past years, and provide pensions to their parents. Household 2, 3, 5 and 11 all engage in private business, including small restaurants and shops in new S village. These households seized the business opportunities that came after land acquisitions due to increasing numbers of villagers needing their services. For example, F from Household 2 said “although my father is unemployed after land acquisition, my mother and I have gradually improving business experiences, and hence our business is gradually getting better in the past few years”. L from Household 3 said “after land acquisition, both my parents are unemployed. My wife and I are running a shop. I think that the better business is because most villagers have no land, they need to purchase foods and other daily necessities in my shop”. Household 5 and Household 11 are in a similar situation, although the numbers of people in their households run the business remain the same after land acquisition, (and even one more person is unemployed in Household 5), the large demand for daily necessities have benefited their business. The rest of the households share a common feature: fewer farmers and more people working outside the village in decade after land acquisition. For example, Household 4 used to have 4 farmers pre-land acquisition. During land acquisition period, the parents passed away, and their son and daughter-in-law went to cities to work as labour and cashers respectively in supermarkets. Household 6 had two farmers before land acquisition, and after land acquisition, one of these two are unemployed, while the other went to work as construction labourer with higher income. Z from Household 7 said that “before land acquisition, my son was studying; now he has graduated from university and is working as middle-level leader in a private company in Shanghai; also, I had worked as a truck driver in Jining since 2010. Our family's increased annual income is mainly due to my son's graduation and his increasing salary over the past years”. Y from Household 8 said “after our land is acquired, I ask my older son to go to the city to join his brother”. Y's wife added that “my two sons are waiters in a restaurant in the city”. In Household 9, before land acquisition, the son and his wife, both graduated from university, and worked as designers in Jinan city; their salaries increased stably every year. After land acquisition, his father went to Jinan as well, and worked as casual labour. In Household 10, after land acquisition, the couple went to Jining city, and the man worked as a cook and the woman worked as a cleaner in a private real estate company. P from household 12 said that “our annual income increased largely in past years compared with before land acquisition, because my wife, son and I quickly found jobs in a food producing factory. We quickly learnt relevant skills and have become qualified”.
During these interviews, we explore how households in S village have managed through the application of various livelihood capitals to restore their livelihoods in decade after land acquisition. More explicitly, in relation to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, we explore households' possessions of land as natural capital in decade after land acquisition; the conditions of their housing infrastructure and facilities in decade after land acquisition, which reflects physical capital; their integration into social networks in decade after land acquisition, which reflects social capital; and also, their education and professional skills gained or lost in decade after land acquisition, which significantly influences their employment transformation and financial capital. 4. Results 4.1. Farmers become unemployed Among 300 households' surveys, there were 285 effective surveys. As Table 1 below shows, in decade after land acquisition, the numbers of farmer decrease by 90.6%; while the numbers of working outside the village and unemployed increase by 27.5% and by 267.5% respectively. As a supplement to Table 1 that deals with individuals, similar results can be discovered when counting at household level. In S village, households' annual incomes were from three sources: farming, working outside S village and non-farming sectors in the village such as owning private business and child support. According to our survey data, before land acquisition, there were 263 households (92.35%) that had incomes from farming, but in decade after land acquisition, only 23 households (8.1%) had incomes from farming. Also, before land acquisition, there were 235 households (82.5%) that had incomes from working outside S village, but in decade after land acquisition, the number increased to 252 households (88.4%). Although the numbers differ when dealing with households and with individuals, both illustrate that post land acquisition, both the number of individual farmers and the households with farming income decreased substantially, and both the number of working outside S village and the households with incomes from working outside S village increased. 4.2. Deteriorated financial conditions Our household survey data show that before land acquisition, the households' average annual income was 69,646.0 Yuan; while decade after land acquisition, the number decreased to 49,590.9 Yuan. Per capita incomes in S village also dropped substantially in decade after land acquisition. As Fig. 1 below shows, no single households had per capita income as zero before land acquisition, while in decade after land acquisition, 4 households have no incomes. These 4 households rely on previous savings including compensations and their relatives' helps for subsistence. Also, only villagers that belong to relatively low-income levels, including 0–5000 Yuan, 5000–10,000 Yuan and 10,000–15,000 Yuan, increased in decade after land acquisition. In contrast, villagers that belong to relatively higher
111
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Fig. 1. The per capita income in S village.
