[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"item-3145":3,"related-3145":56},{"id":4,"title":5,"url":6,"summary":7,"summary_zh":8,"content":9,"source_name":10,"source_url":6,"published_at":11,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":15,"score_detail":16,"sources":24,"tags":26,"search_phrases":32,"slug":35,"view_count":36,"doi":37,"paper":38,"created_at":55},3145,"Exploring household livelihood resilience and natural resource dependence in urban-oriented resettlement in rural China","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1948406","Urban-oriented resettlement is a key policy instrument for alleviating resource-driven livelihood constraints and fostering rural transformation and sustainable development in ecologically fragile regions. However, relocation not only changes residential locations but also alters households’ access to natural resources, livelihood capital structure, social networks, and livelihood strategy choices, leading to heterogeneous post-resettlement livelihood outcomes. Using household survey data from Ankang, Shaanxi Province, China, we develop an integrated framework coupling natural resource dependence (NRD) with household livelihood resilience (HLR) to examine how urban-oriented resettlement reconfigures this relationship. Group comparisons and multinomial logistic regression were used to examine the associations of relocation participation, voluntariness, subsidy level, and distance with HLR–NRD configuration membership. The results show that urban-oriented resettlement is associated with a significant reduction in households’ NRD, especially income and energy dependence; yet lower NRD does not consistently correspond to greater HLR. Relocation characteristics were also associated with households’ membership in different livelihood-transition configurations. These findings suggest that urban-oriented resettlement should be understood as a long-term process of livelihood-system reconstruction rather than as a one-time spatial intervention. Policy support should shift from uniform assistance toward differentiated livelihood recovery strategies based on HLR–NRD modes. This study extends household-level research on livelihood risk management and resettlement evaluation and offers empirical evidence for resettlement planning and sustainable livelihood governance in ecologically fragile regions and other developing contexts.","以城镇为导向的搬迁安置是缓解资源驱动型生计约束、促进生态脆弱地区农村转型与可持续发展的关键政策工具。然而，搬迁不仅改变了居民的居住地点，也改变了家庭对自然资源的获取、生计资本结构、社会网络以及生计策略选择，从而导致搬迁后生计结果呈现异质性。本文利用中国陕西省安康市的农户调查数据，构建了一个将自然资源依赖（NRD）与家庭生计韧性（HLR）相耦合的整合框架，以考察以城镇为导向的搬迁安置如何重构这一关系。研究采用组间比较和多项逻辑回归，分析搬迁参与、自愿性、补贴水平和距离与HLR–NRD配置归属之间的关联。结果表明，以城镇为导向的搬迁安置与家庭NRD的显著降低相关，尤其是收入和能源依赖；然而，较低的NRD并不总是对应更高的HLR。搬迁特征也与家庭在不同生计转型配置中的归属相关。这些发现表明，以城镇为导向的搬迁安置应被理解为生计系统重构的长期过程，而非一次性的空间干预。政策支持应从统一援助转向基于HLR–NRD模式的差异化生计恢复策略。本研究拓展了家庭层面的生计风险管理与搬迁评估研究，并为生态脆弱地区及其他发展中情境下的搬迁规划和可持续生计治理提供了经验证据。",null,"Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems","2026-09-21T00:00:00Z","论文",10,false,72,{"impact":17,"substance":18,"depth":19,"authority":20,"freshness":21,"relevant":22,"comment":23},12,21,17,13,9,1,"基于陕西安康农户调查，将自然资源依赖与生计韧性耦合，揭示搬迁后生计系统重构的异质性，对生态脆弱区搬迁后续扶持政策有实证参考价值。",[25],{"name":10,"url":6},[27,28,29,30,31],"生计韧性","易地搬迁","农户生计","自然资源依赖","陕西安康",[33,34],"陕西安康 易地搬迁 农户生计","自然资源依赖 生计韧性","陕西安康易地搬迁农户生计-3145",0,"10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1948406",{"doi":37,"openalex_id":39,"authors":40,"venue":10,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":6,"card":48,"direction":52,"ingested_from":54},"W7213902576",[41,43,45],{"name":42,"orcid":9},"Ziqi Fang",{"name":44,"orcid":9},"Shaojun Chen",{"name":46,"orcid":47},"Xinyu Wu","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0001-6130-7821",{"tldr":49,"method":50,"finding":51,"direction":52,"opportunity":53},"基于陕西安康农户调查，分析易地搬迁后自然资源依赖与生计韧性的关系。","农户调查数据，构建NRD-HLR耦合框架，用多项逻辑回归分析。","搬迁显著降低资源依赖，但低依赖未必带来高生计韧性，需差异化恢复策略。","数字乡村与农业信息化","可引入数字技术监测搬迁户生计资本与资源依赖动态，支撑差异化精准帮扶。","openalex","2026-09-22T23:30:08.101965Z",{"total":57,"page":22,"page_size":57,"items":58},6,[59,98,131,178,216,252],{"id":60,"title":61,"url":62,"summary":63,"summary_zh":64,"content":9,"source_name":10,"source_url":62,"published_at":65,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":66,"score_detail":67,"sources":69,"tags":71,"search_phrases":76,"slug":79,"view_count":36,"doi":80,"paper":81,"created_at":97},2750,"Return migration, rural–urban linkages and livelihood differentiation in ethnic mountainous villages of Chongqing, China","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1879585","Introduction Return migration is reshaping rural livelihoods in ethnic mountainous villages, yet household-level evidence on its implications for livelihood capacity and food access remains limited. Methods Using survey data from 302 households across four ethnic mountainous study sites in Chongqing, China, this study examines livelihood reorganization among return-migrant households through a rural–urban linkage lens. We constructed three composite indicators—basic livelihood conditions (BLC), food access-related livelihood capacity (FAC) and food stability-related livelihood capacity (FSC)—and examined these measures alongside income diversity and household food insecurity outcomes. Results Return-migrant households were