land
Article
Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating
Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on
Sustainable Livelihood Framework
Jue Wang 1, * , Haiwei Jiang 1 and Yuan He 2
Citation: Wang, J.; Jiang, H.; He, Y.
Determinants of Smallholder
Farmers’ Income-Generating
Activities in Rubber Monoculture
Dominated Region Based on
Sustainable Livelihood Framework.
Land 2023, 12, 281. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land12020281
Academic Editors: Hossein Azadi
and Luca Salvati
Received: 21 November 2022
Revised: 31 December 2022
Accepted: 10 January 2023
Published: 18 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Land 2023, 12, 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020281
1 Business School, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn, Regina-Pacis-Weg 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany
* Correspondence: wangjue19@cdut.edu.cn
Abstract: The rapid expansion of rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, China, has severely decreased
rubber prices in the last several years. The income loss and other adverse environmental impacts
have brought livelihood challenges and opportunities to develop and adopt more diversified and
environmental-friendly income-generating activities (IGAs). To better understand the constraints
and opportunities for smallholder rubber farmers to sustain or improve their livelihoods, this study
investigates which IGAs are applied by local farmers and the factors that determine their adoption,
using the sustainable livelihood framework as the theoretical guideline. The qualitative approach
is applied using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. Five directions of changes in
IGAs (i.e., intercropping, other cash crops, livestock raising for marketing, part-time job, and land
renting) are identified, and local farmers are categorized into three groups (i.e., rejective, affirmative,
and hesitate groups) based on their attitudes towards these IGAs. The results reveal that the main
adoption motivations of certain IGAs are closely related to price shock, economic return, information,
and extension service. Based on the results, suggestions are provided to enhance farmers’ motivation
to make changes and improve the adoption of emerging IGAs with attention given to vulnerability
contexts, livelihood assets and institutional assistance.
Keywords: rubber smallholder; sustainable livelihood; income-generating activities; decision-making
1. Introduction
Sustainable development is a common issue facing global human society. The United
Nations’ sustainable development goals require a deeper understanding of social, economic,
and environmental relations and the resolution of related issues [1]. Over the past few
decades, the rapid expansion of agricultural commodities has replaced traditional sources
of livelihood, especially the cultivation of cash crops, which has now become an important
income-generating activity (IGA) for smallholders worldwide [2]. This is due to the higher
economic performance of the strengthening system, which increases income in the short
term. Crops such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber are popular and widely cultivated in the
tropics and subtropics due to their high economic returns [3]. Millions of smallholders rely
heavily on these cash crops for their livelihood [4]. In developing countries, especially in
Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, nearly half of smallholders grow cash crops as their
major IGA [5–9]. Although cash crops will bring high economic returns in the short term,
this market-based activity increases uncertainty in household income and vulnerability to
market price fluctuations and climate changes, and bring environmental degradation in
the long term [10–13]. In response to shocks, smallholders usually change their livelihood
strategies, especially the combination of other IGAs [13–15], which attracted the attention
of researchers and policymakers.
From farmers’ perspective, sustainable development is premised on achieving sustain-
able livelihoods [16]. Sustainable livelihoods have been regarded as the goal of solving
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2023, 12, 281 2 of 17

rural economic, social, and ecological problems since the 1980s. The United Nations Confer-
ence on Environment and Development (UNCED) specifically pointed out that sustainable
livelihoods can make a living in an economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable
way. Previous studies discussed the relationship between micro-level livelihood systems
and various livelihood factors, macro policies, and ecological environments that affect
livelihoods [17–19]. However, achieving sustainable livelihoods is not a decisive issue [20],
because farmers’ irrational behavior and fragile agricultural external environment make
it difficult to change their livelihood strategies [21,22]. At the same time, farmers tend to
consider short-term economic factors when making IGA decisions, even if such behavior
is unfavorable [23]. Lack of consideration of social and ecological factors often makes it
difficult in the long run [24,25]. This will not only lead to the homogeneity of farmers’ IGA,
but also increase their vulnerability. Although most countries in the world are trying to
change, the sustainable livelihoods of farmers have not yet been fully realized [26,27].
Expanding agricultural commodities from specific plantations to non-traditional plant-
ing areas has dramatically affected the development trajectory of small farmers in devel-
oping countries, especially those growing tropical cash crops [13]. The increasing global
demand for rubber and the favorable natural conditions have encouraged farmers in the
Great Mekong Sub-region (GMS) to expand rubber plantations, mainly in monoculture [6].
Rubber production in GMS contributes more than 90% of global natural rubber produc-
tion [28]. As a part of GMS, Xishuangbanna resonated with the same pattern of rubber
cultivation. Due to the development of the Chinese automobile industry in the 1980s, the
high domestic demand for natural rubber caused a rapid expansion of rubber plantations
in Xishuangbanna [29], which increased from 329.7 km2 in 1987 to 4460 km2 in 2020, nearly
13.5 times [30,31]. The high return on rubber cultivation makes it the first choice for local
farmers, and rubber cultivation accounts for more than half of local household income, and
other IGAs are rarely adopted locally [8,13].
Long-term rubber monoculture cultivation has caused path dependence and the
homogeneity of farmers’ income sources, hindering farmers’ response to market price
fluctuations, which poses risks to their livelihoods [22,32,33]. In 2011, the natural rubber
price in Xishuangbanna reached around 35 yuan/kg, and from 2012 to 2014 decreased
rapidly to about 7 yuan/kg, lower than the cost [13]. Such price shocks directly lowered
rubber farmers’ income and significantly affected their livelihoods in Xishuangbanna and
the GMS. Farmers urgently demand new IGAs as alternatives, reducing their dependence
on the single source of income from rubber monoculture [32]. Besides, biodiversity loss and
environmental degradation caused by rubber monoculture have also called for sustainable
transformation [5,34]. Due to the heterogeneity of farmers, IGAs types are also diversified.
Evidence shows that understanding smallholder IGAs requires both a systematic frame-
work and good practice cases [35]. Previous studies focused on the environmental and land
management aspects [35,36] and lack of attention to the micro-level factors influencing
small rubber farmers’ livelihood decisions and acceptance of new IGAs.
It is of great practical and theoretical significance to explore the trend of IGA under
market price change, environmental degradation, and livelihood vulnerability. This topic
is not only related to the sustainable livelihood of farmers, but also the rubber supply
and biodiversity [22]. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to understand the current
situation and detect the future tendency of rubber smallholders to adopt new IGAs based
on a case study in Xishuangbanna, with particular attention given to the heterogenous
farmer groups and diversified IGAs, contributing to improve smallholder rubber farmers’
livelihood practically and enrich the sustainable livelihood and IGA studies theoretically.

2. Analytical Framework
2.1. IGAs Typology
Livelihood strategies denote the range and combination of choices and activities
people determine and undertake to achieve their livelihood targets, including productive
activities, investment strategies, and reproductive decisions [15,37,38]. The process of
 Land 2023, 12, 281 3 of 17

determining and undertaking livelihood strategies is not static; instead, it is a dynamic

process in which people combine their activities to meet their various needs in different
periods and local conditions [39–41]. Different livelihood strategies reflect different needs,
and the most important is how smallholder farmers generate more income [42].
Compared to livelihood strategies, the concept of IGA mainly focuses on monetary
revenue from agricultural and non-agricultural activities. Previous studies show that the
essential IGAs include agriculture production, agriculture wage work, and rural non-farm
income (own business, part-time job, social help) [43]. The factors affecting changes in IGAs
can be broadly categorized as natural and social factors. Natural factors include climate
change, natural disasters, and so on; and social factors include land tenure systems, farm
technology, agriculture productivity, and so on [44–47].
In Xishuangbanna, changes are expected due to high dependence on rubber mono-
culture, decreasing rubber prices, and severe environmental degradation [6,48,49]. As the
result of modifications and initiatives at the grass root level, significant changes in agricul-
ture have often emerged during and after shocks. It is crucial to analyze the emerging IGAs
and explore alternatives to monoculture rubber cultivation, which could provide valuable
references to other regions where smallholders rely highly on cash crop monoculture and
seek sustainable livelihood transformation and environmental protection. For that, it is
vital to categorize farmers and IGAs, which can be used as the basis and criteria in the
typology study to identify differences among groups [50,51].