4.3.2. Financially stable households There are 48 households (17.7%) that have steady annual incomes in decade after land acquisition. Among them, 14 households have no members farming before land acquisition. As T said “my two sons graduated from universities, and had worked as white-collar in cities since 2002; they bought an apartment for my wife and I, and we had moved to the city for nearly 5 years, before land acquisition”. Similarly, X stated that “our family had not worked as farmers since 2003. We opened a small local style restaurant in Jining city. The income has been stable over the past years”. After land acquisition, 28 households have members starting working in cities. For example, W said “after land acquisition, my wife and my daughter-in-law stay home to look after my two grandchildren. My son and I had worked with a decoration team in Jinan since 2011”.
In decade after land acquisition, the principle reason for the lucky minority's financially improved livelihoods is that they have been able to integrate into urban markets and engage in a range of non-farm sectors for livelihood restorations (Wilmsen, Webber, & Yuefang, 2011b). For example, these households have the capacities to enter certain human capitals: with tertiary education, young people can find advanced jobs in the Chinese metropolis, and thus are able to support their family; with qualified skills, households can temporally or permanently move to nearby places (Mcdowell & De haan, 1997). These are mainly urban areas which are seen as places of opportunity (Gu & Ma, 2013) for employment transformations (Bebbington, 1999). With business acumen, households can take advantage of market demands to achieve economic profits, as in this case, they supply essential services to landless households. Table 2 The lucky minority's employment status. Household
Annual income change (%)
Occupation change
Household
Annual income change (%)
Occupation change
1
2677.8
U→U U→U
7
25
2
900.0
F→U P→P P→P
8
20.0
3
900.0
9
14.3
4
33.3
U→U F→U P→P P→P F→D F→D F→W F→W F→U W→W P→P U→U F→U F→W W→W U→U
10
6.7
F→F F→W S→W F→W W→W U→U U→U F→F F→W W→W W→W F→W
5
33.3
6
28.5
W→W 11
1.7
12
1.6
(F: Farmer; W: Working outside S village; P: Private business owner; S: Student; U: Unemployed; D: Died).
112
P→P P→P U→U U→U F→U F→W F→W W→W
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Additionally, S stated that “my daughter was in primary school at the time of land acquisition. Now she is studying high school; my wife looks after her at home. I went to Shandong province's capital city Jinan to work as a construction worker. The company provides us meals, so I can save the salary”. In addition, people in another 6 households were retired before land acquisition; they are not working and are living on saving and pensions. The features present in these households with steady annual incomes are that, firstly, before land acquisition, they did not rely on land and farming: some have successfully engaged into urban life, and some are retired. Hence, they are not influenced much by land acquisition itself. Secondly, with relevant skills, they can find employment opportunities, mainly concentrating on low-end services, in decade after land acquisition. However, it appears that most of these 60 households (households with increased annual incomes and households with steady annual incomes) also stand in a vulnerable position as many aspects of their livelihoods are out of their own control. With relatively limited human capitals (Wu, 2004), most of them concentrate on low-end services: temporary and periodical jobs, and dangerous and stressful working environments. As Z mentioned, “driving truck is a dangerous job, I need to drive fast for transportation and considering the crowded traffic and people on the roads, I am stressed”. Similarly, P said, “working in a food producing factory has strict rules and processes, such as sanitation. We need to be very careful, we cannot make any mistakes, otherwise we will be fired and easily substituted by others”. However, they are unable to respond to and recover from the stresses placed on their livelihoods, and their long-term subsistence and livelihood become unsecured (Long, 2014). Also, the dispossession of urban hukou (official urban household registration) create significant discriminations between these households with urban residents, in the ways in which these households are not eligible to enjoy most of the state-provided rights, subsidies and opportunities (Gu & Ma, 2013; Zhang, 2008; Zhu, 2007). For example, S said “I used to consider sending my daughter to Jinan, but the fees are high and most importantly, we do not have Jinan city hukou, so she cannot study in Jinan”. Many villagers emphasise the missing social networks urban areas. For example, K mentioned that “working in cities maintains our lives to the same standard as before land acquisition economically, but not socially. We do not have as many friends and networks in the city”. W added “when we lost land, we lost our traditional asset; I am proud of being a farmer and I feel isolated in city, for me it is just a place to earn money, it is not my home”. In this circumstance, people regard cities as more of a place of working and earning money, and their social capitals have certainly deteriorated through the process of land acquisition.