concentrated in part-time, non-agriculture-dominant and non-agricultural livelihood types, while pure agricultural and agriculture-dominant types were less common. Their income diversity index, BLC, FAC and FSC were higher than those of non-return households, with values of 1.0434, 0.5758, 0.6006 and 0.6127, respectively, compared with 0.9196, 0.5404, 0.5568 and 0.5717. At the village level, Huaxi and Xinjian showed higher income diversification and livelihood capacity, whereas food insecurity risks were concentrated mainly in Dahekou and Dazhai. In the full sample, the incidence rates of worry about insufficient food and food shortage experience were 4.30% and 2.32%, respectively. Discussion These findings show that return migration does not automatically generate resilient livelihoods. Livelihood diversification was more closely aligned with food access and stability where income sources were stable, rural–urban linkages were maintained, livelihood conditions were stronger and village constraints were less severe.","引言 返乡迁移正在重塑民族山区乡村的生计方式，但关于其对生计能力和食物获取影响的农户层面证据仍然有限。方法 本研究利用中国重庆四个民族山区研究点302户家庭的调查数据，从城乡联系视角考察返乡迁移家庭的生计重组。我们构建了三个综合指标——基本生计条件（BLC）、食物获取相关生计能力（FAC）和食物稳定性相关生计能力（FSC），并将这些指标与收入多样性和家庭食物不安全结果一并考察。结果 返乡迁移家庭集中于兼业型、非农主导型和非农型生计类型，而纯农型和农业主导型较少。其收入多样性指数、BLC、FAC和FSC均高于非返乡家庭，分别为1.0434、0.5758、0.6006和0.6127，而非返乡家庭分别为0.9196、0.5404、0.5568和0.5717。在村庄层面，花溪和新建表现出更高的收入多样化和生计能力，而食物不安全风险主要集中在河口和大寨。在全样本中，担心食物不足和经历食物短缺的发生率分别为4.30%和2.32%。讨论 这些发现表明，返乡迁移并不会自动产生有韧性的生计。在收入来源稳定、城乡联系得以维持、生计条件较强且村庄约束较轻的情况下，生计多样化与食物获取和稳定性的契合更为紧密。","2026-09-17T00:00:00Z",73,{"impact":17,"substance":18,"depth":19,"authority":20,"freshness":13,"relevant":22,"comment":68},"基于重庆民族山区302户调查的实证研究，揭示返乡回流与城乡联结对农户生计分化和食物获取的影响，数据扎实、结论有政策参考价值，但属细分领域学术成果，影响范围有限。",[70],{"name":10,"url":62},[72,73,29,74,75],"粮食安全","城乡融合","返乡回流","山区乡村",[77,78],"农户生计 城乡融合 山区乡村 粮食安全","农户生计 城乡融合","农户生计城乡融合山区乡村粮食安全-2750","10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1879585",{"doi":80,"openalex_id":82,"authors":83,"venue":10,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":62,"card":92,"direction":52,"ingested_from":54},"W7213464742",[84,86,88,90],{"name":85,"orcid":9},"Denghui Xu",{"name":87,"orcid":9},"Chunwang Sun",{"name":89,"orcid":9},"Zhewen Zheng",{"name":91,"orcid":9},"Xianhua Guo",{"tldr":93,"method":94,"finding":95,"direction":52,"opportunity":96},"基于重庆民族山区302户调查，分析返乡迁移对农户生计分化与食物获取的影响。","问卷调查与生计复合指标（BLC、FAC、FSC）及收入多样性分析。","返乡户生计多样性与食物获取能力更高，但生计韧性并非自动形成。","可结合数字技术追踪返乡户城乡联系与生计资本，构建食物安全预警模型。","2026-09-17T23:30:07.231529Z",{"id":99,"title":100,"url":101,"summary":102,"summary_zh":9,"content":9,"source_name":103,"source_url":9,"published_at":9,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":104,"score_detail":105,"sources":111,"tags":113,"search_phrases":118,"slug":121,"view_count":36,"doi":9,"paper":122,"created_at":130},2738,"数字乡村建设的防返贫效应与包容性研究","http:\u002F\u002Fwww.qikanvip.com\u002Fqkml\u002F165617.html","杭州电子科技大学徐旭初等利用数字乡村指数与中国家庭追踪调查2020年和2022年的匹配数据,实证估计了数字乡村建设对农户贫困脆弱性的影响及作用机制。研究发现数字乡村建设显著缓解了农户贫困脆弱性;对数字乡村建设分维度的分析发现,乡村经济数字化、生活数字化和治理数字化均对农户贫困脆弱性具有显著的缓解作用;机制路径分析表明,数字乡村建设主要通过就业促进和素养提升影响农户贫困脆弱性。","农业技术经济 2026年第2期",74,{"impact":106,"substance":107,"depth":106,"authority":108,"freshness":109,"relevant":22,"comment":110},18,22,14,2,"核心期刊论文，基于CFPS匹配数据的实证研究，方法规范、结论可靠，但时效性偏弱，适合作为主题页深度内容而非每日精选。",[112],{"name":103,"url":101},[114,115,29,116,117],"数字乡村","防返贫","贫困脆弱性","包容性发展",[119,120],"包容性发展 贫困脆弱性 农户生计 数字乡村","包容性发展 贫困脆弱性","包容性发展贫困脆弱性农户生计数字乡村-2738",{"doi":9,"openalex_id":9,"authors":123,"venue":9,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":9,"card":124,"direction":52,"ingested_from":129},[],{"tldr":125,"method":126,"finding":127,"direction":52,"opportunity":128},"利用数字乡村指数与CFPS数据，实证检验数字乡村建设对农户贫困脆弱性的缓解效应及机制。","数字乡村指数匹配CFPS 2020和2022年数据，实证估计影响与机制。","数字乡村建设显著缓解农户贫困脆弱性，经济、生活、治理数字化均有作用，通过就业促进和素养提升实现。","可探究数字乡村不同维度对贫困脆弱性的异质性影响，以及就业促进与素养提升的长期动态效应。","agent","2026-09-17T00:04:41.028939Z",{"id":132,"title":133,"url":134,"summary":135,"summary_zh":136,"content":9,"source_name":137,"source_url":134,"published_at":138,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":15,"score_detail":139,"sources":141,"tags":143,"search_phrases":147,"slug":150,"view_count":36,"doi":151,"paper":152,"created_at":177},2417,"Climate-smart but economically vulnerable: livelihood strategy choices among millet-producing households in Central Tanzania","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.1080\u002F14735903.2026.2728319","The irony of climate-smart agriculture is particularly evident in central Tanzania, where farmers cultivating millet, a crop promoted as climate change solutions, face the most difficult livelihood choices. This study examines the livelihood strategies of millet farmers in the Manyoni and Bahi districts of central Tanzania, including the factors influencing these choices. A triangulated clustering analysis based on the activity approach classified the 417 farming households into five distinct clusters, where income levels, commercialization indices, and food security scores were compared. A multinomial logit model examined the drivers of livelihood strategy choices. The results identify five distinct livelihood strategies, with the majority of farmers engaging in multiple economic activities, such as off-farm activities, livestock keeping, and cultivating commercial crops. Cluster 1 represents 28% of households, with the highest income, food security, and market participation, primarily due to finger millet cultivation. In contrast, Cluster 4, comprising farmers who grow only pearl millet, is the poorest, with low income and limited market participation. The key drivers of cluster choices included education, age, extension services, and geographical location. Findings highlight that livelihood strategies among millet-producing households yield distinct welfare outcomes; thus, policies and interventions should prioritize livelihood combinations that result in improved food security and economic resilience.","气候智能型农业的讽刺之处在坦桑尼亚中部尤为明显：种植小米——一种被宣传为气候变化解决方案的作物——的农民却面临着最艰难的生计选择。