BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF PEER-REVIEWED

LITERATURE ON LIVELIHOOD ASSETS AND THE

RELATIONSHIPS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
LIVELIHOODS
Sukainah Farhah Ador 1, Nor Diana Mohd Idris2*, Chamhuri Siwar3, Tan Say Peng4, Nik Herda Nik Abdullah5
1
Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
sukainahfarhah@gmail.com.my
2
Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
nordiana@ukm.edu.my
3
Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
csiwar@ukm.edu.my
4
Fakulti Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
5
School of Accounting and Finance, Taylor’s University.
Corresponding author: Nor Diana Mohd Idris, Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University
of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Email: nordiana@ukm.edu.my

DOI: 10.47750/pnr.2022.13.S09.705

The livelihood asset concept plays an essential role in shaping livelihoods, providing opportunities and significantly impacting
the linked institutions and structures generated by the assets. The bibliometric method was used in this research to gather
information on livelihood assets from the Scopus database. Besides, bibliometric maps are valuable in assessing and
summarising enormous amounts of data and studying scientific outputs. This study concentrated on two types of biblio-metric
analysis: evaluation approaches and relationship approaches. This research aimed to explore in-depth into the livelihood assets
topic that has been published, journals, and research articles in the field and analysed frequently highlighted research topics in
the domain. This study also listed the indicators and sub-indicators of the livelihood asset dimension regularly employed in
various research. According to the analysis, an upsurge in publications concerning livelihood assets was observed. In addition,
journals were the most commonly published document. Most journals concerning livelihood assets were from China,
Indonesia, and the United States. This study in-cluded the top five journals and the top 15 cited papers. This study identified
five clusters for the keyword occurrence and displayed the evolution of research subjects in co-occurring keywords from 2015
to 2018 and beyond. Based on the keywords, themes such as poverty, sustainability, and relationships between assets were
constructed based on the primary topic frequently addressed in livelihood assets. Furthermore, livelihood asset and sub-
indicators dimensions were created by referring to the literature analysis. This study elaborates and expands previous research
through a bibliometric focus on livelihood assets.

Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, livelihood asset, sustainable livelihood, sustainability.

Introduction
Assets are income sources that can be diversified, developed and shaped (Scoones 1998). Scoones (1998) added
that the assets owned can be diversified to earn different types of incomes. Asset diversification is a crucial
element that can be used as a livelihood strategy to attain a more prosperous life. Assets not only play a crucial
role in shaping livelihoods but also provide opportunities and impact the related institutions and structures in
which the assets are developed. For example, if an area contains natural assets derived from ocean resources, the

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5858

appropriate organisation and institutions will strive to develop and strengthen such assets. Furthermore, Davies et
al. (2007) stated that assets would influence the household's decisions concerning the economic activities to be
undertaken and the involvement rate in implementing those activities. The authors asserted that the contextual
conditions in which the household operates impact decisions about income-generating activities. The context
comprises external elements such as institutional, environmental and human factors such as markets and civil
society that will impact household decisions and actions. These elements have the potential to develop or
negatively influence assets (Ellis 2000). Access to one or more livelihood assets determines engagement in a
specific set of livelihood activities (Shivakoti & Shrestha 2005).A sustainable livelihood analysis (SLA)
established by the Department for International Development (DFID) was utilised in this study. This framework
is a critical notion in international development commonly applied to development programmes and policy
impact. This SLA framework is also recognised as a method for obtaining assets as a foundation to conduct the
analysis, as Jansen et al. (2005) have shown. The livelihood asset component is one of the framework components,
which comprises the components of vulnerability, transformation structure and processes, livelihood strategies,
and livelihood outcomes. In addition, the SLA framework divides assets into two categories of goods and services,
namely tangible and non-tangible assets that are developed to generate income need to be accessed by households
(DFID 1999).The development of this framework has contributed in various contexts, including rural household
livelihood, poverty alleviation, livelihood vulnerability, sustainable livelihood security, land-use change, and
energy consumption, and involves various economic sectors. A growing number of SLA research are available.
Literature using bibliometric for the SLA framework can readily be found. Nonetheless, to elaborate and extend
the previous research, a bibliometric focus solely on one of the framework components, livelihood asset, became
the research gap to be addressed in this study. Therefore, this research focuses solely on livelihood assets using
the bibliometric approach.

Research Purpose
The research aimed to address the following research questions:

1. How many articles on the issue of livelihood assets have been published?

2. Which journals and research articles are the most frequently cited?

3. Which research topics are frequently highlighted in the domain?

4. What are the indicators and sub-indicators of the dimension of livelihood assets?

Materials and Methods

Pritchard (1969) in Echchakoui and Barka (2020) defined bibliometrics as "Application of Mathematical and
Statistical methods into book methods and other media communication", where the definition has been developed
in various ways. According to Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016), a bibliometric analysis is a tool for analysing the
research structure and trends on a specific topic. Ellegaard and Wallin (2015) stated that bibliometrics could be
used to identify the largest contributions aspects from institutional journals, authors, universities, countries and
collaboration between all these aspects. Previous studies categorise the bibliometric analysis into three parts:
review techniques, relational techniques, and evaluation techniques (Benckendorff & Zehver 2013).

Review techniques refer to classical review analysis and meta-analysis methods (Zhang & Chen 2020). Hall
(2011) divides the evaluation of this technique into three groups: productivity measurements (number of
publications), impact measurements such as number of citations, and hybrid measurements such as h-index
calculations, including impact and productivity measurements. Zupic and Cater (2015) stated that the relationship
technique includes four analysis methods: co-word analysis, co-citation analysis, co-authorship analysis and
bibliographic coupling. This research focused on two groups of bibliometric analysis, notably evaluative
techniques and relationship techniques.The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5859

allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript
implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication
available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or
information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be
briefly described and appropriately cited.