2.2. Sustainable Livelihood Framework to Unfold Decision on IGAs

Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
It is essential to focus on farmers’ livelihood and decision-making at the local and
household level with a more action-oriented perspective to unfold the adoption of IGAs.
Origin from development studies and based on the capability approach [52], the sustainable
livelihood framework (SLF) analyzes livelihood resources, strategies, and outcomes under
institutional transformation contexts [17,19,53–55]. As shown in Figure 1, SLF is a people-
centered framework with six interlinked elements. Vulnerability context refers to the
external, contextual, and structural conditions in which people exist. The livelihood assets
pentagon lies at the core of SLF, including individuals’ human, social, natural, physical,
and financial capital and their inter-relationships. Transforming structures and processes
refer to the private and public organizations and their interactions that set and implement
policy and legislation and perform all other functions that affect livelihoods. Influence and
access that considers the link between livelihood assets and the transforming structures
and process. Livelihood strategy is the overarching term referring to the combination of4 of 19
activities and choices people conduct to achieve their livelihood goals. Livelihood outcomes
are the achievements or outputs of livelihood strategies.

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

VULNERABILITY TRANSFORMING LIVELIHOOD

i
CONTEXT STRUCTURES & n OUTCOMES
H PROCESSES
o • More income
• SHOCKS r
S N Influence STURCTURES d • Increased well-
• TREDNS & access e
• Levels of r being
• SEASONALITY
P F government LIVELIHOOD t • Reduced
• Laws STRATEGIES o
• Private vulnerability
• Policies a
sector c • Improved food
KEY • Culture h
i security
H = Human Capital • Institutions e • More sustainable
N = Natural Capital v
F = Financial Capital PROCESSES e use of NR base
P = Physical Capital
S = Social Capital

Figure 1. Sustainable
Figure 1. Sustainablelivelihood
livelihood framework [54].
framework [54].

SLF emphasizes how the resources can be used to realize different livelihood strate-
gies, which is perfect for analyzing farmers’ decisions of IGAs under price shocks and
environmental degradation. The vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets, trans-forming
structure and process (each of them can be seen as an indicator pool) in this framework
 Land 2023, 12, 281 4 of 17

SLF emphasizes how the resources can be used to realize different livelihood strategies,
which is perfect for analyzing farmers’ decisions of IGAs under price shocks and environ-
mental degradation. The vulnerability contexts, livelihood assets, trans-forming structure
and process (each of them can be seen as an indicator pool) in this framework make it clear
to identify the factors which influenced farmers’ IGAs decisions. Livelihood strategies
and outcomes would reflect farmers’ perceptions of the results from their adopted IGAs.
Furthermore, the typical relationships between those factors and related impacts can be
investigated to detect the tendency to accept new IGAs. SLF has proved to be a suitable
research tool to explain farmers’ livelihood decision-making [47,56].
A step-by-step analytical process is applied accordingly: First, the portfolios of ex-
isting IGAs in the study area are identified; second, the determinants adopted IGAs are
investigated based on SLF; third, farmers’ adoption tendency of new IGAs is revealed; and
fourth, development opportunities are discussed.

Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3. Methodology
3.1. Study Area
The field research was conducted in the NaBan River Watershed National Nature
Reserve (NRWNNR), as shown in Figure 2, situated in the northern part of Xishuangbanna
Dai Autonomous Prefecture of Yunnan Province in South China, known as “Indo-Burma
hotspot”. NRWNNR was established in 1991 based on the UNESCO “Man and the Bio-
sphere” concept [57]. There are 32 villages that vary in size, ethnic group, population
density, and social condition. To capture the diversity of farmers and IGAs, we selected5 of 19
seven villages at different elevations, namely Na Ban (NB), Zhong Zhi Chang (ZZC), Cha
Chang (CC), Pan Bing (PB), Ban Qian Di (PQD), Ke Mu (KM), and Man Dian (MD).

Figure
Figure Thestudy
2. 2.The studyarea
area (adapted
(adapted from
from[57]).
[57]).

3.2. Data Collection

This study adopts qualitative research methods, which determine the diversity of
topics of interest and establish meaningful variation within a given population instead of
aiming at establishing frequencies, means, or other parameters [58]. Qualitative method-
Land 2023, 12, 281 5 of 17

3.2. Data Collection

This study adopts qualitative research methods, which determine the diversity of
topics of interest and establish meaningful variation within a given population instead of
aiming at establishing frequencies, means, or other parameters [58]. Qualitative methodol-
ogy is deeper and more conducive to exploring the phenomenon with limited knowledge
and helps researchers answer “how” and “why” questions [59]. As there is not much
existing knowledge on the emerging IGA adoption issue in Xishuangbanna, the qualitative
method is suitable.
Our data collection methods include semi-structured interviews, focus groups, partic-
ipatory observation, and village statistic documents on land use, rubber plantation, and
population. Information from interviews and focus groups was documented in written
form transcripts. The data set includes transcripts of four focus group discussions and
78 farmers’ interviews, as shown in Table 1. Interviews may be conducted with the same
farmer at different times, and there are 68 interviewees in total.

Table 1. Data collection methods.

Number of Participants
Time Method
Village Heads Farmers
2013.03 Semi-structured interviews 8 47
2013.11 Focus group 1 7
2013.12 Focus group 2 6
2014.04 Focus group 3 2 6
2015.03 Semi-structured interviews 4 31
2015.03 Focus group 4 6

3.3. Data Analysis

The transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis following [60].
Qualitative thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns
within data, considered a foundational method for qualitative analysis. It is helpful to
capture an individual’s attempt to make sense of personal and social worlds, which suits
our research purpose. It organizes and describes the dataset in detail and often further
interprets various perspectives of the research topic [61]. We noticed that interpretation
should be carefully conducted; therefore, we also used contextual information from other
possible sources to complement critical reflections, e.g., literature, document, and media.
Qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA12 was used to manage data and facilitate the
coding and analyzing processes. In detail, data analysis is conducted mainly in five steps:
preparing (data filtering), sorting (high-frequency glossary highlighting), categorizing
(inductive categorization extracting and identifying), rechecking (ensuring the validity,
reliability, and accuracy of the results), organizing and explaining the findings refer to
others. It is essential to recognize that the guidelines for analysis are not rules; they need to
be flexibly applied to fit the data and research questions [62]. The analysis was not a linear
process moving from one phase to the next; instead, it was an iterative process, going back
and forth throughout the phases as needed [63].

4. Results
4.1. Emerging IGAs in the Study Area
The various IGAs practiced by farmers in the study area could be sorted into five
categories, namely intercropping (IN), other cash crops cultivation (OCC), livestock raising
for the market (LM), part-time job (PTJ), and land-renting out (LRO). Table 2 shows the
distribution of different IGAs in seven villages. One farmer could adopt more than one
IGA at the same time.
Land 2023, 12, 281 6 of 17

Table 2. An overview of the current situation of IGA adoption.