本研究考察了坦桑尼亚中部马尼奥尼区和巴希区小米种植户的生计策略，包括影响这些选择的因素。基于活动方法的三角聚类分析将417个农户划分为五个不同的集群，并对收入水平、商业化指数和粮食安全得分进行了比较。多项Logit模型检验了生计策略选择的驱动因素。结果识别出五种不同的生计策略，大多数农民从事多种经济活动，如非农活动、畜牧养殖和种植经济作物。集群1占农户的28%，拥有最高的收入、粮食安全和市场参与度，主要归因于指状粟的种植。相比之下，集群4由仅种植珍珠粟的农民组成，是最贫困的群体，收入低且市场参与有限。集群选择的关键驱动因素包括教育、年龄、推广服务和地理位置。研究结果表明，小米种植户的生计策略产生了不同的福利结果；因此，政策和干预措施应优先考虑能够改善粮食安全和经济韧性的生计组合。","International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability","2026-09-11T00:00:00Z",{"impact":17,"substance":18,"depth":19,"authority":20,"freshness":21,"relevant":22,"comment":140},"基于417户聚类与多项Logit模型的实证研究，揭示气候智慧型作物种植户的生计分化与福利差异，对同类地区政策设计有参考价值，但属区域性研究，公共影响有限。",[142],{"name":137,"url":134},[72,144,145,146,29],"气候智慧农业","小农户增收","小米种植",[148,149],"气候智慧农业 小农户增收 农户生计 小米种植","气候智慧农业 小农户增收","气候智慧农业小农户增收农户生计小米种植-2417","10.1080\u002F14735903.2026.2728319",{"doi":151,"openalex_id":153,"authors":154,"venue":137,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":134,"card":171,"direction":176,"ingested_from":54},"W7212316876",[155,157,160,163,166,168],{"name":156,"orcid":9},"Prisca E. Kimaro",{"name":158,"orcid":159},"Niloofar Khalili","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-9079-518X",{"name":161,"orcid":162},"Constance Rybak","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-7581-8021",{"name":164,"orcid":165},"Stefan Sieber","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-4849-7277",{"name":167,"orcid":9},"Daniel Ndyetabula",{"name":169,"orcid":170},"Dagmar Mithöfer","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-9347-682X",{"tldr":172,"method":173,"finding":174,"direction":52,"opportunity":175},"研究坦桑尼亚中部小米种植户的生计策略选择及其影响因素。","对417户聚类分析，并用多项Logit模型分析生计策略驱动因素。","多数农户采取多种经营活动，仅种珍珠粟的农户最贫困，教育、年龄、推广服务和地理位置是关键驱动因素。","可探索数字推广服务如何帮助气候智慧型作物种植户优化生计组合、提升经济韧性。","智慧农业 \u002F 农业物联网","2026-09-14T23:30:11.425655Z",{"id":179,"title":180,"url":181,"summary":182,"summary_zh":183,"content":9,"source_name":10,"source_url":181,"published_at":138,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":184,"score_detail":185,"sources":189,"tags":191,"search_phrases":195,"slug":198,"view_count":36,"doi":199,"paper":200,"created_at":215},2293,"Livelihood capital heterogeneity and post-relocation differentiation among poverty-alleviated households: evidence from the Liangshan Yi region, China","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1888033","Identifying structural differences in livelihood capital across household types after relocation is essential for understanding patterns of household differentiation and designing effective support policies. Based on survey data from 677 poverty-alleviation relocated households in the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, this study classifies households into five types according to income structure and constructs a five-dimensional analytical framework of livelihood capital, and comprehensively uses entropy method, analysis of variance, and discriminant analysis to systematically examine patterns of household differentiation. The results reveal that standardized resettlement has not homogenized household development capacity, but rather restructured livelihood capital configurations in ways that render pre-existing differences more salient. Each household type exhibits a distinctive capital structure--non-agricultural households are characterized by higher human capital, pure agricultural households by stronger physical and natural capital, non-agriculture-dominant mixed households by more extensive social capital, agriculture-dominant mixed households by a relatively balanced yet low level capital portfolio, and transfer-dependent households by comprehensive capital disadvantages. Transitional mixed-livelihood households exhibit unstable capital configurations and the lowest classification accuracy in discriminant analysis, positioning them as a priority group for poverty-relapse prevention. Overall, these findings demonstrate that post-relocation household differentiation is systematically associated with differences in capital conversion capacity. Based on the above research results, this paper suggests that support policies should shift from uniform assistance toward differentiated interventions aligned with the specific capital endowments of each household type.","识别搬迁后不同家庭类型生计资本的结构性差异，对于理解农户分化规律和制定有效支持政策至关重要。基于凉山彝族自治州677户易地扶贫搬迁农户的调查数据，本研究依据收入结构将农户划分为五种类型，构建生计资本五维分析框架，综合运用熵值法、方差分析和判别分析，系统考察农户分化规律。结果表明，标准化安置并未使农户发展能力趋于同质化，反而重构了生计资本配置，使既有差异更加凸显。各家庭类型呈现出独特的资本结构——非农型农户以较高人力资本为特征，纯农型农户以较强的物质资本和自然资本为特征，非农主导型兼业农户以更广泛的社会资本为特征，农业主导型兼业农户以相对均衡但水平较低的资本组合为特征，转移依赖型农户则面临全面的资本劣势。过渡型兼业农户的资本配置不稳定，在判别分析中分类准确率最低，是防止返贫的重点群体。