Data Processing

The data processing was use search string there were including the title and keywords as following format in the
SCOPUS database. TITLE-ABS-KEY ( livelihood AND asset AND human AND asset AND social AND
asset AND financial AND asset AND physical AND asset AND natural AND asset ). Furthermore, the
inclusion and exclusion criteria was implement based on special criteria was consist types of literature, language,
field, time-line of the articles searching and the countries coverage. All the criteria were meet the journal (research
articles), not including the review articles, book chapters and conference proceeding. The research articles must
be in English and covered all the fields of study all around the world. The timeline of the study must be in the
range 2000 to 2021 years. Which is representing the current study has been conducted by the scholars regarding
to the livelihood’s assets research.

Results
The total number of publications per year from 2000 to 2021 was 143 documents, as shown in Figure 1. As this
framework was developed in 1999, the publication of journals concerning these livelihood assets was minimal at
the beginning of 2000. The first document published in the Scopus database was in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, no
publications on this topic were found in the Scopus database. Nevertheless, the number of publications increased
in 2012, 2013, and 2014 to 11 documents, respectively. In 2015, the number of published documents decreased
as only three were published. The publications increased in 2018, 2019, and 2020, which were 18, 22 and 17,
respectively. In 2021, 18 documents were published related to the topic.

Figure 1. Total publication [Source: Scopus database]

25

20
Document

15

10

0
2001
2000

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

Year

Total publication

Figure 2 shows published documents, including journal articles, books, chapters in books, reviews, conference
papers, editorials, notes, and short surveys. Journal article is the most published, with 81.1% of the total

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5860

publications comprising 116 journal article documents. Subsequently, 7.7% or 11 book chapters and another 7.7%
or 11 conference papers were published concerning livelihood assets. The remaining 3.5% or five more documents
include review papers, short surveys, and other documents.

Figure 2. Publication type and source analysis [Source: Scopus database]

0.70% 0.70%
7.70%2.10%

7.70%
81.10%

Article Book Chapter Conference paper Review Editorial Short Survey

Figure 3 illustrates the publication pattern of the ten major countries that published journals on livelihood assets.
The associated author's institutional address or affiliation was used to calculate publication distribution across
nations. Countries and the number of citations and publications cited were identified. The Scopus database was
used to obtain the citations and number of documents. China has the most publications, with 19 papers and 175
citations, followed by Indonesia (17 publications and 197 citations), the United States (17 publications and 440
citations), India (15 publications and 153 citations) and Australia (12 publications and 77 citations). Other
countries include the United Kingdom (11 publications, 194 citations), Japan (9 publications, 223 citations),
Canada (8 publications, 495 citations), Germany (8 publications, 191 citations) and Netherlands (8 publications,
184 citations).

According to Table 3, the journal with the most published articles is Sustainability Switzerland, described as "an
international, scholarly, peer-reviewed, cross-disciplinary and open-access journal of environmental, cultural,
economic, and social sustainability of human beings." The second journal with a consistent number of articles is
the Environment, Development, and Sustainability journal, an international, interdisciplinary journal covering all
areas of the environmental consequences of socio-economic development. By focusing on the complex
relationship between development and the environment, the objective of the journal is to seek strategies and means
of ensuring sustainability in all human activities directed toward development. The topics encompass relationships
between society, development, and the environment, and the consequences for sustainable development:
technological, economic, ethical, and philosophical elements of sustainable development.

Another journal that publishes a consistent number of articles in the livelihood asset field is the International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. This international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5861

journal publishes original research contributions to scientific knowledge. This publication tends to examine and
enhance knowledge and sustainable development practice.

Conclusively, three types of journals emphasise sustainability as the central core of the published journals
comprising economic, social, and environmental aspects. The study context of all these journals aligns with the
livelihood assets highlighted as the main study pillars. Livelihood assets are based on one of the Sustainable
Livelihood Framework (SLF) components developed by the DFID. The SLA approach is also known as asset-
based analysis by researchers such as Jansen et al. (2005). The combination of various assets determines the assets
owned by the household and the opportunity to choose livelihood strategies or the best way to use the assets owned
by them. Decisions of households, communities, policymakers and responsible bodies on utilising and improving
the owned assets determine their living outcomes, such as household well-being, environmental conservation, and
community prosperity.

Table 1. Top five journals with the most published articles on livelihood asset

Source Title Total Subject Categories Journal Impact Factors

Journal Ranking

Sustainability 6 Engineering Q2
Switzerland
Environmental Science

Social Sciences

Environment, 4 Economics, Econometrics Q2

Development, and and Finance
Sustainability
Environmental Science

Social Sciences

International Journal 3 Environmental Science Q1

of Sustainable
Social Sciences
Development and
World Ecology

Applied Geography 3 Agricultural and Q1

Biological Sciences

Business, Management and

Accounting

Environmental Science

Social Sciences

PLoS ONE 3 Multidisciplinary Q1

According to the information in Table 4, the article "Why local people do not support conservation: Community
perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance, and management in Thailand" by Bennett
and Dearden (2014) is the most cited publication in the livelihood asset context. The study was published in the
Marine Policy journal in 2014 and had 359 citations in the Scopus database. The second most cited publication is
"Accessing adaptation: Multiple stressors on livelihoods in the Bolivian highlands under a changing climate",
published by McDowell and Hess (2012), with 150 citations on Scopus.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5862

 Table 2. Top 15 most cited articles

Title Author Year Cited by

1. Why local people do not support conservation: Community Bennett N.J., 2014 359
perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, Dearden P.
governance and management in Thailand

2. Accessing adaptation: Multiple stressors on livelihoods in the McDowell J.Z., 2012 150
Bolivian highlands under a changing climate Hess J.J.

3. A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity Bennett N., 2012 104
for tourism development in aboriginal protected area gateway Lemelin R.H.,
communities Koster R., Budke
I.

4. Drivers and socioeconomic impacts of tourism participation in Liu W., Vogt 2012 89
protected areas C.A., Luo J., He
G., Frank K.A.,
Liu J.

