Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Rural-Urban Labour Migration on Household Forest Management in the Context of Rural Reform and Development in China

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rural-urban labour migration has the potential to significantly transform forest owners’ forestry management strategies and influence the forest resources in the long term. This study examined the effects of rural-urban labour migration on household forestland exit decisions (i.e. forestland abandonment and forestland transfer), investment decisions (capital and labour), and forest income (absolute and relative) based on data collected in 2011 and 2016 from 563 rural households in seven counties of Sichuan Province, China. The results show that rural-urban labour migration significantly increases the probability of forestland abandonment, and the net transfer rate of forestland, especially when the migrants are post-adolescent (age 30–45) women. Furthermore, rural-urban labour migration was found to have little influence on forest capital investment intensity, but significant negative influences on labour investment intensity, and both forest income and reliance. These results provide new insights about the impact of rural-urban labour migration on forest management, and will be helpful in designing alternative policies to promote rural-urban labour migration and enhancement of forest management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These reforms consist mainly of the following: a) clarifying property rights at the core of the reforms, allocation of collective forestry land to farmers, clarifying the boundaries of farmers’ lands, and providing certificates of forest rights; b) guaranteeing management rights wherein farmers can make decisions about the management of commercial forests; c) guaranteeing the right of disposal, the right of transfer forests and trees to others, and the right of earnings as well as compensation to farmers who own public welfare forests.

  2. Forestland belongs to the village as a whole. Collective forestland is mainly distributed in southern China. The majority of collective forests are planted.

  3. Forests in China are divided into two categories—public welfare forests and commercial forests. Most of the public welfare forests are given priority in terms of protection, and logging in them is forbidden. The government compensates the households that own public welfare forests for their losses.

  4. The SLCP was introduced to stop the farming of land that is steeply sloping or is prone to soil erosion, and to promote the planting of trees instead. The SLCP introduced a fixed-payment incentive mechanism to compensate rural households that participate (Bennett et al., 2014).

  5. According to the China Forestry Yearbook 2018 (State administration of forestry and grassland, 2018), collective forests have 45% of the total national forest volume (13.6 billion m3), but their productivity levels are only equivalent to 75% of the national average, and 52% of the state-owned forest average. Moreover, the average stock volume of collective forests is less than 30 m3 per ha (29.1m3), far below the world average (90 m3).

References

  • Aide TM, Grau HR (2004) Ecology. Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science 305(5692):1915–1916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth NJ, Bauch S, Börner J, Smith-Hall C, Wunder S (2014) Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Dev 64:S12–S28

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett M, Xie C, Hogarth NJ, Peng D, Putzel L (2014) China’s conversion of cropland to forest program for household delivery of ecosystem services: how important is a local implementation regime to survival rate outcomes? Forests 5(9):2345–2376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilsborrow RE (2002) Migration, population change, and the rural environment. Environ Change Secur Proj Rep 8:69–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Caviglia-Harris JL, Sills EO (2005) Land use and income diversification: comparing traditional and colonist populations in the Brazilian Amazon. Agric Econ 32(3):221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H, Dong XY, Macphail F (2011) Labor migration and time use patterns of the left-behind children and elderly in rural china. World Develop 39(12):2199–2210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiodi V, Jaimovich E, Montes-Rojas G (2012) Migration, remittances and capital accumulation: evidence from Rural Mexico. J Dev Stud 48(8):1139–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropper M, Griffiths C (1994) The interaction of population growth and environmental quality. Am Econ Rev 84:250–254