总体而言，这些发现表明搬迁后农户分化与资本转换能力差异存在系统性关联。基于上述研究结果，本文建议支持政策应从统一帮扶转向与各家庭类型特定资本禀赋相匹配的差异化干预。",77,{"impact":186,"substance":107,"depth":106,"authority":20,"freshness":187,"relevant":22,"comment":188},16,8,"基于凉山677户搬迁农户调查，揭示安置后生计资本分化规律并提出差异化帮扶建议，数据扎实、结论对防返贫政策有参考价值，但属区域案例研究，影响层级有限。",[190],{"name":10,"url":181},[115,192,28,193,194],"生计资本","凉山彝族","差异化帮扶",[196,197],"差异化帮扶 凉山彝族 易地搬迁 生计资本","差异化帮扶 凉山彝族","差异化帮扶凉山彝族易地搬迁生计资本-2293","10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1888033",{"doi":199,"openalex_id":201,"authors":202,"venue":10,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":181,"card":210,"direction":52,"ingested_from":54},"W7212274976",[203,206,208],{"name":204,"orcid":205},"Jie Gao","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-2640-5116",{"name":207,"orcid":9},"Yuemei Sun",{"name":209,"orcid":9},"Xiaoyu Huang",{"tldr":211,"method":212,"finding":213,"direction":52,"opportunity":214},"基于凉山677户易地搬迁户调查，分析生计资本异质性与搬迁后农户分化。","熵值法、方差分析与判别分析，构建五维生计资本框架。","安置未使发展能力同质化，资本转换能力差异导致农户系统性分化。","可结合数字技术监测农户生计资本动态，构建返贫风险预警与差异化帮扶决策模型。","2026-09-13T23:30:07.186239Z",{"id":217,"title":218,"url":219,"summary":220,"summary_zh":221,"content":9,"source_name":10,"source_url":219,"published_at":222,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":36,"score_detail":223,"sources":225,"tags":227,"search_phrases":230,"slug":233,"view_count":36,"doi":234,"paper":235,"created_at":251},1287,"Government support policies and sustainable livelihoods among resettled migrants in China: evidence from inner Mongolia","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1933655","Following China's elimination of absolute poverty, income recovery and livelihood sustainability (IRLS) among resettlers have become core objectives of follow-up resettlement. Using survey data from 506 resettled households in Ordos City and Bayannur City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China, this study employs multiple statistical methods to examine how policy factors shape IRLS among resettlers in the post-elimination of absolute poverty stage (PEAPS). The findings show that policy factors remain an important safeguard for resettlers' IRLS in the PEAPS context. However, the effects differ markedly by policy type: skills training and social security have significant positive effects; living allowances tend to induce welfare dependency, and the effects of credit support are not yet evident. Policy factors also face constraints arising from industrial structure and unequal access to public services. Accordingly, this study recommends improving skills training and social security policies, increasing the targeted allocation of policy funds, tailoring assistance to the needs of individual resettlers, and dynamically adjusting policy measures. By coordinating internal and external efforts to activate resettlers' endogenous development potential, these measures can help achieve the long-term goals of enabling resettlers to “settle down securely, achieve prosperity, and pursue sustainable development.”","在中国消除绝对贫困之后，移民的收入恢复与生计可持续性（IRLS）已成为后续扶持工作的核心目标。本研究基于内蒙古自治区鄂尔多斯市和巴彦淖尔市506户移民家庭的调查数据，运用多种统计方法，探讨了后消除绝对贫困阶段（PEAPS）政策因素如何塑造移民的IRLS。研究发现，在PEAPS背景下，政策因素仍是保障移民IRLS的重要支撑。然而，不同政策类型的效果存在显著差异：技能培训和社会保障具有显著正向影响；生活补贴倾向于诱发福利依赖，而信贷支持的效果尚不明显。政策因素还面临产业结构及公共服务获取不均等带来的制约。据此，本研究建议完善技能培训和社会保障政策，提高政策资金的精准配置，针对移民个体需求实施差异化帮扶，并动态调整政策措施。通过内外协同发力，激活移民的内生发展潜力，这些措施有助于实现让移民“稳得住、能致富、可持续发展”的长远目标。","2026-08-31T00:00:00Z",{"impact":36,"substance":36,"depth":36,"authority":36,"freshness":36,"relevant":36,"comment":224},"主题聚焦移民生计与政策效应，与三农相关但非农业信息化核心，相关性不足。",[226],{"name":10,"url":219},[228,28,229],"政策支持","可持续生计",[231,232],"可持续生计 政策支持 易地搬迁","可持续生计 政策支持","可持续生计政策支持易地搬迁-1287","10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1933655",{"doi":234,"openalex_id":236,"authors":237,"venue":10,"cited_by_count":36,"oa_url":245,"card":246,"direction":52,"ingested_from":54},"W7204790815",[238,240,242],{"name":239,"orcid":9},"Xiujun Tai",{"name":241,"orcid":9},"Liuying Chen",{"name":243,"orcid":244},"Yanhong Wang","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0009-0004-0992-635X","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.frontiersin.org\u002Fjournals\u002Fsustainable-food-systems\u002Farticles\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1933655\u002Fpdf",{"tldr":247,"method":248,"finding":249,"direction":52,"opportunity":250},"研究内蒙古搬迁移民的政府支持政策对收入恢复和生计可持续的影响。","基于506户调查数据，采用多种统计方法分析政策因素。","技能培训和社会保障有积极影响，生活补贴导致福利依赖，信贷支持效果不明显。","可探索如何利用数字化手段优化政策精准投放，避免福利依赖，提升移民内生发展动力。","2026-09-01T23:30:07.590328Z",{"id":253,"title":254,"url":255,"summary":256,"summary_zh":9,"content":257,"source_name":258,"source_url":9,"published_at":259,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":66,"score_detail":260,"sources":264,"tags":266,"search_phrases":270,"slug":273,"view_count":36,"doi":9,"paper":9,"created_at":274},1191,"Land-Use Policy and Farmers' Livelihood Resilience: A Structured Review of Conceptual Pathways to Rural Revitalization (土地利用政策与农民生计韧性:乡村振兴概念路径的结构化综述)","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852","MDPI Agriculture 2026, 16(17), 1852, 2026年8月27日发表,作者来自吉林大学地球科学学院、吉林省耕地保护和土地整理中心、吉林农业大学经济管理学院、东北农业大学公共管理学院。在气候变化、市场波动和政策调整的压力下,农村生计系统面临日益加剧的脆弱性,威胁减贫成果。生计韧性——承受冲击、维持生计和驱动转型的能力——已成为评估可持续农村发展的核心;然而其概念、指标以及与土地利用政策的联系尚未系统整合。