5. Assessing the performance of natural resource systems Campbell B., 2002 85

Sayer J.A., Frost
P., Vermeulen S.,
Pérez M.R.,
Cunningham A.,
Prabhu R.

Keyword Clusters and Keyword Trends

A primary term co-occurrence study is shown below (Refer to Figure 4). This study aimed to identify widely
researched topics in livelihood asset and their relationships with one another. The authors, Van Eck and Waltman
[63] and Zupic and Cater [75], clarified that keywords occurring together in documentation imply that the ideas
underlying the keywords are strongly linked. By studying keyword forms, variations of keywords commonly
utilised by researchers may be discovered, which can also indicate patterns and behaviours in the studies areas.
The co-word analysis would create a conceptual space of the field connected with all major co-word elements. By
using the word proximity analysis, the variation of keywords commonly used by writers can be determined. The
findings can offer insights into the study topic.

The keywords co-occurrence map was generated with 4118 keywords discovered in the 143 publications in the
sample database. This research set a total of ten occurrences of the keyword to be included in the results, and 129
words matched that standard. Figure 4 illustrates a network visualisation map of the ten co-occurring term
keyword clusters with 2107 links and a total link strength of 22961. The most frequent terms are listed in Table
3. The keyword co-occurrence analysis also provides valuable information on other emerging themes related to
the researched area Bhattacharya & Basu [7] in Maier et al. [38]. For a better overview of the emerging topics,
this study removed unimportant keywords commonly used in every writing but did not describe the study topic
or context, such as the words study, context, number and others.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5863

 Figure 4. Trends on the keyword used in title and abstract (≥ 10 times)

Subsequently, words with similar meanings or additional affixes on the overlapping words were excluded from
the analysis. The word with the highest occurrence value of the overlapping words was selected for analysis, such
as capital and assets, farmers and farmers and others. Nevertheless, similar words with significant relevance such
as sustainable livelihood framework, financial assets and financial capital were retained for this study.
Subsequently, the country's name was also removed from the analysis to the next level because it was analysed
descriptively using the Scopus database. The essential component represented in the keyword co-occurrence map
is the occurrence of terms based on their prevalence and the transformation of their popularity over time[25, 75,
66].

The VOSviewer software generated a total of five clusters for the keyword frequency analysis in this study. Cluster
1, labelled in red on the map, had 23 keywords such as livelihood asset, development, social capital, natural
capital, strategy, vulnerability, financial capital, poverty, physical capital, human capital, relationship, case study,
food security, disaster and others. Next, Cluster 2, labelled in green, encompasses 19 items: impact, income, factor,
effect, policy, financial, asset, sustainability, interview, social asset, livelihood, activity, natural asset and others.
Furthermore, labelled in blue, Cluster 3 consists of 17 items, namely farmer, access, capacity, management,
resilience, capital asset, climate change, adaptation, association, agriculture and others. Subsequently, Cluster 4,
labelled in yellow, had seven items: resource, improvement, evidence, government, food, contribution, and lack.
The final cluster in purple consists of four items with keywords including livelihood strategy, livelihood capital,
rural household and difference.

Table 3. High frequency keywords in paper on livelihood asset (≥ 10times)

Weight
Weight Weight
< Total link
Id Label Cluster < Links > strength > < Occurrences >

1 livelihood asset 1 69 2544 158

2 Farmer 3 66 1930 115

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5864

3 Impact 2 67 1834 114

4 Access 3 68 1484 76

5 livelihood strategy 5 68 1619 70

6 Development 1 68 853 61

7 Income 2 68 1053 60

8 social capital 1 69 1043 59

9 Framework 1 69 962 57

10 Resource 4 66 1018 55

11 Factor 2 69 915 54

12 Capacity 3 62 959 52

13 natural capital 1 68 990 49

14 Management 3 66 859 47

15 Strategy 1 66 1032 46

16 Indicator 3 66 734 46

17 Resilience 3 45 682 45

18 Vulnerability 1 64 862 43

19 financial capital 1 66 834 42

20 Effect 2 68 796 41

21 Policy 2 68 772 40

22 Poverty 1 63 499 39

23 physical capital 1 69 820 38

24 capital asset 3 66 656 37

25 human capital 1 66 768 36

26 financial asset 2 65 669 36

27 Sustainability 2 62 615 35

28 Interview 2 68 617 34

29 social asset 2 66 686 34

30 livelihood capital 5 54 734 34

31 Relationship 1 65 597 31

32 climate change 3 62 588 29

33 case study 1 63 475 28

34 Improvement 4 62 530 28

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5865

35 food security 1 63 562 26

36 livelihood activity 2 52 541 26

37 Intervention 3 65 517 26

38 rural household 5 57 815 26

39 natural asset 2 60 389 25

40 physical asset 2 61 471 25

41 Disaster 1 43 312 24

42 Conservation 2 56 460 24

43 Adaptation 3 55 533 24

44 Process 1 60 378 23

45 human asset 2 54 464 23

46 rural livelihood 2 62 432 23

47 Association 3 63 486 22

48 Influence 1 56 376 21

49 Difference 5 57 455 21

50 sustainable livelihood 1 61 342 20

51 Tourism 1 40 526 20

52 Agriculture 3 59 379 20

53 Information 3 63 346 20

54 Risk 3 39 325 20

55 Adoption 3 55 349 19

56 Land 3 61 388 19

57 Evidence 4 60 345 19

58 Government 4 60 354 19

59 natural resource 1 56 340 17

60 Importance 2 53 288 17

61 Questionnaire 1 63 312 16

62 Education 1 66 313 14

sustainable livelihood
63 framework 2 60 241 14

64 Food 4 54 257 14

65 Addition 2 57 287 13

66 Skill 2 47 297 13

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5866

 67 Ecotourism 1 31 388 11

68 Farm 3 49 225 11

69 Contribution 4 54 247 11

70 Lack 4 45 153 10

An analysis of the results revealed the most productive publishing period. Figure 5 illustrates a map visualisation
network generated by VOSviewer, demonstrating the development of research topics in terms of co-occurring
keywords from 2015 until 2018 and beyond. With the co-occurrence of terms, clearly, beginning in 2015, an
increasing trend of study on issues related to management, natural resources, agriculture, poverty, tourism, and
government could be observed. In 2016, studies focused on livelihood asset, impact, livelihood strategy,
development, physical asset, social capital, natural capital and relationship. Subsequently, many studies in 2017
were conducted concerning vulnerability and livelihood capital. In 2018 and above, keywords occurrence were
related to financial assets, climate change, food, security, resilience, human asset, rural household and disaster.