Number of IGA Practitioners

Villages Nr. of Interviewees
IN OCC LM PTJ LRO
Na Ban 11 6 0 0 10 9
Zhong Zhi Chang 8 5 5 1 4 0
Cha Chang 9 4 3 0 1 2
Pan Bing 13 5 1 2 5 4
Ban Qian Di 6 2 4 1 0 0
Ke Mu 11 5 5 4 4 0
Man Dian 10 4 5 3 3 6
SUM 68 31 23 11 27 21

IN refers to land use by cultivating more than one crop species in the rubber plantation,
contributing to better land use efficiency, ecological profits, and diversified income sources.
Intercrops include both local species (tea, lychee, konjac, etc.) from indigenous knowledge
and new species (dendrobium, flemingia, taxus, agilawood, etc.) discovered by farmers’
initiatives or introduced by government and researchers. IN has a long history in the study
area, and recently it has become prevalent in the rubber plantation. IN has shown the
potential for sustaining or improving livelihoods, and there are also potential adopters: “I
am planning to intercrop some cash crops in my rubber fields. I think this is a way to make more
money” (CC1; note: interviewees are quoted and marked their numbered identities, with
the capital letter referring to the village.).
OCC refers to cash crop cultivation except for rubber. Some farmers never try rubber
and keep traditional cash crops, such as tea. “Traditional” here refers to not only crop
species but also their cultivating skill, processing technology, and stable marketing chan-
nels. Some rubber farmers recently transferred the rubber plantation to other cash crops,
including the traditional species and newly introduced coffee, dragon fruit, and mango.
OCC becomes a vital alternative to reduce the income risk of rubber monoculture. Most
of the interviewees responded positively to OCC, and several farmers have already cut
down their rubber trees for OCC cultivation, “The rubber trees I have now is enough. I still
need other crops for safety” (BQD3), stated a rubber farmer who has converted 20 mu out of
72 mu rubber plantation to other cash crops.
LM refers to livestock raising for the market as an income source rather than for
subsistence. Unlikely IN and OCC, farmers are much less enthusiastic about LM. One
out of 11 adopters raise peacocks (new practice in the region), and others raise traditional
livestock such as pigs, chickens, and ducks. Although keeping livestock is common, no one
considers LM the primary income source due to low profitability, land use conflicts, and
labor conflict between livestock and rubber. Nevertheless, LM shows suitability to family
labor conditions: “My parents-in-law are too old to work in rubber cultivation; they are taking
care of our chicken to make more money” (MD6). About half of the respondents are willing to
adopt LM soon as an IGA.
PTJ refers to doing other jobs during part-time, including both off-farm work and
non-farm work. In recent years, PTJ has become one of the most prevalent IGAs during
the off-season of rubber cultivation. Off-farm work refers to working on other farmers’
plantations (rubber, banana, vegetable, etc.); non-farm work includes construction, store
running, latex carrier, and truck driving. Most of the PTJs are labor intensive, which
requires knowledge and skills to expand employment opportunities and break through the
income ceiling. As stated by a lady who sells traditional food on a tourism site: “I joined the
female empowerment program and started my pineapple rice business in rubber off-season. I am
very good at making it, and it brings my family 30,000–50,000 RMB per year, sometimes more than
that from rubber” (NB11).
LRO refers to renting out land for rental income, including arable land and rubber
field. LRO brings considerable income for local households and becomes a vital IGA
with an increasing trend, as stated, “The rental is rather stable thus to at least secure my
Land 2023, 12, 281 7 of 17

family’s subsistence” (NB2). However, there is another voice: “The one who lacks finance
to invest in his/her land would rent out the land, and this is always the second choice” (PB3).
Farmers make LRO decisions based on trade-offs between the investments and outcomes
of their cultivation and renting out, with comprehensive consideration of family labor,
economic profitability, and market stability. LRO requires both extrinsic factors, such as
the appearance of the lessee, and intrinsic factors, such as personal willingness, other
factors, such as land characteristics and political regulations, also need to be considered,
particularly in the nature reserve.
Considering their inter-relationships, these five IGAs could be further grouped into
three classifications. First, the incremental strategy (IN and LM) adds new activities to
existing practices. These IGAs require extra labor input, and the farmers often adopt one
incremental IGA at a certain period, i.e., either IN or LM. Second, the systematic strategy
(OCC) substitutes previous activities but is still under the agricultural scheme. Farmers
who practice OCC often reduce or abandon rubber cultivation. Third, the transformative
strategy (PTJ and LRO) subverts previous means of income generation. The adoption of
LRO often resulted in PTJ, but not vice versa.

4.2. Overview of the Determinants of IGAs Adoption

We coded the transcripts and extracted the determinants of farmers’ IGAs adoption
behavior based on SLF. The determinants are summarized in Table 3, and their roles in each
IGA are illustrated in Table 4. The determinant could be both facilitator and impediment
of IGA adoption, which provide insight for development management, as discussed in
Section 5. Facilitators refer to the factors which are beneficial or contributing to motivating
adoption. Impediment implies that the element plays a negative role in practicing and
decision-making processes, hindering actual adopters’ practice and impeding potential
adopters from joining.

Table 3. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (in general).

Category Sub-Category Determinant Description

The not-yet-tapped young rubber trees (less than 6–8 years)
Age of rubber plantation
and tapped matured rubber trees
The synergy or reciprocity between rubber and
Natural Mutual suitability with rubber
intercropping species
Land availability Available land can be used to conduct certain IGAs
The time IN/OCC species will take to be harvested
Maturation period
for marketing
Price/rental/wage The economic return farmers acquire from IGAs
Financial The money invested in IGAs to pursue specific
Financial investment
livelihood objectives
Livelihood assets Peer example The IGAs practice of surrounding farmers
Social Collective action People act together to practice certain IGAs
Land ownership and the right to decide non-farm and
Decision power
off-farm activities
Related information on IGAs required by the potential
Information
adopters before acting
Physical Infrastructure Transportation conditions and the irrigation system
Labor quantity and quality to meet the requirement of
Labor availability
Human implementing certain IGAs
Knowledge and technology Specific knowledge and technology required by certain IGAs
Price change Global rubber price decrease
Shock Environmental degradation Soil erosion, soil fertility loss, landslide
Vulnerability context Seasonal rubber cultivation restraining farmers’ time to
Seasonality of rubber cultivation
perform IGAs
Seasonality
The endogenous characteristic of PTJ in the busy season and
Instability of PTJ opportunities
off-season of rubber cultivation
Agricultural extension services provided by government and
Structure Extension service
Transforming structure research institutes
and processes Environmental-friendly The transition towards a more environmental-friendly way of
Process
rubber plantation rubber cultivation led by local government
Land 2023, 12, 281 8 of 17

Table 4. Determinants of IGAs adoption based on SLF (for specific IGAs).

Determinant IN OCC LM PTJ LRO

Livelihood assets √ √
Age of rubber plantation √ √
Mutual suitability with rubber √ √
Land availability √ √
Maturation period √ √ √ √ √
Price/rental/wage √ √ √
Financial investment √ √
Peer example √ √
Collective action √
Decision power √ √ √
Information √
Infrastructure √ √ √
Labor availability √ √ √
Knowledge and technology
Vulnerability context √ √ √ √
Price change √ √
Environmental degradation √ √
Seasonality of rubber cultivation √
Instability of PTJ opportunities
Transforming Structures and Processes √ √ √ √
Extension service √
Environmental-friendly rubber plantation

4.3. The Importance of Determinants of Each IGAs Adoption

Figure 3 summarizes the determinants for each IGA. As illustrated in Figure 3a, the
most critical factors accelerating IN adoption are the age of rubber plantation, peer example,
and extension service. Young rubber plantation has larger space and less shade, fitting
heliophile and woody crops, and matured rubber plantation is suitable for shrubs and
herbs requiring shade. Successful peer examples act as a demonstration, providing exact
information on “how to” and expected returns. Similarly, extension services are demanded
by most respondents to fill the information gap, particularly in knowledge and technique.
Related to this, the government-led transition towards environmental-friendly rubber
plantations positively influences IN activities. To set IN into practice, farmers also consider
the maturation period of intercrops, the financial investment, and the market price.
As illustrated in Figure 3b, OCC requires new available land which farmers could
rent from others or transfer existing rubber plantations. Such transitions mostly happen in
the old plantations over 35 years, while some farmers recently cut young rubber trees to
avoid more sunk costs with decreasing rubber price expectations. Selection of species is
highly dependent on expected market price and peer example, and seasonality of rubber
cultivation is also vital in avoiding labor conflict in the tapping season. In addition,
financial, labor, and infrastructure conditions also play roles in OCC activities. Although
OCC requires more inputs (land, labor, financial) than IN, the actual and potential adopters
have more active and enthusiastic attitudes towards OCC. We found that the OCC adopters
are often village opinion leaders or pioneers, have an open mind towards new practices,
and can obtain information and resources.
As illustrated in Figure 3c, the most influential factors in LM adoption include price,
information, and labor, similar to IN and OCC. Extension service, knowledge, and technol-
ogy are also important, particularly for new species. Besides traditional livestock species,
two new species—porcupine and peacock are mentioned for LM activity. Most farmers are
skeptical of the new species but are still willing to try as long as more effective forehand
information is offered on price, market channel, and knowledge.
As illustrated in Figure 3d, for PTJ adoption, wage and seasonality of rubber cultivation
are the most determinants, as well as instability of PTJ opportunities, knowledge and
technology, and decision power. Due to the decreasing rubber price, local farmers started
Land 2023, 12, 281 9 of 17