本综述综合现有农民生计韧性及其与土地利用政策关系的研究,得出三项主要发现:(1)综合现有定义,基于韧性与脆弱性之间的区别厘清主要评估方法;(2)识别影响生计韧性的多重驱动因素,许多可通过土地利用政策和相关农村治理工具直接或间接影响;(3)识别将土地利用政策与缓冲、适应和转型能力联系起来的三个潜在路径。","Logical Operator Operator\n\nSearch Text\n\nSearch Type\n\n_add\\_circle\\_outline_\n\n_remove\\_circle\\_outline_\n\n[![Image 1: agriculture-logo](https:\u002F\u002Fpub.mdpi-res.com\u002Fimg\u002Fjournals\u002Fagriculture-logo.png?d9aa6395761dfdff)](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002Fjournal\u002Fagriculture)\n\n## Article Menu\n\nFont Type:\n\n_Arial_ _Georgia_ _Verdana_\n\nFont Size:\n\nAa Aa Aa\n\nLine Spacing:\n\n__ __ __\n\nColumn Width:\n\n__ __ __\n\nBackground:\n\nOpen Access Review\n\nby \nXiaoqiao Liu\n\n 1[](mailto:xqliu24@mails.jlu.edu.cn), \nDaping Liu\n\n 2, \nXinyuan Li\n\n 3, \nHeyang Gong\n\n 4 and \nYuefen Li\n\n 1,*[](mailto:yfli@jlu.edu.cn)[![Image 2: ORCID](https:\u002F\u002Fpub.mdpi-res.com\u002Fimg\u002Fdesign\u002Forcid.png?0465bc3812adeb52?1788181901)](https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-6099-5893)\n\n1\n\nCollege of Earth Sciences, Jilin University, Changchun 130061, China\n\n2\n\nJilin Provincial Cultivated Land Protection and Land Consolidation Center, Changchun 130061, China\n\n3\n\nCollege of Economics and Management, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, China\n\n4\n\nSchool of Public Administration, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China\n\n*\n\nAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed.\n\nSubmission received: 8 July 2026 \u002F Revised: 23 August 2026 \u002F Accepted: 26 August 2026 \u002F Published: 27 August 2026\n\n## Abstract\n\nUnder pressure from climate change, market volatility, and policy adjustments, rural livelihood systems face increasing vulnerability, which threatens poverty reduction gains. Livelihood resilience—the ability to withstand shocks, sustain livelihoods, and drive transformation—has become central to assessing sustainable rural development; however, its concepts, metrics, and links to land-use policies have not yet been systematically integrated. This review synthesizes existing research on farmers’ livelihood resilience and its relationship with land-use policy, yielding three main findings: (1) It synthesizes existing definitions and clarifies major assessment approaches based on the distinction between resilience and vulnerability. (2) Multiple drivers influencing livelihood resilience were identified, many of which can be directly or indirectly influenced, mediated, or coordinated through land-use policy and related rural governance instruments. (3) Three potential pathways linking land-use policies to buffering, adaptive, and transformative capacities were identified, with policy effects varying across households and contexts and potentially contributing to rural revitalization through changes in livelihood resources and opportunities.\n\n## 1. Introduction\n\nFarmers’ livelihood resilience refers to the capacity of farm households to maintain basic livelihoods, restore production and living conditions, and pursue adaptive adjustment and sustainable development under external shocks such as climate change, market volatility, resource constraints and institutional change [[1](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B1-agriculture-16-01852),[2](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B2-agriculture-16-01852)]. Farmers’ livelihood resilience is a core issue in resilience research and the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [[3](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B3-agriculture-16-01852)]. With over 40% of the global population still residing in rural areas, this topic has become increasingly important as farm households face the compounded impacts of climate variability, fluctuations in agricultural product prices, labor mobility, and changing resource constraints [[4](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B4-agriculture-16-01852),[5](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B5-agriculture-16-01852),[6](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B6-agriculture-16-01852),[7](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B7-agriculture-16-01852)]. For farm households, land is not only a basic input for crop and livestock production, but also a property asset, residential space, source of ecosystem services and platform for rural industrial development [[8](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B8-agriculture-16-01852),[9](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B9-agriculture-16-01852),[10](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B10-agriculture-16-01852)]. Changes in land acquisition, security of tenure, transferability, land-use restrictions, infrastructure, and compensation may not only alter the livelihood resources that farmers own and can mobilize, but may also influence their behavioral choices, such as production investment, labor allocation, and livelihood diversification [[11](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B11-agriculture-16-01852),[12](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B12-agriculture-16-01852),[13](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B13-agriculture-16-01852),[14](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B14-agriculture-16-01852)]. These land allocation processes do not arise spontaneously but are rooted in the institutional environment shaped by land-use policies. Consequently, land-use policies may influence farmers’ livelihood resilience—their ability to buffer against shocks, restore production, and achieve transformation—by reshaping access to rights and resources, altering livelihood capital, and inducing changes in farmers’ behavior [[9](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B9-agriculture-16-01852),[10](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B10-agriculture-16-01852)].