Figure 5. Yearly trends analysis based on Scopus data

Themes

Based on the keywords, themes such as poverty, sustainability, and relationships between assets were constructed
based on the primary topic frequently addressed in livelihood assets.

Poverty

Keywords for poverty include poverty, livelihood asset and improvement. This component of livelihood assets is
a fraction of the SLF. This paradigm was initially created for studies on poverty. Subsequently, this framework
was adapted to a wide range of topics. Households with more livelihood assets compromising five variations of
livelihood assets will have the ability to gain a more prosperous life and be able to eradicate poverty (Meinzen et
al. 2009; Erenstein et al. 2010; Almaden 2015) while lacking livelihood assets is a factor in poverty (Kristjanson
et al. 2005; Samsudin & Kamaruddin 2013; Vergara 2013).

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5867

According to studies, the livelihood assets possessed by a household significantly impacts the living standard of
the household (Erenstein et al. 2010). Studies on poverty that analyse these livelihood assets strive to figure out
which of these livelihood assets have a high potential for improvement to assist the target population in eradicating
poverty (Swain et al. 2008; Samsudin & Kamaruddin 2013; Vergara 2013; McCartney et al. 2015).

According to research undertaken by Mawa et al. (2021), the natural assets of the forest areas become the primary
source of household income in that area, empowering households in poverty alleviation. Sunarso's (2017) study
showed that the lack of livelihood assets among the respondents caused them to remain poor. Several researchers
(Kristjanson et al. 2005; Meinzen et al. 2009; Erenstein et al. 2010; Samsudin & Kamaruddin 2013; Vergara 2013;
Sati 2014; Almaden 2015) also performed research on the various applications on livelihood assets in poverty
studies.

Sustainability

Keywords for sustainability include sustainability, livelihood asset, agriculture, farmers and rural area. These
livelihood assets are widely used when analysing sustainability. Nguyen Tan (2021) employed livelihood assets
to examine the influence of the five livelihood assets on the environmental sustainability of shrimp farming. The
results showed that three of the livelihood assets significantly affect the environmental sustainability of shrimp
farming.

Based on the frequency of words obtained, most of the studies using livelihood assets involve the agricultural
sector (Ahmed et al. 2021; Lan et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2021; Wan et al. 2021), rural areas as areas studies (Islam et
al. 2020; Kuang et al. 2020; Lan et al. 2021) and farmers as target groups (Sthapit et al. 2016; Quandt et al. 2019;
Liu et al. 2021). The studies examined the ability of the target group to achieve livelihood sustainability (Quandt
et al. 2019; Kuang et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2021), explored how they conduct plantations or economic activities
sustainably (Vilei 2011; Ngunyen Tan 2021), or which livelihood assets must be enhanced to achieve sustainable
livelihoods (Mawa et al. 2021; Shah et al. 2021).

Types of Relation on Livelihood Asset

The relationships of the livelihood assets was identified by the types of associations between the assets as referred
in SLA framework (Figure 6), assets as adaptive capacity, assets with other components and livelihood strategies
impacts on assets.

Figure 6. The framework of sustainable livelihood asset [Source: DFID (1999)]

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5868

The Relationship between Assets

Keywords for the relationship between assets include relationship, livelihood asset, and programme. Referring to
DFID (1999), livelihood assets are a component of the SLA framework. The component of livelihood assets is
divided into two forms of relationships, notably relationships that entail variation between the assets themselves
and the relationship between livelihood assets and other components within this framework. Livelihood assets are
pentagon-shaped, representing the variation of five categories of assets and the ownership of the assets. The
middle point of the pentagon that contains all these assets is the lowest point of access to the assets. On the other
hand, the outermost point is the maximum point of access to the asset. Based on the facts indicating the holdings
of the asset, the responsible party is able to build an appropriate development programme for the target group to
increase their well-being.

The Relationship between Assets: Livelihood Asset as an Adaptive Capacity

Keywords for livelihood asset as an adaptive capacity include livelihood asset, relationship, adaptive capacity,
institution, disaster, vulnerability, resilience, physical capital, human capital, financial capital, social capital,
natural asset, lack, and climate change. The research on the relationship between assets was conducted concerning
livelihood assets as an adaptive capacity.

Adaptive capacity is the ability of institutions, systems and humans to adapt to the possibility of damage or disaster
and react to the potential consequences implemented (IPCC et al. 2012). Adaptive capacity is essential in bridging
the gap between vulnerability and resilience (Engle 2011) and is classified as a component of resilience or a
system that manages resilience. Much research has been undertaken to investigate the potential of livelihood assets
to influence the adaptive capacity to any vulnerability that occurs.

Among the studies that show livelihood assets as an adaptive capacity is a study conducted by Mazhar et al.
(2021), which explored the importance of variation in livelihood assets as an adaptive capacity in three different
areas of the dry land region in Punjab, Pakistan. The study showed that natural assets had the highest adaptation
capacity level among households in the area, followed by others assets. Most households with the highest adaptive
capacity were centred in Rahim Yar Khan, where the district offers more employment opportunities and has
various income sources. The group with the lowest adaptive capacity was found in Rajanpur, where respondents
had a negative burden on all significant components of their livelihood assets. In contrast, the Bahawalpur district
lacks a substantial adaptive capacity.