considering part-time and full-time jobs to sustain their livelihoods. However, they have to
face
Land 2023, 12, x FOR theREVIEW
PEER dilemma of insufficient knowledge and skills required by those job opportunities. 10
Long-time high dependence on rubber monoculture restrained their PTJ choices: “Before,
my wife and I were working on our rubber farm, but the price is not good now, so only my wife is
working on rubber, and I am working on construction site sometimes. I want a full-time job with
As illustrated in Figure 3e, the influential factors for LRO are land availability, r
stable income but cannot because I do not have knowledge and skill” (NB3).
price, financial and labor situation, collective action, and extension service. Some far
As illustrated in Figure 3e, the influential factors for LRO are land availability, rental
take LRO as a forced choice due to the lack of money or labor investing in their land;
price, financial and labor situation, collective action, and extension service. Some farmers
farmers are willing to rent out land but lack land availability or tenants. LRO cho
take LRO as a forced choice due to the lack of money or labor investing in their land; some
accounted for by the household’s total land size and available labor. To some extent,
farmers are willing to rent out land but lack land availability or tenants. LRO choice is
helps farmers to avoid labor conflict with other IGAs. Furthermore, collective action
accounted for by the household’s total land size and available labor. To some extent, LRO
official security for contract relief the fear of LRO adopters in cases of problem encou
helps farmers to avoid labor conflict with other IGAs. Furthermore, collective action and
ing.
official security for contract relief the fear of LRO adopters in cases of problem encountering.
In general, the economic consideration (price/rental/wage) plays the leading ro
In general, the economic consideration (price/rental/wage) plays the leading role in
IGAs adoption, followed by extension services, land availability, peer example, i
IGAs adoption, followed by extension services, land availability, peer example, information,
mation, and price changes, covering different elements in SLF. Many research focus
and price changes, covering different elements in SLF. Many research focuses on livelihood
livelihood assets in adoption studies, while our results indicate the necessity of inclu
assets in adoption studies, while our results indicate the necessity of including variables
variables representing vulnerability context and transforming structures and proce
representing vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes, which also
which also play vital roles in farmers’ adoption decisions.
play vital roles in farmers’ adoption decisions.

Figure 3. The importance

Figure 3. of
Thedeterminants
importance of determinants
IGAs adoption.
of IGAs adoption.

4.4. IGAs Adoption Tendency Detection

Both the extrinsic and intrinsic factors are considered to predict the adoption
of emerging IGAs, b. Farmers can be categorized into three groups based on their attit
toward IGAs: rejective, affirmative, and hesitant. The rejective group refers to those
jectively skeptical of specific IGAs; they are not the mainstream in our study.
Land 2023, 12, 281 10 of 17

4.4. IGAs Adoption Tendency Detection

Both
Land 2023, 12, x FOR PEER the extrinsic
REVIEW and intrinsic factors are considered to predict the adoption trend of 11
emerging IGAs, b. Farmers can be categorized into three groups based on their attitudes
toward IGAs: rejective, affirmative, and hesitant. The rejective group refers to those
subjectively skeptical of specific IGAs; they are not the mainstream in our study. The
affirmative group refers to favorable farmers with optimistic attitudes to correspon
affirmative group refers to favorable farmers with optimistic attitudes to corresponding
IGAs. They are farmers practicing certain IGAs and willing to continue, and farmer
IGAs. They are farmers practicing certain IGAs and willing to continue, and farmers getting
ting ready and planning to adopt soon. The hesitant group refers to farmers willi
ready and planning to adopt soon. The hesitant group refers to farmers willing to adopt
adopt certain IGAs, but objective limits constrain their actions. That means their ado
certain IGAs, but objective limits constrain their actions. That means their adoption is
is conditional, and they can be seen as potential adopters.
conditional, and they can be seen as potential adopters.
As illustrated in Figure 4, for LRO and PTJ, most respondents belong to the aff
As illustrated in Figure 4, for LRO and PTJ, most respondents belong to the affirmative
tive group, indicating they have a positive attitude and are willing to continue such
group, indicating they have a positive attitude and are willing to continue such IGAs. For
For OCC and LM, most respondents belong to the hesitant group, showing they ar
OCC and LM, most respondents belong to the hesitant group, showing they are limited by
ited by specific prerequisites (e.g., labor and land) or uncertain about if there is a m
specific prerequisites (e.g., labor and land) or uncertain about if there is a market for the
for the crop or livestock. For IN, about half of the respondents would like to continue
crop or livestock. For IN, about half of the respondents would like to continue; one-fourth
fourth are hesitant, and one-fourth hold a negative attitude due to failed experience
are hesitant, and one-fourth hold a negative attitude due to failed experience.

Figure
Figure 4. Farmers’ 4. Farmers’
attitudes towardsattitudes towards IGAs
IGAs influenced influenced
by various by various factors.
factors.

In the future, theInfarmers with

the future, theyoung rubber
farmers with plantations
young rubber and sufficient intercropping
plantations and sufficient intercrop
knowledge seem to have more
knowledge seem totendency
have moreto adopt
tendencyIN.toOther
adoptfactors,
IN. Othersuch as adequate
factors, such as adequate
market information and extension
ket information service (e.g.,
and extension subsidy
service and training),
(e.g., subsidy wouldwould
and training), also be also be he
helpful. Furthermore, the introduced
Furthermore, species
the introduced with with
species shortshort
maturation
maturationperiods are more
periods are more favo
favorable than others. The farmers
than others. locatedlocated
The farmers on high onaltitudes or arable
high altitudes or land
arablewith convenient
land with convenient i
irrigation infrastructure seem moreseem
tion infrastructure open more
to OCC. Information
open to OCC. about marketing
Information channels,
about marketing chan
prices, and successful peer examples can facilitate adoption. Similar to IN, the
prices, and successful peer examples can facilitate adoption. Similar to IN, species with
the species
short maturation periods are more acceptable. Nevertheless, farmers also consider potential
short maturation periods are more acceptable. Nevertheless, farmers also consider p
conflicts betweentialOCC and rubber
conflicts between in OCC
the land,
and financial,
rubber inand the labor
land, inputs, and
financial, thelabor
and fitnessinputs, an
between rubberfitness
seasonality
betweenandrubber
OCC species. Farmers
seasonality and with
OCCbetter internal
species. Farmersconditions (e.g.,internal c
with better
more family members, better
tions (e.g., economic
more familyconditions, and sufficient
members, better economic knowledge
conditions,or experiences)
and sufficient know
or experiences) and external assistance (extension and networking) are more open t
Currently, almost all the LM adopters are focusing on the local market since it is rela
easy to access information such as popular species and prices. The forehand inform
on a larger potential market could be considered a way to improve LM activities. The
Land 2023, 12, 281 11 of 17

and external assistance (extension and networking) are more open to LM. Currently, almost
all the LM adopters are focusing on the local market since it is relatively easy to access
information such as popular species and prices. The forehand information on a larger
potential market could be considered a way to improve LM activities. The most facilitating
factors for local PTJ adoptions are decision power, knowledge, price/payment/profit, and
seasonality of rubber cultivation. However, in the tendency detection scenario, the most
influential factors are decision power and labor quality in possession of related knowledge.
From local farmers’ perspectives, LRO directly conflicts with rubber cultivation in aspects of
their limited land and labor resources. It can be detected that households with available land
and unavailable labor are more intent to accept the LRO scheme. In addition, acting with
government comrades could reduce the fear, and good rental brings them decent income in
their profitability calculation compared with the opportunity cost of the rented land.
It should be noted that the determinants for current adoption and future adoption of
these IGAs might differ, which could be attributed to external conditions, livelihood assets,
and individuals’ experiences. First, the changes in external conditions shape farmers’ action
situations. For instance, the local government’s recent emphasis on the environmental-
friendly rubber plantation and the supporting promotion measures are the strong drivers
for current IGAs adoption, while in the long run, farmers consider their capacity to carry
on certain IGAs [64]. Second, farmers’ livelihood assets are dynamic; assets occupied by
current IGAs might not be available for other IGAs in the future. Third, farmers’ recent
successful or failed experiences would facilitate or hinder their future adoption [65].