\n\nExisting research has developed along two main lines. The first focuses on farmers’ livelihood resilience itself, drawing mainly on the sustainable livelihoods framework and social–ecological resilience theory to examine its conceptual meaning, measurement dimensions and determinants. The sustainable livelihoods framework emphasizes that farm households cope with vulnerability by combining human, natural, physical, financial and social capital, while access to and allocation of these forms of capital are strongly shaped by institutions and policy environments [[15](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B15-agriculture-16-01852),[16](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B16-agriculture-16-01852),[17](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B17-agriculture-16-01852),[18](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B18-agriculture-16-01852)]. Resilience theory further highlights the capacity of systems to absorb disturbance, adapt and transform under external shocks [[19](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B19-agriculture-16-01852),[20](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B20-agriculture-16-01852),[21](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B21-agriculture-16-01852)]. Building on this foundation, Speranza et al. [[2](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B2-agriculture-16-01852)] proposed a livelihood resilience measurement framework centered on buffer capacity, self-organization and learning capacity, advancing the operationalization of farmers’ livelihood resilience. Subsequent studies have shown that modern agricultural production systems, specialized village development, ecological compensation, income diversification and knowledge learning mechanisms are associated with increased farmers’ livelihood resilience by improving resource access, strengthening external support and building agency [[22](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B22-agriculture-16-01852),[23](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B23-agriculture-16-01852),[24](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B24-agriculture-16-01852)]. The second line of research approaches the issue from land institutions and rural spatial governance, examining how policy instruments such as land consolidation, tenure documentation, idle homestead revitalization, ecological compensation and rural living-environment governance affect land-use efficiency, resource accessibility and farmers’ development capacity [[10](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B10-agriculture-16-01852),[12](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B12-agriculture-16-01852),[13](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B13-agriculture-16-01852),[14](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B14-agriculture-16-01852)].\n\nOverall, although existing research has revealed the capacity structure of farmers’ livelihood resilience and the resource allocation effect of land policy, a unified analytical framework for land policy evaluation has not yet been formed. According to Barrett et al., existing resilience research still exhibits significant differences in conceptual definition, dimensional classification, and measurement methods, thus necessitating further clarification of how farmers’ livelihood resilience is conceptualized and operationalized in empirical research [[25](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B25-agriculture-16-01852)]. In their systematic review and meta-analysis, Fan et al. identified multiple factors influencing livelihood resilience, such as income, food access, and adaptability, but have not further determined which of these factors can be affected, mediated, or coordinated through land-use policies [[26](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B26-agriculture-16-01852)]. Natarajan et al. further emphasize, through their critical review and reconstruction of the sustainable livelihoods framework, that institutions and policies are important structural processes shaping access to livelihood resources and livelihood pathways; however, from the perspective of policy evaluation issues addressed in this paper, this framework does not further establish the correspondence between specific land policy instruments, changes in livelihood capital, and different resilience capacities [[27](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B27-agriculture-16-01852)]. In contrast, Higgins et al. and Huntington & Lisher’s reviews of evidence on land tenure and land governance show that land system reform has formed a basic path of action from tenure security, investment, and resource allocation to farmer development outcomes, but the relevant evidence mainly revolves around outcomes such as investment, productivity, income, and welfare, and the strength of evidence for different outcomes is inconsistent. This further suggests that existing research lacks a policy-oriented analytical framework that can systematically compare how different land-use policy tools are linked to changes in livelihood capital and different resilience capacities [[28](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B28-agriculture-16-01852),[29](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B29-agriculture-16-01852)].