Furthermore, Mahama and Nkegbe (2021) showed that welfare is different among Ghananian households
depending on the livelihood assets. Research undertaken by Dulal et al. (2010) investigates the adaptive ability of
communities in Koshi Tappu, assessing if they have the necessary assets (human, social, natural, physical, and
financial) to stay resilient in the face of climate change consequences. Moreover, Wan et al. (2021) analysed the
link between livelihood assets and nutrients consumed. The results showed a significant relationship between
livelihood assets and the rate of nutrients consumed by farmers. The more livelihood assets owned, the more
significant the rate of nutrient consumed and vice versa. Similarly, Mazhar et al. (2021) discovered a possibility
or relationship between these livelihood assets and adaptive capacity.

The Relationship of Asset with Other Component

Keywords for the relationship of an asset with other components include livelihood asset, relationship, adaptive
capacity, institution, vulnerability, access, government, programme, and policies. The relationship of assets with
other components in the framework refers to the relationship of assets with the vulnerability context, the formation
of structures and processes, adaptive capacity and livelihood outcomes. In terms of vulnerability, livelihood asset
negatively relates to vulnerability. When the vulnerability rate is high, the probability of demolished livelihood
assets increases. In contrast, institutions and policies profoundly influence access to livelihood assets through
structures and processes. The responsible party will enhance or assist in the growth of the household's assets

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5869

through government policies or programmed development initiatives. Nonetheless, the relationship is not only a
one-way relationship as individuals and groups also influence the formation of the process and structure.

The Relationship of Asset with other Component: Livelihood Strategies Impact on Asset

Keywords for livelihood strategies impact on asset include livelihood asset, livelihood strategies, impact,
influence, relationship, adaptive capacity, institution, financial capital, human capital, physical capital, natural
asset, social capital, poverty and sustainable livelihood. Various studies have been undertaken concerning the
livelihood strategies accomplished and their impact on the livelihood assets owned by households. Swain (2008)
addressed that microfinance provided is able to provide a positive impact for the poor by strengthening the five
livelihood assets held in one of the studies examining the link between the components. Increases in such assets
result in increased income, which could be utilised to alleviate the poverty rate.

Furthermore, Liu et al. (2021) attempted to explore the influence of ecological compensation policies on farmers'
livelihoods, where the programmes encompassed sustainability and social equality policies. The findings showed
that the implementation of the compensation policy affects the livelihood assets of different farmers. The findings
also indicated that policies such as cash subsidies would positively impact human, physical, financial, and social
assets. Nevertheless, ecological compensation will reduce the positive impact on natural assets.

Besides, the livelihood strategy entails the household's particular actions towards achieving the sustainable
livelihood objective. This circumstance can be observed through a study by Deswandi (2017). The participants of
this study, specifically fishers, leverage diversification of relevant income sources rather than relying on one
income. The capacity access to livelihood assets determines the numerous livelihood strategies that fishers might
generate. Fishers could obtain access to other vital assets to establish livelihood strategies through social networks.
This access is supported by institutions that facilitate the redistribution of relatively limited livelihood assets to
the local people while simultaneously encouraging collaboration among them.

The Relationship of Asset with Other Components: Vulnerability Lead to Loss of Livelihood Asset

Keywords for vulnerability lead to loss of livelihood assets include vulnerability, livelihood asset, relationship,
adaptive capacity, institution, disaster, lack, climate change, impact, adaptive capacity, and livelihood strategies.
According to studies, the vulnerability factors that occur lead to destruction or negatively impact livelihood assets
owned. These vulnerability factors are occasionally unexpected and out of control, making it difficult to measure
and prepare for the vulnerabilities that occur. The vulnerability factors are often associated with natural disasters
such as earthquakes (Ipong et al. 2020), floods (Monwar et al. 2008), economic uncertainty (Zarafshani et al.
2012; Nazari et al. 2015), politics (Nazari et al. 2015) and other factors that negatively impact the household
livelihoods. Birkmann et al. (2013) showed that vulnerability has an influence on the propensity for human well-
being to be affected by disruption to individuals (mental and physical health), community (health, education
services, others), social systems and their features (gender, marginalisation of social groups).

The relationship of livelihood assets with other components can be observed in various studies. Many studies have
shown that a lack of livelihood assets will cause a community's vulnerability to be high and reduce its adaptability
to risks, disasters, and other arising issues and need an adaptive capacity and livelihood strategies to overcome
(Zacarias 2018; Gordillo & Santana 2019; Raaijmakers & Swanepoel 2019; Mengitsu & Assefa 2020; Zhang &
Fang 2020).

 Dimension of Livelihood Asset and Sub-Indicators

Furthermore, the dimensions in livelihood assets and sub-indicators for each indicator widely used in various
studies are also listed in this study, as shown in Table 6 below. The dimensions of financial assets include income,
facilities to obtain loans, savings, expenditure, government assistance, funds, and remittances. Subsequently,

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5870

human assets include age, education level, knowledge, level of health, training, experience and skills. Physical
assets include transportation, public infrastructure, urban services, soft infrastructure, housing, manufactured
goods, and durable good. Next, social assets include relationships between local groups, responsible parties or
authority, suppliers and intermediaries. Natural assets encompass land area, soil quality, number of trees and
access to water.