5. Discussion
In this chapter, we compare our results with current studies, and explore possible
pathways to promote new IGAs. In addition, the methodological issues are reflected,
providing references for future research.

5.1. Determinants of IGAs Adoption

Studying the factors affecting farmers’ adoption of IGAs and adaptive strategies in the
context of vulnerability has been widely discussed worldwide. Even if different theoretical
frameworks are used, similar research results seem to reveal the common characteristics of
farmers’ decision-making. These determinants include both external and internal factors.
The external factors, such as shocks and extension services, have been affirmed by most
studies the main factors stimulating farmers in changing IGAs [49]. In fact, external shocks
happen at any time. Due to the limited cognitive and educational level, farmers tend to
look for a balance between shocks and their own livelihoods. They will only adjust if the
total benefits of adopting IGAs are greater than the losses caused by shocks plus the costs
of adjusting their IGAs [66]. The internal factors include farmers’ livelihood assets, such as
land holding, annual income, and social network [67–69]. For example, strengthening social
capital such as information networks can make small holders more willing to adjust the
IGAs [70]. Similarly, path dependence on tree crops with long growth cycles will prevent
farmers from adjusting IGAs [22].
However, one study could not cover all the possible influencing factors. Some other
factors, such as the elevation of rubber plantations, changes in land ownership and the gap
between rich and poor of farmers mentioned in relevant studies using different theoretical
frameworks, are also important factors affecting farmers’ decision-making. Nevertheless,
there are some new insights provided by this study. First, five emerging IGAs are identified
in three categories. Second, determinants for each IGA are explored respectively, and com-
pared across the IGA groups and time frames. Third, the SLF has been proven applicable
and suitable to unfold the influencing factors and trends of farmers’ adoption of IGAs.
While most studies focus on the livelihood assets [71–73], and we claim that more attention
should be paid to the vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes, from
a holistic perspective.
Land 2023, 12, 281 12 of 17

5.2. Pathways to Promote New IGAs

The decreasing rubber price and the environmental degradation can be seen as
an opportunity for the “green transition” in Xishuangbanna. The pathways could be
summarized into three categories based on SLF: Awareness of the vulnerability context,
improvement of livelihood assets, and strengthening the institutional assistance in the
transforming processes.
(1) Awareness of the vulnerability context
Farmers can adjust their livelihood strategies to vulnerability contexts such as climate
changes quickly because they can judge climate changes based on experience [74,75].
However, under the influence of unnatural factors, such as price shock, farmers’ perception
of vulnerability is often limited and hysteretic [9,76]. For example, in coffee-growing areas,
even if the price of coffee drops, the size of the coffee area has expanded [77]. For tree crops,
due to the long harvest period and excessive input costs, it is still difficult for farmers to
change their livelihood strategies in the face of agricultural commodity price shocks [66,78].
After several years of continuous price decline, farmers in our study became aware of the
risk of high dependence on rubber monoculture; however, most still believe that the prices
will rise again. Such belief is not based on sufficient knowledge and forecasting but rather
good wishes. This is similar to the phenomenon found in [79] and [66] in Laos and Thailand.
Due to the large cost of time and money invested in rubber plantations, when prices fall,
farmers will first try to survive until commodity prices are too low to allow families to
survive. Nevertheless, the current price shock can be seen as an essential lesson that raises
their awareness of diversification in land use decisions [80]. More specifically, this lesson
increases farmers’ willingness for land use change to profit with limited resources.
Seasonality of rubber cultivation is also an important context in IGAs adoption, which
is not always negative [70]. As [81] mentioned, seasonality leads to occupation changes,
because labor time can be shifted from lower-return activities to higher-return activities.
The current five new IGAs are more or less related to the seasonality of rubber cultivation,
which provides farmers with the labor availability for change in two periods. One is the
result of rubber off-season, about four months of non-tapping time; another refers to the
6–8 years before tapping the young rubber plantation for rubber farmers conducting other
IGAs. The seasonality also provides the “outsiders” a chance to introduce alternatives.
Meanwhile, farmers are more available to accept the change during this period.
(2) Improvement of livelihood assets
Among all the determinants of IGAs, factors in the livelihood asset category count the
most in the number of factors and their importance (Tables 3 and 4). Changes in different
livelihood assets can lead to the optimization of farmers’ livelihood strategies [82]. In our
case, the most influential driving factors are land availability (natural capital), economic
return (financial capital), information (social capital), labor availability, and knowledge
(human capital). As the land is relatively stable, effort should be put into financial, social,
and human capital to encourage the adoption of new IGAs.
First, the new IGAs with higher economic returns should be considered. The economic
return refers to the actual income and farmers’ ability to correctly evaluate the benefits of
related activities closely related to the information and knowledge discussed next. Sec-
ond, social capital could be strengthened through improved information channels [83,84].
Farmers express urgent demand for forehand information on IGAs, including material
inputs, potential consumers, price and marketing channels of specific activities, etc. Access
to information could be created by establishing associations, strengthening social networks,
and improving extension services. Farmers in Laos are trying to develop collective action
to improve their ability to market bargaining, thus raising the price of rubber [79]. Third,
knowledge of sustainable land use and different farming styles is indispensable for mo-
tivating farmers to take action [85]. Most farmers have perceived that their livelihoods
are affected by ecological problems such as water pollution and soil erosion attributed
partially to rubber monoculture. This can allow farmers to learn more about sustainable
Land 2023, 12, 281 13 of 17

land use [86]. Some farmers even took the opportunity of the crisis to update their liveli-
hood assets, especially in the historic rubber plantation areas [66]. In addition, abundant
knowledge of IGAs would give farmers more confidence and enthusiasm to initiate IGAs.
(3) Strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes
We found that most respondents are strongly willing to change, among which few
are motivated by their initiatives, and the majority are motivated by external incentives,
especially governmental extension services [49]. Although [49] shows that rubber farmers
present relatively low willingness to change IGA, it is undeniable that external incentives
still play an important role. Farmers in IN, OCC, LM, and LRO schemes are stimulated di-
rectly by free tangible materials such as seedlings, chicks, subsidies, and intangible services
such as training. Some OCC and PTJ adopters are indirectly motivated by the governmental
empowerment program focusing on capacity building and resilience improvement, such as
women’s training programs improving their non-farm skills for better PTJ opportunities.
However, the high dependence on the government may lead to the rare existence of farmers’
initiatives [78]. Although the decisive government role is sometimes criticized due to its
insufficiency in solving the root cause of livelihood vulnerability [87], we argue that help
from “outsiders” are necessary and vital in initiating new IGAs, particularly facilitating
potential adopters to start at the beginning phase [88].
Farmers have shown strong appeals for extension services due to the increased aware-
ness of diversification to cope with vulnerability [89]. It is an opportunity to increase
farmers’ motivation by integrating their needs into extension design. For instance, farmers
need crops in IN or OCC with high profit and low labor input and fulfill the local con-
ditions of altitude, soil, and water. Farmers would be more willing to accept new IGAs
as alternatives to rubber monoculture if these requirements can be satisfied. As long as
the extension providers effectively respond to the farmers’ voices and farmers feel they
are playing an essential role in alternative adoption processes, their motivation can be
increased [45,49]. In the long run, capacity-building programs could be seen as a platform
for farmers to search for and conduct alternatives by themselves rather than depending
on “outsiders”.