\n\nAgainst this background, this study re-examines the formation of farmers’ livelihood resilience from the perspective of land-use policy, responding to the practical needs of rural revitalization and sustainable rural development. This study employs a structured literature review, combining bibliometric and qualitative content analysis methods, to address three questions: (1) How is farmers’ livelihood resilience conceptualized and operationalized in empirical research? (2) What factors influence farmers’ livelihood resilience, and can these factors be influenced, mediated, or coordinated through land-use policies? (3) How can a policy-oriented framework be developed—based on China’s land policy system—to assess the potential impacts of various land-use policies on farmers’ livelihood resilience? To this end, the study aims to integrate research on land-use policy with that on farmers’ livelihood resilience, thereby laying a theoretical foundation and providing analytical tools for optimizing land policy design, enhancing farmers’ livelihood resilience, and advancing rural revitalization. This study comprises eight sections; the next section details the review methodology employed. [Section 3](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec3-agriculture-16-01852) reviews the evolution and definition of farmers’ livelihood resilience. [Section 4](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec4-agriculture-16-01852) synthesizes existing assessment methods for farmers’ livelihood resilience, while [Section 5](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec5-agriculture-16-01852) summarizes the factors influencing it. [Section 6](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec6-agriculture-16-01852) analyzes the interactions between land policy and farmers’ livelihood resilience. [Section 7](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec7-agriculture-16-01852) presents a discussion, comparing the proposed framework with existing ones and addressing its scope of applicability and research limitations. [Section 8](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#sec8-agriculture-16-01852) summarizes the study’s key findings, policy implications, and directions for future empirical validation.\n\n## 2. Research Methodology\n\nThis study employs a structured literature review approach, combining bibliometric analysis with qualitative content analysis. Given the distinct objectives of these two types of analysis, two separate datasets were constructed: a bibliometric dataset to identify development trends and the knowledge structure of research on rural livelihood resilience and land-use policy; and a core review dataset to address the research questions and facilitate full-text evidence extraction, comparison, and conceptual synthesis.\n\n### 2.1. Bibliometric Dataset and Analysis\n\nTo identify the knowledge structure and thematic evolution within this research field, a bibliometric search was conducted in October 2025 using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), specifically covering the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The search query combined the terms “rural livelihood resilience” and “land use policy,” with the publication period restricted to 2015–2025; all retrieved records were included in the bibliometric analysis.\n\nCiteSpace 6.3.R1 was employed for the bibliometric analysis, covering the period from 2015 to 2025; the g-index was selected for node selection, with the parameter k set to 9. The analysis focused on annual publication trends, burst detection, and keyword co-occurrence to identify key research themes, knowledge linkages, and the evolution of research in the field. To provide a supplementary view of annual publication trends for related themes, [Figure 1](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#fig_body_display_agriculture-16-01852-f001)b also presents statistics on annual publication counts from 2015 to 2025 based on the search terms “rural resilience” and the combination of “rural resilience” and “land management,” which reflect themes frequently identified in the keyword co-occurrence analysis.\n\n**Figure 1.** Bibliometric overview of rural resilience research from 2015–2025. (**a**) Countries with the strongest citation bursts during the study period, with red bars indicating the periods of citation bursts; (**b**) supplementary annual publication trends for the search expressions “rural resilience” and “rural resilience AND land management”; and (**c**) keyword co-occurrence network showing the major research themes and their connections.