Table 4. Dimension of livelihood assets and sub-indicators

No AUTHOR/ FINANCIAL ASSETS HUMAN ASSETS PHYSICAL ASSETS SOCIAL ASSETS NATURAL
ASSETS
VARIABLE/

INDICATOR

LD AREA
LQUAL
RMMN

AWTR
PUINF

DURG

RAUT
URSV

PRDG

NTRE
RPLG

RSUP
KNW
RTM

SFIN
CRD

AGE

TRN
EXC
GFU

LED
EXP

SKL

HSE
TRS
INC

HT
SV

1 Baffoe G. & ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
Matsuda H.
(2018)

2 Bennet N.J. & ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄

Dearden P.
(2014)

3 Chen H. et al. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2012)

4 Ismail N. et al. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2018)

5 Jackson L.E. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
et al. (2012)

6 Mengistu F. & ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
Assefa E.
(2020)

7 Quandt A. et ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
al. (2018)

8 Su F. et al. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2018)

9 Udayakumara ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
E.P.N. &
Shrestha R.P.
(2011)

10 Xiao Q. et al. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2020)

11 You H. et al. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2019)

12 Zacarias D.A. ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
(2019)

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5871

 13 Zhang C. & ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
Fang Y.
(2020)

Financial Assets Human Assets Physical Assets Social Assets Natural Assets

INC = Income AGE = Age TRS = Transport RPLG = Relationship LDAREA = Land
with Local Group Area
CRD = Credit LED = Level of Education PUINF = Public Infrastructure
RAUT = Relationship LQUAL = Land
SV = Saving HT = Health URSV = Urban Service with Authority Quality
RTM = Remittance KNW = Knowledge SFIN = Soft Infrastructure RSUP = Relationship NTRE = Numbers
with Supplier of Tree
EXP = Expenditure TRN = Training HSE = House
RMMN = Relationship AWTR = Access
GFU = Government Fund EXC = Experience PRDG = Production Good
with Middleman to Water
SKL = Skill DURG = Durable Good

Conclusion
The analysis for this article utilised the livelihood asset as the foundation of the study through a bibliometric
technique to encompass research trends, academic influence, relevant journals, collaborative networks, and
popular research topics. The analysis showed an increase in publications concerning livelihood assets. The most
widely published type of document is the journal. China, Indonesia and the United States were the countries that
published the most journals on livelihood assets. This analysis includes the top five journals and the top 15 cited
papers.

The keywords co-occurrence map was generated by employing 4118 keywords discovered in the 143 publications
in the sample database. The research set a minimum of ten occurrences of the keyword to be included in the
results, and 129 keywords passed the specification. Figure 4 presented a network visualisation map of the ten co-
occurring keyword clusters with 2107 links and a total link strength of 22961. Next, five clusters emerged for the
keyword occurrence analysis for this study, demonstrating the development of research topics in terms of co-
occurring keywords from 2015 until 2018 and beyond.

Based on the keywords acquired, these themes were established based on the primary topics frequently discussed
in livelihood assets. Among the themes formed were poverty, sustainability, the relationship between assets such
as livelihood assets as an adaptive capacity and the relationship of assets with other components which encompass
livelihood strategies impact on asset and vulnerability that lead to loss of livelihood asset. Furthermore, livelihood
assets and sub-indicators were also created in this study, referring to the literature analysis.

In general, more assets extends the influence of an individual. Concerning the link between assets and livelihood
strategies, those with more assets will have more options and be able to switch from one strategy to another to
ensure their survival. On the other hand, in the relationship between assets and livelihoods, the relationship reflects
the ability of people to alleviate poverty, disasters and other issues that depend on their access to assets. Thus,
different assets are required to accomplish various live goals.

References
1. A. Pritchard, Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Documentation 25 (4) (1969) 348–349.

2. Ahmed, A., & Zulfiqar, M. (2021). Effects of Joint Forest Management on Livelihood of Local Communities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 37(3), 975-983.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5872

3. Almaden, C. R. (2015). Asset-based determinants of poverty intensity: A meso-level application in the Philippines. WSEAS
Transactions on Business and Economics.

4. Baffoe G., Matsuda H. 2018. An empirical assessment of rural livelihood assets from gender perspective: evidence from Ghana.
Sustainability Science 13. 10.1007/s11625-017-0483-8.

5. Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area
livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine policy, 44, 107-116.

6. Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation:Community perceptions of marine protected area
livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine policy, 44, 107-116.

7. Bennett, N., Lemelin, R. H., Koster, R., & Budke, I. (2012). A capital assets framework for appraising and building capacity for tourism
development in aboriginal protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management, 33(4), 752-766.

8. Bhattacharya, S., & Basu, P. (1998). Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 43(3), 359-
372.

9. Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., & Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability,
risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Natural hazards, 67(2), 193-211.

10. C. Zhang, Y. Chen, A review of research relevant to the emerging industry trends: Industry 4.0, IoT, block chain, and business analytics,
J. Indus. Integr. Manage. 5 (1) (2020) 165–180.

11. C.M. Hall, Publish and perish? Bibliometric analysis, journal ranking and the assessment of research quality in tourism, Tourism
Manage. 32 (2011) 16–2

12. Campbell, B., Sayer, J. A., Frost, P., Vermeulen, S., Pérez, M. R., Cunningham, A., & Prabhu, R. (2002). Assessing the performance
of natural resource systems. Conservation ecology, 5(2).

13. Chen H., Shivakoti G., Zhu T., Maddox D. 2012. Livelihood sustainability and community-based co-management of forest resources
in China: Changes and improvement. Environmental Management 49. 219-228. 10.1007/s00267-011-9775-4. Ismail N., Okazaki K.,
Ochiai C., Fernandez G. 2018. Livelihood changes in Banda Aceh, Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.003.

14. Chen, H., Zhu, T., Krott, M., Calvo, J. F., Ganesh, S. P., & Makoto, I. (2013). Measurement and evaluation of livelihood assets in
sustainable forest commons governance. Land use policy, 30(1), 908-914.

15. De Silva, D. A. M., & Yamao, M. (2007). Effects of the tsunami on fisheries and coastal livelihood: a case study of tsunami‐ravaged
southern Sri Lanka. Disasters, 31(4), 386-404.

16. Deswandi, R. (2017). A Case Study of Livelihood Strategies of Fishermen in Nagari Sungai Pisang, West Sumatra, Indonesia. In
Redefining Diversity & Dynamics of Natural Resources Management in Asia, Volume 4 (pp. 45-60). Elsevier.

17. DFID, U. K (2000) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID, 445.

18. Donohue, C., & Biggs, E. (2015). Monitoring socio-environmental change for sustainable development: Developing a Multidimensional
Livelihoods Index (MLI). Applied geography, 62, 391-403.