Elderly people suffered the most among these households, mainly because of their insufficient adaptation to urban life and the lack of professional skills for non-farm employment. As C said, “I used to cook at my front yard, but now, I am living in apartment, there is no yard, this is not convenient for me. One time, I cooked in the public space of our community, I was warned by people not to cook there, and my son thought this was shameful. I do not have alternative options, just listen to my son and learn to live in an urban way”. According to J's interview, his problems with adaptation to urban lifestyles were even worse. He was not allowed to use the toilet at home as his son expressed distaste toward his old behaviours of using the facilities. As he stated, “The community does not have a public toilet, I can only go to the nearby green belt”. “I was thinking of finding a job in cities, so I can move out, but I am already 67. I know only farming, and it is impossible for me re-employed. I feel I am useless”. Meanwhile, these households' living costs increased much more than their annual incomes. For example, H explained that, “Before we moved to this new place, we were heated by fireplace burning coal, but now, we need to pay heating fees for government-provided heating or we use air-conditioners, which increases the amount of electricity and relevant electricity costs. Before, we used to drink underground water, now, we need to pay for running water; also, before land acquisition, we could plant vegetables, now we need to buy them”. A added that, “We now live in enhanced housing infrastructures and living facilities, but deteriorated living standards exist more pervasively in our village. We lost land, the living costs increased, and many households suffered serious livelihood issues”. In terms of social and physical capitals, many of these households have experienced enhanced housing infrastructure such as improved electricity and water facilities and services; and there are no significant loses of social capital, as most people stay at home so that they have largely retained their social networks in new S village. For example, J said that “the whole village moved to this new place, my old friends are still around me”; B said that “at least, our old neighbours can catch up as frequently as before to talk, to have a tea and play together”. 5. Discussion and conclusion In this paper, we show that in decade after land acquisition in S village, only small numbers of households have maintained financial conditions; most experienced emerging danger, stress and isolation and insecure social well-being. Most households have suffered deteriorated financial security, serious unemployment, however many have also maintained social networks and have even enhanced housing infrastructure and living facilities. Overall, households became more vulnerable in their livelihoods after land acquisition. With reduced human capital, they find it difficult to adapt to a variety of risks, and often fail to sustain material well-being and sustainability in their livelihoods (Ellis, 1999). We provide evidence that differentiation in vulnerabilities and livelihood restorations of different households are the result of different capabilities to take advantages of diversified livelihood capitals to enact change in their lives (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002). During decade-long period of this research, some households were able to gain relevant livelihood capitals, so that they can find employment opportunities, either in urban areas or in the resettlement site, and subsequently they were able to maintain their families' incomes. On the other hand, households with lack access to necessary human capitals, suffered the most from the loss their dependent natural capital and land resources, as this ultimately led to significant unemployment and financial insecurity, which in turn greatly constrained the potential sustainable livelihoods for these households.
4.3.3. The majority: decreased annual incomes There are 210 households (77.5%) that have decreased annual incomes in decade after land acquisition. Among them, nearly half have decreased annual incomes by more than 20%; nearly 20% have decreased annual incomes by more than 50% and 17 households have decreased annual incomes by more than 80%. Our survey data shows slightly increased labour, while dramatically increased unemployment and decreased number of people employed as farmers in decade after land acquisition in these households. This indicates their high reliance on land and farming before land acquisition as primary source of income, and the difficult employment transformation in decade after land acquisition. Losing land resources means losing modes of survival for them, and hence leaves these households in a vulnerable position, in which they are exposed to the risk of unavailable land resources and reduced employment opportunities. In decade after land acquisition, without sufficient human capitals such as specialised knowledge, education and professional skills (Brocklesby & Fisher, 2003) in urban markets, incomes from off-farm sectors failed to supplement the loss of farm income. 113
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
take place. In this context, protecting and reconstructing the sustainability of rural households' livelihoods in long-term is of great concern (Cernea, 1997). The lessons from this study therefore have deeper policy relevance; they call of policy makers to avoid involuntary displacement (Wilmsen, Webber, & Duan, 2011a) by empowering rural households so that they become more vocal in expressing their concerns; to consider not only one-time material compensation (Wilmsen & Webber, 2015) but also the intangible loss of values such as land (Barnett & Webber, 2009) and the provision of skills for their future livelihood sustainability. The study also suggest the need for decision makers to stay committed to support rural households to reduce their vulnerability and enhance sustainability of their livelihoods with appropriate policies and institutions (Chang & Tipple, 2009).