5.3. Methodological Issues

Previous studies on farmer’s IGAs adoption have adopted both qualitative and quan-
titative approaches [90]. Although the advantages of quantitative methods in data quantity
can reveal some common laws, it is recognized that any quantitative assessment is partial
and illustrative at best [91]. The typology studies in the qualitative manner built on inter-
views have most often been presented in the farming styles literature [92]. The qualitative
analysis supports the analysis and discussion of qualitative data, provides insights into
specific types of values and their generation mechanisms and discovers new patterns and
characteristics to enrich theories [91,93]. Specifically, qualitative case studies provide an
in-depth understanding of farmers’ income, food security, confidence, and the benefits of
their perception of agricultural and climate risks [94] and fill the subjective and accurate
information determined by indicators in the quantitative analysis [95]. It usually relies on
the researchers’ knowledge and judgment to define the specific segmentation of different
groups according to their characteristics. The qualitative approach ensures that the classi-
fications are actor-centered and represent farmers’ perceptions; however, disadvantages
such as researcher dependence, data complexity, and duplication difficulty are also noticed.
For future research, a mixed methodological design combining qualitative and quantitative
processes is recommended.

6. Conclusions
There is a current trend that smallholder farmers are changing IGAs under price shock
and environmental degradation in the rubber-monocultural-dominant region. Using SLF as
a theoretical guideline, qualitative methods have been applied in this research to investigate
farmers’ emerging IGAs, determinants, and tendencies to adopt. SLF has shown its fitness
Land 2023, 12, 281 14 of 17

and power in explaining IGAs adoption as a livelihood decision. We have identified five
local IGAs (IN, OCC, LM, PTJ, LRO) in Xishuangbanna and revealed the determinants
for behavior change under the category of vulnerability context, livelihood assets, and
transformation structures and processes. The most influential factors are price shock,
rubber seasonality, land availability, economic return, information and knowledge, labor
availability, and extension services. Current changes in livelihood strategies are strongly
motivated by government initiatives rather than farmers’ own, and in the future, there are
some pathways to strengthen indigenous IGAs initiatives, such as improving awareness
of the vulnerability context, enhancing livelihood assets, particularly the human capital,
and strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes. This study
provides some hints on why new IGAs emerged in the rubber-dominated area and how to
guide farmers to develop IGAs to cope with the risks of rubber monoculture. At the same
time, it enriches the practical experience of SLA in explaining farmers’ decision-making. It
is important to note that the results drawn from our study are not universal and require the
careful application to other regions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.W. and Y.H.; methodology, J.W. and Y.H.; validation,
J.W.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, J.W. and Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H. and
H.J.; writing—review and editing, J.W.; visualization, J.W.; supervision, J.W. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 42101216; the Sichuan Science and Technology Program, grant number 2023NSFSC0749; the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, grant number 01LL0919; the Humanities and
Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education, grant number 20YJCZH153;the Open Foundation
of the Research Center for Human Geography of Tibetan Plateau and Its Eastern Slope (Chengdu
University of Technology), grant number RWDL2022-YB005; and the Key Construction Projects in
Philosophy and Social Sciences for the “Double First-Class” Construction of Chengdu University of
Technology, grant number ZDJS202209.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. del Giorgio, O.; Robinson, B.E.; le Polain de Waroux, Y. Impacts of Agricultural Commodity Frontier Expansion on Smallholder
Livelihoods: An Assessment through the Lens of Access to Land and Resources in the Argentine Chaco. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 93, 67–80.
[CrossRef]
2. Vicol, M.; Pritchard, B.; Htay, Y.Y. Rethinking the Role of Agriculture as a Driver of Social and Economic Transformation in
Southeast Asia’s Upland Regions: The View from Chin State, Myanmar. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 451–460. [CrossRef]
3. Su, S.; Zhou, X.; Wan, C.; Li, Y.; Kong, W. Land Use Changes to Cash Crop Plantations: Crop Types, Multilevel Determinants and
Policy Implications. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 379–389. [CrossRef]
4. Achterbosch, T.J.; van Berkum, S.; Meijerink, G.W.; Asbreuk, H.; Oudendag, D.A. Cash Crops and Food Security: Contributions to
Income, Livelihood Risk and Agricultural Innovation; LEI Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014; ISBN 9086156738.
5. Jin, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Location and Economic Resilience in Rubber Farming Communities in Southwest China. China Agric.
Econ. Rev. 2020, 13, 367–396. [CrossRef]
6. Fox, J.; Castella, J.-C. Expansion of Rubber (Hevea Brasiliensis) in Mainland Southeast Asia: What Are the Prospects for
Smallholders? J. Peasant Stud. 2013, 40, 155–170. [CrossRef]
7. Kuma, T.; Dereje, M.; Hirvonen, K.; Minten, B. Cash Crops and Food Security: Evidence from Ethiopian Smallholder Coffee
Producers. J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 55, 1267–1284. [CrossRef]
8. Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H.; Yang, X.; Cadisch, G. Rubber Boom, Land Use Change and the Implications for Carbon Balances in
Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 57–67. [CrossRef]
9. Tolno, E.; Kobayashi, H.; Ichizen, M.; Esham, M.; Balde, B.S. Economic Analysis of the Role of Farmer Organizations in Enhancing
Smallholder Potato Farmers’ Income in Middle Guinea. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 123. [CrossRef]
10. Singh, C.; Dorward, P.; Osbahr, H. Developing a Holistic Approach to the Analysis of Farmer Decision-Making: Implications for
Adaptation Policy and Practice in Developing Countries. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 329–343. [CrossRef]
11. Ahrends, A.; Hollingsworth, P.M.; Ziegler, A.D.; Fox, J.M.; Chen, H.; Su, Y.; Xu, J. Current Trends of Rubber Plantation Expansion
May Threaten Biodiversity and Livelihoods. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 34, 48–58. [CrossRef]
Land 2023, 12, 281 15 of 17