19. Dulal, H. B., Brodnig, G., Thakur, H. K., & Green-Onoriose, C. (2010). Do the poor have what they need to adapt to climate change?
A case study of Nepal. Local Environment, 15(7), 621-635.

20. Echchakoui, S., & Barka, N. (2020). Industry 4.0 and its impact in plastics industry: A literature review. Journal of Industrial
Information Integration, 100172.

21. Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford

22. Erenstein, O. (2011). Livelihood assets as a multidimensional inverse proxy for poverty: a district‐level analysis of the Indian Indo‐
Gangetic Plains. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 12(2), 283-302.

23. Erenstein, O., Hellin, J., & Chandna, P. (2010). Poverty mapping based on livelihood assets: A meso-level application in the Indo-
Gangetic Plains, India. Applied Geography, 30(1), 112-125.

24. Fröcklin, S., de la Torre-Castro, M., Håkansson, E., Carlsson, A., Magnusson, M., & Jiddawi, N. S. (2014). Towards improved
management of tropical invertebrate fisheries: including time series and gender. PLoS One, 9(3), e91161.

25. Gordillo, G. D. C. Á., & Santana, M. R. A. (2019). Social vulnerability and community capitals in two localities of the Comitec plateau,
Chiapas, Mexico. Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1640102.

26. I. Zupic, T. Čater, Bibliometric methods in management and organization, Org. Res. Methods 18 (2015) 429–472.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5873

27. Ipong, L. G., Ongy, E. E., & Bales, M. C. (2020). Impact of magnitude 6.5 earthquake on the lives and livelihoods of affected
communities: The case of barangay lake Danao, Ormoc city, Leyte, Philippines. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 46,
101520.

28. Islam, M. M., Jannat, A., Dhar, A. R., & Ahamed, T. (2020). Factors determining conversion of agricultural land use in Bangladesh:
farmers’ perceptions and perspectives of climate change. GeoJournal, 85(2), 343-362.

29. Jackson L. E., Pulleman M. M., Brussaard L., Bawa K. S., Brown G. G., Cardoso I. M., de Ruiter P. C., Garcia-Barrios L., Hollander
A. D., Lavelle Patrick, Ouedraogo E., Pascual U., Setty S., Smukler S. M., Tscharntke T., Van Noordwijk M. (2012). Social-ecological
and regional adaptation of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. Global Environmental Change: Human
and Policy Dimensions, 22 (3), p. 623-639. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002.

30. Jackson, L. E., Pulleman, M. M., Brussaard, L., Bawa, K. S., Brown, G. G., Cardoso, I. M., ... & Van Noordwijk, M. (2012). Social-
ecological and regional adaptation of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. Global environmental
change, 22(3), 623-639.

31. Jansen HG, Siegel PB, and Pichon F (2005) Identifying the drivers of sustainable rural growth and poverty reduction in Honduras.
DSGD Discussion Paper 19, Development Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Washington DC, USA. (No. 580-2016-39359).

32. Kristjanson, P., Radeny, M., Baltenweck, I., Ogutu, J., & Notenbaert, A. (2005). Livelihood mapping and poverty correlates at a meso-
level in Kenya. Food Policy, 30(5-6), 568-583.

33. Kristjanson, P., Radeny, M., Baltenweck, I., Ogutu, J., & Notenbaert, A. (2005). Livelihood mapping and poverty correlates at a meso-
level in Kenya. Food Policy, 30(5-6), 568-583.

34. Kuang, F., Jin, J., He, R., Ning, J., & Wan, X. (2020). Farmers' livelihood risks, livelihood assets and adaptation strategies in Rugao
City, China. Journal of environmental management, 264, 110463.

35. L. Fabregat-Aibar, M. Barberà-Mariné, A.G. Terceño, A. Laia Pié, Bibliometric and visualization analysis of socially responsible funds,
Sustainability 11 (2019) 2526.

36. Lan, X., Zhang, Q., Xue, H., Liang, H., Wang, B., & Wang, W. (2021). Linking sustainable livelihoods with sustainable grassland use
and conservation: A case study from rural households in a semi-arid grassland area, China. Land Use Policy, 101, 105186.

37. Lan, X., Zhang, Q., Xue, H., Liang, H., Wang, B., & Wang, W. (2021). Linking sustainable livelihoods with sustainable grassland use
and conservation: A case study from rural households in a semi-arid grassland area, China. Land Use Policy, 101, 105186.

38. Liu, M., Rao, D., Yang, L., & Min, Q. (2021). Subsidy, training or material supply? The impact path of eco-compensation method on
farmers' livelihood assets. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112339.

39. Liu, W., Vogt, C. A., Luo, J., He, G., Frank, K. A., & Liu, J. (2012). Drivers and socioeconomic impacts of tourism participation in
protected areas. PloS one, 7(4), e35420.

40. M.A. Koseoglu, R. Rahimi, F. Okumus, J. Liu, Bibliometric studies in tourism, Ann. Tourism Res. 61 (2016) 180–198.

41. Mahama, T. A. K., & Nkegbe, P. K. (2021). Impact of household livelihood diversification on welfare in Ghana. Scientific African, 13,
e00858.

42. Mawa, C., Tumusiime, D. M., & Babweteera, F. (2021). Are community forests delivering livelihood benefits? Insights from Uganda.
Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 30(2), 133-150.

43. Mazhar, N., Shirazi, S. A., Stringer, L. C., Carrie, R. H., & Dallimer, M. (2021). Spatial patterns in the adaptive capacity of dryland
agricultural households in South Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Arid Environments, 194, 104610.

44. McCartney, M. P., Rebelo, L. M., & Sellamuttu, S. S. (2015). Wetlands, livelihoods and human health. In Wetlands and human health
(pp. 123-148). Springer, Dordrecht.