It has long been recognised that as industrialisation or urbanisation have led to resettlement (Liu, Zhang, & Lo, 2014; Tang, Hao, & Huang, 2016), land acquisition has had adverse consequences on the livelihoods of rural households in China (Lo & Wang, 2018). As concluded in other relevant literature, a lack of success in employment transformations of these landless farmers have been deemed to be the key reason of their deteriorated livelihoods after land acquisition. Additionally, as this research also shows, external supporting projects such as job training from local governments are clearly inadequate (Xue, Wang, & Xue, 2013). As in S village, no efforts have been made to improve the villagers' human capitals and no off-farm employment opportunities have been provided to the villagers after land acquisition. Rather than taking the villagers' long-term livelihood security into account, the local government often prioritises development over human conditions (Molotch, 1976), in which it solely focus on potentially economic profits (Webber, 2012). The deprivation of land resources has irretrievably led the villagers to lose their previous primary income source. However, the resettled housing as the compensation, although complete with enhanced physical capital, cannot bring significant economic gains for the villagers to substitute the roles of the deprived land. Therefore, the value of their land is not appropriately compensated by the onetime compensation (Barnett & Webber, 2009). In rural China, land resources play a significantly important role in maintaining households' livelihoods. With China's upcoming reforms that aim to allow rural land transfer and capitalisation (Sohu, 2018), land resources are becoming even more valuable in the fact that rural households can take advantage of land not only as natural capital, but also as financial capital, to achieve economic gains. However, these potential economic profits will not be realised if the land is deprived through land acquisition, which is often carried out by local government under the guise of urbanisation and industrialisation (Shen & Wu, 2017). In other words, rural households may not have experienced deterioration of livelihood conditions without such urbanisation and rural industrialisation. Particularly in S village, as the main vegetable supplier for Jining city, most households' livelihoods heavily relied on land resources. Without land acquisition, households in S village may have had the potential to continuously benefit from land resources, as in other suburban areas of China (Shen & Wu, 2013). Unfortunately, all the land was expropriated in S village. A limitation of the study is that although the same households were surveyed with the interval of a decade, it may not guarantee that the same person was surveyed within the household. There may be some misunderstanding between household members, leading to inconsistences in the collected data. However, these do not substantially affect the reliability of the main conclusion. This is because more than 80% of our informants for the surveys and the interviews were household heads, whose answers can represent the whole families. This research focuses on the issue on household-level, rather than individuallevel, in which all the informants were asked to share the whole household concerns rather than personal experiences only. Therefore, regardless who were surveyed and interviewed, their answers can represent household-level concerns. The potential methodological critique of gender aspects, as most of the informants in this study are male, is an important concern in data collection. Without a pilot study, our design of survey and interview questions may be complicated for some villagers, as they may not have been able to completely understand the questions and then to answer correctly. This has therefore led some ineffective surveys and interviews in data collection. More importantly, the specific purpose of land acquisition in S village to mine coal, may not be necessarily representative of other villages in China. Therefore, in order to provide more solid implications for future research and resettlement practice, we suggest the need for broader research on different villages with different purposes and degrees of land acquisition. In summary, with China's announcement of its continuing urbanisation and industrialisation for many years to come, substantial land acquisition projects in the country's suburban areas will continue to