12. Lee, J.S.H.; Miteva, D.A.; Carlson, K.M.; Heilmayr, R.; Saif, O. Does Oil Palm Certification Create Trade-Offs between Environment
and Development in Indonesia? Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 15, 124064. [CrossRef]
13. Jin, S.; Min, S.; Huang, J.; Waibel, H. Falling Price Induced Diversification Strategies and Rural Inequality: Evidence of Smallholder
Rubber Farmers. World Dev. 2021, 146, 105604. [CrossRef]
14. Barrett, C.B.; Reardon, T.; Webb, P. Nonfarm Income Diversification and Household Livelihood Strategies in Rural Africa:
Concepts, Dynamics, and Policy Implications. Food Policy 2001, 26, 315–331. [CrossRef]
15. Martin, S.M.; Lorenzen, K.A.I. Livelihood Diversification in Rural Laos. World Dev. 2016, 83, 231–243. [CrossRef]
16. You, H.; Zhang, X. Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Sustainability in China: Ecologically Secure, Economically Efficient or
Socially Equitable? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 1–13. [CrossRef]
17. Ashley, C.; Carney, D. Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early Experience; Department for International Development London:
London, UK, 1999; Volume 7.
18. Amalric, F.; Chambers, R.; Conway, G. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: General Report of the Sustainable Livelihoods Project
1995–1997; Society for International Development: Rome, Italy, 1998.
19. Chambers, R.; Conway, G. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century; Institute of Development Studies
(UK): Falmer, UK, 1992; ISBN 0903715589.
20. Scoones, I. Livelihoods Perspectives and Rural Development. J. Peasant Stud. 2009, 36, 171–196. [CrossRef]
21. Brammer, H.; Ravenscroft, P. Arsenic in Groundwater: A Threat to Sustainable Agriculture in South and South-East Asia. Environ.
Int. 2009, 35, 647–654. [CrossRef]
22. Min, S.; Wang, X.; Liu, M.; Huang, J. The Asymmetric Response of Farmers to an Expected Change in the Price of Rubber: The
Roles of Sunk Costs and Path Dependency. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 585–594. [CrossRef]
23. Talukder, A.; Haq, I.; Ali, M.; Drope, J. Factors Associated with Cultivation of Tobacco in Bangladesh: A Multilevel Modelling
Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Isaac, M.E.; Erickson, B.H.; Quashie-Sam, S.J.; Timmer, V.R. Transfer of Knowledge on Agroforestry Management Practices: The
Structure of Farmer Advice Networks. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 32. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, Y.; Zhou, L. Farmers’ Perception of the Decade-Long Grazing Ban Policy in Northern China: A Case Study of Yanchi
County. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1113. [CrossRef]
26. Vista, B.M.; Nel, E.; Binns, T. Land, Landlords and Sustainable Livelihoods: The Impact of Agrarian Reform on a Coconut
Hacienda in the Philippines. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 154–164. [CrossRef]
27. Gao, Y.; Zheng, J.; Bu, M. Rural-Urban Income Gap and Agricultural Growth in China: An Empirical Study on the Provincial
Panel Data, 1978–2010. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2014, 6, 92–107. [CrossRef]
28. Häuser, I.; Martin, K.; Germer, J.; He, P.; Blagodatskiy, S.; Liu, H.-X.; Krauß, M.; Rajaona, A.; Shi, M.; Pelz, S. Environmental and
Socio-Economic Impacts of Rubber Cultivation in the Mekong Region: Challenges for Sustainable Land Use. CABI Rev. 2015, 10, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
29. Ahlheim, M.; Börger, T.; Frör, O. The Ecological Price of Getting Rich in a Green Desert: A Contingent Valuation Study in Rural Southwest
China; FZID Discussion Paper: Stuttgart, Germany, 2012. Available online: http://opus.ub.unihohenheim.de/volltexte/2012/751/
(accessed on 10 October 2022).
30. Xiao, C.; Li, P.; Feng, Z. Monitoring Annual Dynamics of Mature Rubber Plantations in Xishuangbanna during 1987–2018 Using
Landsat Time Series Data: A Multiple Normalization Approach. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2019, 77, 30–41. [CrossRef]
31. Yang, J.; Xu, J.; Zhai, D.L. Integrating Phenological and Geographical Information with Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Map
Rubber Plantations in Xishuangbanna. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2793. [CrossRef]
32. Aenis, T.; Wang, J. From information giving to mutual scenario definition: Stakeholder participation towards Sustainable Rubber
Cultivation in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. In Farming Systems Facing Global Challenges: Capacities and Strategies; Aenis, T.,
Knierim, A., Riecher, M., Ridder, R., Schobert, H., and Fischer, H., Eds.; Publikationsserver der Humboldt-Universität: Berlin,
Germany, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 618–625. [CrossRef]
33. Wang, J.; Aenis, T.; Hofmann-Souki, S. Triangulation in Participation: Dynamic Approaches for Science-Practice Interaction in
Land-Use Decision Making in Rural China. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 364–371. [CrossRef]
34. Min, S.; Huang, J.; Bai, J.; Waibel, H. Adoption of Intercropping among Smallholder Rubber Farmers in Xishuangbanna, China.
Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2017, 15, 223–237. [CrossRef]
35. Wang, J.; Aenis, T. Stakeholder Analysis in Support of Sustainable Land Management: Experiences from Southwest China.
J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 1–11. [CrossRef]
36. Fu, Y.; Chen, J.; Guo, H.; Hu, H.; Chen, A.; Cui, J. Agrobiodiversity Loss and Livelihood Vulnerability as a Consequence of
Converting from Subsistence Farming Systems to Commercial Plantation-Dominated Systems in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China:
A Household Level Analysis. L. Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 274–284. [CrossRef]
37. Dzanku, F.M. Rational but Poor? An Explanation for Rural Economic Livelihood Strategy. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 69, 365–381.
[CrossRef]
38. Ellis, F. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; ISBN 0198296967.
39. Liu, Z.; Liu, L. Characteristics and Driving Factors of Rural Livelihood Transition in the East Coastal Region of China: A Case
Study of Suburban Shanghai. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 43, 145–158. [CrossRef]
Land 2023, 12, 281 16 of 17

40. Van den Berg, M. Household Income Strategies and Natural Disasters: Dynamic Livelihoods in Rural Nicaragua. Ecol. Econ. 2010,
69, 592–602. [CrossRef]
41. Walelign, S.Z.; Pouliot, M.; Larsen, H.O.; Smith-Hall, C. Combining Household Income and Asset Data to Identify Livelihood
Strategies and Their Dynamics. J. Dev. Stud. 2017, 53, 769–787. [CrossRef]
42. Hua, X.; Yan, J.; Zhang, Y. Evaluating the Role of Livelihood Assets in Suitable Livelihood Strategies: Protocol for Anti-Poverty
Policy in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 78, 62–74. [CrossRef]
43. Panichvejsunti, T.; Kuwornu, J.K.M.; Shivakoti, G.P.; Grünbühel, C.; Soni, P. Smallholder Farmers’ Crop Combinations under
Different Land Tenure Systems in Thailand: The Role of Flood and Government Policy. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 129–137.
[CrossRef]
44. Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change in Kenya:
Household Strategies and Determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Oyinbo, O.; Chamberlin, J.; Vanlauwe, B.; Vranken, L.; Kamara, Y.A.; Craufurd, P.; Maertens, M. Farmers’ Preferences for
High-Input Agriculture Supported by Site-Specific Extension Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Nigeria. Agric.
Syst. 2019, 173, 12–26. [CrossRef]
46. Smit, B.; McNabb, D.; Smithers, J. Agricultural Adaptation to Climatic Variation. Clim. Change 1996, 33, 7–29. [CrossRef]
47. Wang, W.; Gong, J.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Y. Exploring the Effects of Rural Site Conditions and Household Livelihood Capitals on
Agricultural Land Transfers in China. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105523. [CrossRef]
48. Chen, H.; Yi, Z.F.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Ahrends, A.; Beckschäfer, P.; Kleinn, C.; Ranjitkar, S.; Xu, J. Pushing the Limits: The Pattern
and Dynamics of Rubber Monoculture Expansion in Xishuangbanna, SW China. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150062. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49. Hammond, J.; van Wijk, M.T.; Smajgl, A.; Ward, J.; Pagella, T.; Xu, J.; Su, Y.; Yi, Z.; Harrison, R.D. Farm Types and Farmer
Motivations to Adapt: Implications for Design of Sustainable Agricultural Interventions in the Rubber Plantations of South West
China. Agric. Syst. 2017, 154, 1–12. [CrossRef]
50. Emtage, N.; Herbohn, J.; Harrison, S. Landholder Profiling and Typologies for Natural Resource–Management Policy and
Program Support: Potential and Constraints. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 481–492. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Tittonell, P.; Muriuki, A.; Shepherd, K.D.; Mugendi, D.; Kaizzi, K.C.; Okeyo, J.; Verchot, L.; Coe, R.; Vanlauwe, B. The Diversity of
Rural Livelihoods and Their Influence on Soil Fertility in Agricultural Systems of East Africa–A Typology of Smallholder Farms.
Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 83–97. [CrossRef]
52. Sen, A. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1982; ISBN 0198284632.
53. Chambers, R. Poverty and Livelihoods: Whose Reality Counts? Environ. Urban. 1995, 7, 173–204. [CrossRef]
54. DFID, U.K. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development. 1999. Available
online: https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/- (accessed on 12 December 2022).
55. Scoones, I. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis; IDS: Brighton, Australia, 1998.
56. Nguyen, T.T.; Nguyen, L.D.; Lippe, R.S.; Grote, U. Determinants of Farmers’ Land Use Decision-Making: Comparative Evidence
From Thailand and Vietnam. World Dev. 2017, 89, 199–213. [CrossRef]
57. Moreno, S.I.C.; Cutler, J.; Kinkel, C.; Kuebke, L.; Larson, M.; Liebig, G.; Longanecker, J.; Martin, F.; Ohlendorf, K.; Ridder, R.
Rubber Cultivation and Livelihood-A Stakeholder Analysis in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Berlin,
Germany, 2014. Available online: https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/14229/29jESAnTGIY2.pdf?sequence=1
(accessed on 10 June 2021).
58. Polkinghorne, D.E. Language and Meaning: Data Collection in Qualitative Research. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005, 52, 137. [CrossRef]
59. Misra, M. Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Change Adaptation in Bangladesh: Questioning the Technological Optimism.
Clim. Dev. 2017, 9, 337–347. [CrossRef]
60. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
61. Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1998;
ISBN 0761909613.
62. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1990; ISBN 0803937792.
63. Anzul, M.; Downing, M.; Ely, M.; Vinz, R. On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words; Routledge: London, UK, 2003; ISBN 0203451422.
64. Pham, N.T.T.; Nong, D.; Garschagen, M. Farmers’ Decisions to Adapt to Flash Floods and Landslides in the Northern Mountainous
Regions of Vietnam. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 252, 109672. [CrossRef]
65. Habtemariam, L.T.; Gandorfer, M.; Kassa, G.A.; Sieber, S. Risk Experience and Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation
Decision. Clim. Dev. 2020, 12, 385–393. [CrossRef]
66. Nicod, T.; Bathfield, B.; Bosc, P.M.; Promkhambut, A.; Duangta, K.; Chambon, B. Households’ Livelihood Strategies Facing
Market Uncertainties: How Did Thai Farmers Adapt to a Rubber Price Drop? Agric. Syst. 2020, 182, 102846. [CrossRef]
67. Ashraf, M.; Routray, J.K.; Saeed, M. Determinants of Farmers’ Choice of Coping and Adaptation Measures to the Drought Hazard
in Northwest Balochistan, Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1451–1473. [CrossRef]
68. Onyeneke, R.U. Does Climate Change Adaptation Lead to Increased Productivity of Rice Production? Lessons from Ebonyi State,
Nigeria. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 54–68. [CrossRef]
69. Pelling, M.; High, C. Understanding Adaptation: What Can Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity? Glob. Environ.
Chang. 2005, 15, 308–319. [CrossRef]
Land 2023, 12, 281 17 of 17