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brauw A, Rozelle S (2008) Migration and household investment in rural China. China Econ Rev 19:320–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X (2013) Labor transfer, land lease, and agricultural capital investment. China Agric Econ 10:63–75 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Duan W, Ma B, Sun B, Wen Y (2017) Dependence of the poor on forest resources: evidence from China. Small-scale For 16(4):487–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhardt-Martinez K (1998) Social determinants of deforestation in developing countries: a cross-national study. Soc Forces 77:567–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis EC (2011) Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philos Trans Royal Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1938):1010–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gai QE, Zhu X, Shi QH (2014) Labor migration and Chinese agricultural production. China Econ Quart 13(3):1147–1170 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gain D, Watanabe T (2017) Expert evaluation of subsidies for the management of fragmented private forest in regards to national biodiversity goals—the case of Kochi Prefecture Japan. Sustainability 9:626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao M, Xu TX (2012) An analysis of characteristics and efficiency of resource allocation by farmer households in poor areas with part-time business activities. Comp Econ Soc Syst 2:163–169 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Godoy R, Wilkie D, Franks J (1997) The effects of markets on neotropical deforestation: a comparative study of four Amerindian societies. Curr Anthropol 38(5):875–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Navarro M, Emerick K, Sadoulet E, Janvry AD (2015) Delinking land rights from land use: certification and migration in Mexico. Am Econ Rev 105(10):3125–3149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray CL, Bilsborrow RE (2014) Consequences of out-migration for land use in rural Ecuador. Land Use Policy 36:182–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner C, Sakdapolrak P (2013) Rural–urban migration, agrarian change, and theenvironment in Kenya: a critical review of the literature. Popul Environ 34:524–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth NJ, Belcher B, Campbell B, Stacey N (2013) The role of forest-related income in household economies and rural livelihoods in the border region of southern China. World Develop 43:111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang K, Deng X, Liu Y, Yong Z, Xu D (2020) Does off-Farm migration of female laborers inhibit land transfer? Evidence from Sichuan Province China. Land 9(1):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illukpitiya P, Yanagida JF (2008) Role of income diversification in protecting natural forests: evidence from rural households in forest margins of Sri Lanka. Agrofor Syst 74(1):51–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izquierdo AE, Grau HR, Aide TM (2011) Implications of rural–urban migration for conservation of the Atlantic Forest and urban growth in Misiones, Argentina (1970–2030). Ambio 40(3):298–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumer P, Pezdevšek M (2019) Factors hindering forest management among engaged and detached private forest owners: Slovenian stakeholders’ perceptions. Small-scale For 18:105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(9):3465–3472

  • Li J, Liu W (2015) Study on the influencing factors of forestry farmers’ afforestation behavior after collective forest tenure reform: a case study of forest change survey data in Fujian province. Issues For Econ 35(2):155–158 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Zhao L (2010) The impact of rural labor forces flow to ageing of agricultural labor forces-an empirical study based on data of Liaoning province. Chin Rural Econ 9:68–74 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Bluemling B, Dries L (2016) Property rights effects on farmers’ management investment in forestry projects: the case of camellia in Jiangxi China. Small-scale For 15(3):271–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Chhatre A, Liu J (2019) Multiple drivers and pathways to China’s forest transition. For Policy Econ 106:101962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Yin R, Li H (2016) China’s forest tenure reform and institutional change at a crossroads. For Policy Econ 72:92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Lin L, Xu J, Zheng Y (2016) The factors affecting changes on the forestry scale of farmers’ management after the reform on forestry system—based on investigation of a representative village sampled in Fujian. For Econ 6:28–33 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu G, Wang H, Cheng Y, Zheng B, Lu Z (2016) The impact of rural out-migration on arable land use intensity: evidence from mountain areas in Guangdong, China. Land Use Policy 59:569–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark C, Judith B, Steven JF, Aad K (2019) How rural out-migrations drive changes to farm and land management: a case study from the rural Andes. Land Use Policy 81:594–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt K, Pain A, Örjan B, Rengifo LR (2019) Forest dynamics in the Peruvian Amazon: understanding processes of change. Small-scale For 18(1):81–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather AS (1992) The forest transition. Area 24(4):367–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather AS, Needle CL (2000) The relationships of population and forest trends. Geogr J 166:2–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy N, Carletto C, Kilic T, Davis B (2009) Assessing the Impact of Massive Out-Migration on Albanian Agriculture. The European Journal of Development Research 21(3):448–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Migrant Population Division of National Health Commission, China (2019) Report on China’s migrant population development. China Population Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukete B, Sun Y, Etongo D, Folega F, Sajjad S, Ngoe M, Ndiaye G (2018) Household characteristics and forest resource dependence in the Rumpi hills of Cameroon. Appl Ecol Environ Res 16(3):2755–2779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Bureau of Statistics of China (2019) China statistical yearbook 2018. China Statistics Press, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • National Bureau of Statistics of China (2019a) Monitoring report of China’s migrant workers 2018 http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201904/t20190429_1662268.html (in Chinese)