45. McDowell, J. Z., & Hess, J. J. (2012). Accessing adaptation: Multiple stressors on livelihoods in the Bolivian highlands under a
changing climate. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 342-352.

46. Meinzen-Dick, R. S., Devaux, A., & Antezana, I. (2009). Underground assets: potato biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the
poor. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4), 235-248.

47. Mengistu F., Assefa E. 2020. Towards sustaining watershed management practices in Ethiopia: A synthesis of local perception,
community participation, adoption, and livelihoods. Environmental Science and Policy 112, 414-430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.019.

48. Monwar, M. M., Mustafa, M. G., Khan, N. A., Hossain, M. S., Hossain, M. M., Majumder, M. K., ... & Alam, M. S. (2018). Indigenous
adaptation practices for the development of climate resilient ecosystems in the Hail Haor, Bangladesh. Global Social Welfare, 5(2),
125-136.

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5874

49. Nawrotzki JR, Huntrer ML, Dickinson WT (2012) Rural livelihood and access to natural capitals: differences between migrants and
non-migrants in Madagascar. Demogr Res 26(24):661–700. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2012.26.24

50. Nazari, S., Rad, G. P., Sedighi, H., & Azadi, H. (2015). Vulnerability of wheat farmers: Toward a conceptual framework. Ecological
indicators, 52, 517-532.

51. Nguyen Tan, D. (2021). How do livelihood assets affect the environmental sustainability of shrimp farming? A case study in Tra Vinh
province, Vietnam. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, 25(4), 15-41.

52. O. Ellegaard, J.A. Wallin, The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics (2015),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015- 1645-z https://doi.org/PMID: 26594073

53. P. Benckendorff, A. Zehrer, A network analysis of tourism research, Ann. Tourism Res. 43 (2013) 121–149.

54. P. Mongeon, A. Paul-Hus, The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis, Scientometrics 106 (1) (2016)
213–228

55. Qian, C., Sasaki, N., Jourdain, D., Kim, S. M., & Shivakoti, P. G. (2017). Local livelihood under different governances of tourism
development in China–A case study of Huangshan mountain area. Tourism Management, 61, 221-233.

56. Quandt A., Neufeldt H., McCabe J.T. 2019. Building livelihood resilience: what role does agroforestry play?. Climate and Development
11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1447903.

57. Raaijmakers S., Swanepoel P.A. 2019. Vulnerability, institutional arrangements, and the adaptation choices made by farmers in the
Western Cape province of South Africa.South African Journal of Plant and Soil 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2019.1645219

58. Scoones I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72

59. Shah, Y., Rathod, M., Kavale, M. G., Jaiswar, S., & Mantri, V. A. (2021). Socio-demographic profiling and asset indicators of Gracilaria
dura farmers from northern west coast of India useful for longitudinal analysis. Aquaculture International, 1-15.

60. Shivakoti G, Shrestha S (2005) Analysis of livelihood asset pentagon to assess the performance of irrigation systems. Water Int
30(3):356–362. doi:10.1080/02508060508691876

61. Sthapit, B., Lamers, H. A., & Rao, V. R. (2016). Reflections on the challenges of good practice identification, documentation, piloting
and mainstreaming. In Tropical Fruit Tree Diversity (pp. 411-420). Routledge.

62. Su, F., Saikia, U., & Hay, I. (2018). Relationships between livelihood risks and livelihood capitals: A case study in Shiyang River
Basin, China. Sustainability, 10(2), 509.

63. Suich, H. (2010). The livelihood impacts of the Namibian community based natural resource management programme: a meta-
synthesis. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 45-53.

64. Swain, R. B., Sanh, N. V., & Tuan, V. V. (2008). Microfinance and poverty reduction in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam. African and
Asian Studies, 7(2-3), 191-215.

65. Udayakumara E.P.N., Shrestha R.P. 2011. Assessing livelihood for improvement: Samanalawewa reservoir environs, Sri Lanka.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 18. 366-376. 10.1080/13504509.2011.562740

66. Vergara, E. P., & Barton, J. R. (2013). Poverty and Dependency in Indigenous Rural Livelihoods: M apuche Experiences in the A ndean
Foothills of C hile. Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(2), 234-262.

67. Vilei, S. (2011). Local perceptions of sustainability of farming systems on Leyte, Philippines–divergences and congruencies between
different stakeholders. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(4), 291-303.

68. Wan, Y., Hu, W., & Hu, H. (2021). Understanding nutritional intake of Chinese farmers from the perspective of sustainable livelihood
analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17.

69. Wan, Y., Hu, W., & Hu, H. (2021). Understanding nutritional intake of Chinese farmers from the perspective of sustainable livelihood
analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17.

70. Xiao, Q., Liu, H., & Feldman, M. W. (2020). Is change of natural capital essential for assessing relocation policies? A case from Baihe
county in western China. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 1-9.

71. You H., Hu X., Bie C., Zhou D. 2019. Impact of livelihood assets on farmland-transferred households' willingness to urbanism and
policies implications for farmland transfer: Evidence from zhejiang,China. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society.
10.1155/2019/9631701.

72. Zacarias D.A. 2019. Understanding community vulnerability to climate change and variability at a coastal municipality in southern
Mozambique. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 11. 10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2017-0145

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5875

73. Zarafshani, K., Sharafi, L., Azadi, H., Hosseininia, G., De Maeyer, P., & Witlox, F. (2012). Drought vulnerability assessment: The case
of wheat farmers in Western Iran. Global and Planetary Change, 98, 122-130.

74. Zenteno, M., Zuidema, P. A., de Jong, W., & Boot, R. G. (2013). Livelihood strategies and forest dependence: New insights from
Bolivian forest communities. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 12-21.

75. Zhang, C., & Fang, Y. (2020). Application of capital-based approach in the measurement of livelihood sustainability: A case study
from the Koshi River basin community in Nepal. Ecological Indicators, 116, 106474

Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results ¦ Volume 13 ¦ Special Issue 9 ¦ 2022 5876