70. Blackmore, I.; Rivera, C.; Waters, W.F.; Iannotti, L.; Lesorogol, C. The Impact of Seasonality and Climate Variability on Livelihood
Security in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100279. [CrossRef]
71. Yang, H.; Huang, K.; Deng, X.; Xu, D. Livelihood Capital and Land Transfer of Different Types of Farmers: Evidence from Panel
Data in Sichuan Province, China. Land 2021, 10, 532. [CrossRef]
72. Kuang, F.; Jin, J.; He, R.; Ning, J.; Wan, X. Farmers’ Livelihood Risks, Livelihood Assets and Adaptation Strategies in Rugao City,
China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110463. [CrossRef]
73. Wang, M.; Li, M.; Jin, B.; Yao, L.; Ji, H. Does Livelihood Capital Influence the Livelihood Strategy of Herdsmen? Evidence from
Western China. Land 2021, 10, 763. [CrossRef]
74. Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Solís, J.D.; Martinez-Juarez, P. Framing Vulnerability and Coffee Farmers’ Behaviour in the Context of
Climate Change Adaptation in Nicaragua. World Dev. 2020, 126, 104733. [CrossRef]
75. Ricart, S.; Olcina, J.; Rico, A.M. Evaluating Public Attitudes and Farmers’ Beliefs towards Climate Change Adaptation: Awareness,
Perception, and Populism at European Level. Land 2018, 8, 4. [CrossRef]
76. Fisher, M.; Holden, S.T.; Thierfelder, C.; Katengeza, S.P. Awareness and Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi: What
Difference Can Farmer-to-Farmer Extension Make? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 310–325. [CrossRef]
77. Eakin, H.; Tucker, C.M.; Castellanos, E.; Diaz-Porras, R.; Barrera, J.F.; Morales, H. Adaptation in a Multi-Stressor Environment:
Perceptions and Responses to Climatic and Economic Risks by Coffee Growers in Mesoamerica. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 123–139.
[CrossRef]
78. Darnhofer, I. Resilience and Why It Matters for Farm Management. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 41, 461–484. [CrossRef]
79. Vongvisouk, T.; Dwyer, M. Falling Rubber Prices in Northern Laos: Local Responses and Policy Options. Project Report 2016;
pp. 1–59. Available online: https://data.opendevelopmentmekong.net/dataset/falling-rubber-prices-in-northern-laos-local-
responses-and-policy-options (accessed on 12 December 2022).
80. Slothuus, C.F.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Mertz, O. Navigating between Tea and Rubber in Xishuangbanna, China: When New Crops Fail
and Old Oneswork. Land 2020, 9, 22. [CrossRef]
81. Ellis, F. The Determinants of Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing Countries. J. Agric. Econ. 2000, 51, 289–302.
[CrossRef]
82. Liu, Z.; Chen, Q.; Xie, H. Influence of the Farmer’s Livelihood Assets on Livelihood Strategies in the Western Mountainous Area,
China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 875. [CrossRef]
83. Yang, L.; Liu, M.; Min, Q.; Li, W. Specialization or Diversification? The Situation and Transition of Households’ Livelihood in
Agricultural Heritage Systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 455–471. [CrossRef]
84. Pour, M.D.; Barati, A.A.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J. Revealing the Role of Livelihood Assets in Livelihood Strategies: Towards
Enhancing Conservation and Livelihood Development in the Hara Biosphere Reserve, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 336–347.
[CrossRef]
85. Ullah, A.; Arshad, M.; Kächele, H.; Khan, A.; Mahmood, N.; Müller, K. Information Asymmetry, Input Markets, Adoption of
Innovations and Agricultural Land Use in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104261. [CrossRef]
86. Balana, B.B.; Mathijs, E.; Muys, B. Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: An Application of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis to Community Forests in Northern Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1294–1304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Shiferaw, B.A.; Okello, J.; Reddy, R.V. Adoption and Adaptation of Natural Resource Management Innovations in Smallholder
Agriculture: Reflections on Key Lessons and Best Practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11, 601–619. [CrossRef]
88. He, X.; Yan, J.; Yang, L.E.; Zhou, H.; Wu, Y.; Wu, S. The Role of Government Interventions in Household Climate Adaptation on
the Tibetan Plateau. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 95, 544–559. [CrossRef]
89. Kiani, A.K.; Sardar, A.; Khan, W.U.; He, Y.; Bilgic, A.; Kuslu, Y.; Raja, M.A.Z. Role of Agricultural Diversification in Improving
Resilience to Climate Change: An Empirical Analysis with Gaussian Paradigm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9539. [CrossRef]
90. Perret, S.R.; Kirsten, J.F. Studying the Local Diversity of Rural Livelihoods Systems: An Application of Typological Techniques for
Integrated Rural Development Support in the Eastern Cape (South Africa); Working Papers 18083; University of Pretoria, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development: Pretoria, South Africa, 2000.
91. Whittard, D.; Ritchie, F.; Musker, R.; Rose, M. Measuring the Value of Data Governance in Agricultural Investments: A Case
Study. Exp. Agric. 2022, 58, e8. [CrossRef]
92. Whatmore, S. Farm Household Strategies and Styles of Farming: Assessing the Utility of Farm Typologies. In Born from
Within-Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural Development; Royal Van Gorcum BV: Assen, The Netherlands, 1994; pp. 31–37.
93. Huynh, P.T.A.; Le, N.D.; Le, S.T.H.; Tran, T.N. Adaptive Livelihood Strategies among Small-Scale Fishing Households to Climate
Change-Related Stressors in Central Coast Vietnam. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 13, 492–510. [CrossRef]
94. Staub, C.G.; Clarkson, G. Farmer-Led Participatory Extension Leads Haitian Farmers to Anticipate Climate-Related Risks and
Adjust Livelihood Strategies. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 81, 235–245. [CrossRef]
95. Pham, N.T.T.; Nong, D.; Sathyan, A.R.; Garschagen, M. Vulnerability Assessment of Households to Flash Floods and Landslides
in the Poor Upland Regions of Vietnam. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 28, 100215. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.