\n\n### 2.2. Core Literature Search and Screening\n\nBuilding on the bibliometric analysis, the core review was intentionally focused on the intersection between rural livelihood resilience and land-use policy. The literature underpinning the qualitative synthesis was independently re-searched in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) in May 2025, restricted to the SCI-EXPANDED and SSCI indexes, using the terms rural livelihood resilience AND land use policy. No lower publication-year limit was imposed, allowing all records available in WoSCC up to the search date to be considered. Retrieved records were exported with bibliographic information, including publication year, publication date, source journal and abstract, and were initially screened for relevance on the basis of titles and abstracts. Studies were eligible if they provided substantive evidence addressing at least one of the following research questions: (1) how household or rural livelihood resilience is conceptualized and measured; (2) which factors shape farmers’ livelihood resilience; and (3) through what mechanisms land-use policies, land institutional arrangements or land-use transitions influence farmers’ livelihood resilience and its associated outcomes. The search identified 496 records. After duplicate removal and title-and-abstract screening, 161 articles were retained for full-text assessment. Application of the eligibility criterion described above during full-text review resulted in a final sample of 81 independent studies for qualitative synthesis. The complete study-selection process is presented in [Supplementary Figure S1](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#app1-agriculture-16-01852).\n\n### 2.3. Data Extraction and Qualitative Synthesis\n\nFull texts of the 81 included studies were reviewed and systematically coded using a structured data-extraction matrix ([Supplementary Table S1](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#app1-agriculture-16-01852)). Extracted information included definitions of farmers’ livelihood resilience, research questions, resilience measures, key influencing factors, farmers’ coping and adaptive responses, principal findings, relevant land-use policies or institutional arrangements, evidence on policy–resilience relationships, and reported limitations and future research directions. Where information was not reported or was not applicable, the corresponding cells were left blank; no information was inferred or supplemented beyond that provided in the original studies. To further assess the credibility of the evidence base, methodological quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT, 2018) [[30](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B30-agriculture-16-01852)]. MMAT was applied to 58 empirical studies; the remaining 23 conceptual, review, or modeling studies fell outside its design categories ([Supplementary Table S2](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#app1-agriculture-16-01852)).\n\nThe qualitative synthesis was initially structured around the three research questions and subsequently refined through comparative full-text analysis. Recurring themes included resilience concepts and measures, influencing factors, land policy instruments, changes in livelihood resources, farmer responses and policy outcomes. Across these themes, we identified a recurrent analytical pathway linking policy instruments, changes in livelihood resources, farmer responses and resilience outcomes. The resulting responses were further interpreted in terms of buffering, adaptive and transformative capacities, providing the basis for the conceptual framework used in the subsequent analysis.\n\nGiven the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, evidence was interpreted jointly according to study design and study-specific methodological quality. Quasi-experimental and longitudinal studies with fewer methodological concerns provided comparatively stronger evidence for assessing policy-related effects, whereas cross-sectional studies were used primarily to identify associations. Qualitative, case-based, and modeling studies were used mainly to elucidate mechanisms and contextual variation. Accordingly, stronger effect statements were made only where the design and analytical strategy of the original study provided a clear basis for such inference.\n\n## 3. The Development and Definition of Farmers’ Livelihood Resilience\n\n### 3.1. The Origin and Development of Farmers’ Livelihood Resilience\n\nThe concept of resilience derives from the Latin resilio, meaning “to rebound” or “to return to an original state”. Initially used in engineering to describe the capacity of materials or systems to recover after a disturbance, resilience was introduced into ecology in the 1970s as a property of systems exposed to stress or disruption [[19](https:\u002F\u002Fwww.mdpi.com\u002F2077-0472\u002F16\u002F17\u002F1852#B19-agricultur","Agriculture 2026, 16(17), 1852","2026-08-27T08:00:00Z",{"impact":106,"substance":261,"depth":106,"authority":20,"freshness":262,"relevant":22,"comment":263},20,4,"系统综述土地利用政策与农民生计韧性的关联，提出三条政策路径，对乡村振兴研究有参考价值。",[265],{"name":258,"url":255},[267,27,268,269],"乡村振兴","土地利用政策","农村发展",[271,272],"土地利用政策 乡村振兴 农村发展 生计韧性","土地利用政策 乡村振兴","土地利用政策乡村振兴农村发展生计韧性-1191","2026-09-01T00:03:40.205955Z"]