References Adato, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. Bao, H., & Peng, Y. (2016). Effect of land expropriation on land-lost farmers' entrepreneurial action: A case study of Zhejiang province. Habitat International, 53, 342–349. Barnett, J., & Webber, M. (2009). Accommodating migration to promote adaptation to climate change. The Commission on Climate Change and Development. accessed on, 5 www.ccdcom.mission.org. Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: A framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 27, 2021–2044. Brocklesby, M. A., & Fisher, E. (2003). Community development in sustainable livelihoods approaches–an introduction. Community Development Journal, 38, 185–198. Cao, G., Feng, C., & Tao, R. (2008). Local “land finance” in China's urban expansion: Challenges and solutions. China and World Economy, 16, 19–30. Cernea, M. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations. World Development, 25, 1569–1587. Chambers, R. (1989). Editorial introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 20, 1–7. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. Studies (UK): Institute of Development. Chan, K. W., & Buckingham, W. (2008). Is China abolishing the hukou system? The China Quarterly, 195, 582–606. Chang, Y., & Tipple, G. (2009). Realities of life and housing in a poor neighbourhood in urban China: Livelihoods and vulnerabilities in Shanghai Lane, Wuhan. International Development Planning Review, 31, 165–198. Chen, Q., Cai, Y., Liu, F., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, H. (2013). Farmers' perception to farmland conversion: A questionnaire survey in Xining city, Qinghai province, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 23, 634–646. Cheng, T., & Selden, M. (1994). The origins and social consequences of China's hukou system. The China Quarterly, 139, 644–668. Chen, R., Ye, C., Cai, Y., Xing, X., & Chen, Q. (2014). The impact of rural out-migration on land use transition in China: Past, present and trend. Land Use Policy, 40, 101–110. Chen, Y., & Zhang, A. (2007). Nongdi zhuanyong guochengzhong nongmin de renzhi yu fuli bianhua fenxi - jiyu wuhanshi chengxiang jiehebu yu cunji wenjuan diaocha (Analysis of farmers' perception and welfare change during the process of farmland land conversion - based on household and village levels questionnarie survey in suburban areas in Wuhan city). China Rural Survey, 11–21. Chuang, J. (2014). China's rural land politics: Bureaucratic absorption and the muting of rightful resistance. The China Quarterly, 219, 649–669. Ding, C. (2007). Policy and praxis of land acquisition in China. Land Use Policy, 24, 1–13. Ding, C., & Lichtenberg, E. (2011). Land and urban economic growth in China. Journal of Regional Science, 51, 299–317. Ellis, F. (1999). Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: Evidence and policy implications. Overseas Development Institute. Natural Resource Perspectives 40. Fan, P. (2004). In X. Y. Lu, & P. L. Li (Eds.). 2003 nian zhongguo nongmin fazhan de jiben zhuangkuang (The development situation of China's farmers in 2003). Gu, P., & Ma, X. (2013). Investigation and analysis of a floating population's settlement intention and environmental concerns: A case study in the Shawan river Basin in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 39, 170–178. Hall, R. (2007). The impact of land restitution and land reform on livelihoods. PLAAS, University of the Western Cape. He, S., Liu, Y., Webster, C., & Wu, F. (2009). Property rights redistribution, entitlement failure and the impoverishment of landless farmers in China. Urban Studies, 46, 1925–1949. Hesselberg, J., & Yaro, J. A. (2006). An assessment of the extent and causes of food insecurity in northern Ghana using a livelihood vulnerability framework. Geojournal, 67, 41–55. He, S., & Xue, D. (2014). Identity building and communal resistance against landgrabs in Wukan Village, China. Current Anthropology, 55, S126–S137. Huang, X., Huang, X., He, Y., & Yang, X. (2017). Assessment of livelihood vulnerability of land-lost farmers in urban fringes: A case study of Xi'an, China. Habitat International, 59, 1–9. Huang, Y., Li, F., Bai, X., & Cui, S. (2012). Comparing vulnerability of coastal communities to land use change: Analytical framework and a case study in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 133–143.
114
Habitat International 79 (2018) 109–115
C. Li et al.
Sohu. 2018. Available: http://www.sohu.com/a/215256356_715772 [Accessed 5.4 2018]. Song, Y., Wang, M. Y., & Lei, X. (2016). Following the money: Corruption, conflict, and the winners and losers of suburban land Acquisition in China. Geographical Research, 54, 86–102. Tang, S., Hao, P., & Huang, X. (2016). Land conversion and urban settlement intentions of the rural population in China: A case study of suburban Nanjing. Habitat International, 51, 149–158. Tan, M., Li, X., Xie, H., & Lu, C. (2005). Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China—a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Land Use Policy, 22, 187–196. Tong, W., Zhang, P., Lo, K., Chen, T., & Gao, R. (2017). Age‐differentiated impact of land appropriation and resettlement on landless farmers: A case study of Xinghua village, China. Geographical Research, 55, 293–304. Wang, F.-L. (2005). Organizing through division and exclusion: China's hukou system. Stanford University Press. Wang, W. W., & Fan, C. C. (2012). Migrant workers' integration in urban China: Experiences in employment, social adaptation, and self-identity. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53, 731–749. Wang, C., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Economic development, rural livelihoods, and ecological restoration: Evidence from China. Ambio, 40, 78–87. Webber, M. J. (2012). Making capitalism in rural China. Edward Elgar Publishing. Wilmsen, B., & Webber, M. (2015). What can we learn from the practice of developmentforced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements in response to climate change? Geoforum, 58, 76–85. Wilmsen, B., Webber, M., & Duan, Y. (2011a). Involuntary rural resettlement: Resources, strategies, and outcomes at the three Gorges dam, China. The Journal of Environment & Development, 20, 355–380. Wilmsen, B., Webber, M., & Yuefang, D. (2011b). Development for whom? Rural to urban resettlement at the three Gorges dam, China. Asian Studies Review, 35, 21–42. Wu, F. (2004). Urban poverty and marginalization under market transition: The case of Chinese cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28, 401–423. Xue, L., Wang, M. Y., & Xue, T. (2013). ‘Voluntary’poverty alleviation resettlement in China. Development and Change, 44, 1159–1180. Yang, H., & Li, X. (2000). Cultivated land and food supply in China. Land Use Policy, 17, 73–88. Zhang, T. (2000). Land market forces and government's role in sprawl: The case of China. Cities, 17, 123–135. Zhang, L. (2008). Conceptualizing China's urbanization under reforms. Habitat International, 32, 452–470. Zhang, S., & Liu, C. (2005). Rang shidi nongmin de shengji kechixu (Make landless farmers' living sustainable). Shehui zhengce wang (Social policy network). Zhang, X., Lu, H., & Mi, H. (2006). Study on impoverishment risk and measures on resettlement of the farmers involved in land Requisition. China Land Science, 1 000. Zhen, N., Fu, B., Lü, Y., & Zheng, Z. (2014). Changes of livelihood due to land use shifts: A case study of yanchang county in the loess plateau of China. Land Use Policy, 40, 28–35. Zhu, Y. (2007). China's floating population and their settlement intention in the cities: Beyond the Hukou reform. Habitat International, 31, 65–76. Zhu, K., & Prosterman, R. (2007). Securing land rights for Chinese farmers: A leap forward for stability and growth. Cato Development Policy Analysis Series.
Hui, E. C., & Bao, H. (2013). The logic behind conflicts in land acquisitions in contemporary China: A framework based upon game theory. Land Use Policy, 30, 373–380. Kelly, P. M., & Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change andFacilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325–352. Li, X. (2011). Farmland grabs by urban sprawl and their impacts on peasants' livelihood in China: An overview. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, 6–8. Liang, Y., Lu, W., & Wu, W. (2014). Are social security policies for Chinese landless farmers really effective on health in the process of Chinese rapid urbanization? A study on the effect of social security policies for Chinese landless farmers on their health-related quality of life. International Journal for Equity in Health, 13, 5. Liang, Y., & Zhu, D. (2015). Subjective well-being of Chinese landless peasants in relatively developed regions: Measurement using PANAS and SWLS. Social Indicators Research, 123, 817–835. Linnekamp, F., Koedam, A., & Baud, I. (2011). Household vulnerability to climate change: Examining perceptions of households of flood risks in Georgetown and Paramaribo. Habitat International, 35, 447–456. Liu, J., Zhan, J., & Deng, X. (2005). Spatio-temporal patterns and driving forces of urban land expansion in China during the economic reform era. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34, 450–455. Liu, S., Zhang, P., & Lo, K. (2014). Urbanization in remote areas: A case study of the Heilongjiang Reclamation Area, Northeast China. Habitat International, 42, 103–110. Long, H. (2014). Land use policy in China: Introduction. Elsevier. Long, H., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Woods, M., & Zou, J. (2012). Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy, 29, 11–22. Lo, K., & Wang, M. (2018). How voluntary is poverty alleviation resettlement in China? Habitat International, 73, 34–42. Mcdowell, C., & de Haan, A. (1997). Migration and sustainable livelihoods: A critical review of the literature. Ministry of land and resources. 2010. Available: http://www.mlr.gov.cn/zljc/201010/ t20101017_782930.htm [Accessed 3.8 2017]. Ministry of land and resources. 2017. Available: http://www.mlr.gov.cn/xwdt/jrxw/ 201705/t20170504_1506781.htm [Accessed 3.8 2017]. Molotch, H. (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology, 309–332. Mullan, K., Grosjean, P., & Kontoleon, A. (2011). Land tenure arrangements and rural–urban migration in China. World Development, 39, 123–133. Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan. Rogers, S., & Xue, T. (2015). Resettlement and climate change vulnerability: Evidence from rural China. Global Environmental Change, 35, 62–69. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36, 171–196. Shen, J. (2002). A study of the temporary population in Chinese cities. Habitat International, 26, 363–377. Shen, J., & Wu, F. (2013). Moving to the suburbs: Demand-side driving forces of suburban growth in China. Environment & Planning A, 45, 1823–1844. Shen, J., & Wu, F. (2017). The suburb as a space of capital accumulation: The development of new towns in Shanghai, China. Antipode, 0066-481249(3), 761–780.
115