  • Nguyen TT, Do TL, Bühler D, Hartje R, Grote U (2015) Rural livelihoods and environmental resource dependence in Cambodia. Ecol Econ 120(12):282–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin H (2010) Rural-to-urban labor migration, household livelihoods, and the rural environment in Chongqing Municipality Southwest China. Human Ecol 38(5):675–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin H, Liao TF (2016) Labor out-migration and agricultural change in rural China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rural Stud 47:533–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudel TK, Schneider L, Uriarte M, Turner BL, DeFries R, Lawrence D, Geoghegan J, Hecht S, Ickowitz A, Lambin EF, Birkenholtz T, Baptista S, Grau R (2009) Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (49):20675–20680

  • Rural Socio-economic Survey Division of National Bureau of Statistics, China (2017) China rural statistical yearbook 2018. China Statistics Press, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmook B, Radel C (2008) International labor migration from a tropical development frontier: globalizing households and an incipient forest transition: the southern Yucatán case. Hum Ecol 36:891–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shively G, Martinez E, Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (2001) Deforestation, irrigation, employment and cautious optimism in southern Palawan, the Philippines. J Phys Oceanograph 31(11):3295–3311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha SS, Bhandari P (2007) Environmental security and labor migration in Nepal. Popul Environ 29(1):25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siikamäki J, Ji Y, Xu J (2015) Post-reform forestland markets in China. Land Econ 91(2):211–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton JRA, Straits BC (2005) Approaches to social research, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark O, Bloom DE (1985) The new economics of labor migration. Am Econ Rev 75(2):173–178

    Google Scholar 

  • State Forestry Administration (2018) China forestry development report 2017. China Forestry Press, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun WK, Bai C, Xie P (2011) The effect on rural labor mobility from registration system reform in China. Economic Research Journal 1:28–41 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor EJ (1999) The new economics of labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process. Int Migr 37:63–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JE, Lopez-Feldman A (2010) Does migration make rural households more productive? evidence from mexico. Journal of Development Studies 46(1):68–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uberhuaga P, Smith-Hall C (2012) Forest income and dependency in lowland Bolivia. Environ Develop Sustain 14(1):3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Zhai Y (2009) The influence of property right system arrangement on the afforestation investment behavior of peasant households: a case study in Liaoning. J Agrotech 2:62–68 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei D, Chao H, Yali W (2016) Role of income diversification in reducing forest reliance: evidence from 1838 rural households in China. J For Econ 22:68–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge JM (2012) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Cengage Learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Angelsen A, Belcher B (2014) Forests, livelihoods, and conservation: broadening the empirical base. World Develop 64:S1–S11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie Y, Gong P, Han X, Wen Y (2014) The effect of collective forestland tenure reform in china: does land parcelization reduce forest management intensity? J For Econ 20(2):126–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie L, Berck P, Xu J (2016) The effect on forestation of the collective forest tenure reform in China. China Econ Rev 38:116–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie F, Zhu S, Cao M, Kang X, Du J (2019) Does rural labor outward migration reduce household forest investment? The experience of Jiangxi, China. For Policy Econ 101:62–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Berck P, Yi Y, Köhlin G (2014) Property rights, tenure security and forest investment incentives: evidence from china’s collective forest tenure reform. Environ Develop Econ 19(1):48–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu D, Deng X, Guo S, Liu S (2019) Labor migration and farmland abandonment in rural China: empirical results and policy implications. J Environ Manag 232(15):738–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu T, Zhang X, Agrawal A, Liu J (2020) Decentralizing while centralizing: an explanation of china’s collective forestry reform since the 1980s. For Policy Econ 119:102268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi Y, Köhlin G, Xu J (2014) Property rights, tenure security and forest investment incentives: evidence from china’s collective forest tenure reform. Environ Develop Econ 19(1):48–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Kuuluvainen J, Yang H, Xie Y, Liu C (2017) The effect of off-farm employment on forestland transfers in china: a simultaneous-equation Tobit model estimation. Sustainability 9(9):1645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang H, Cheng J, Liu C (2018) The effect of off-farm employment on forestland transfer: an analysis based on endogenous perspective with 1497 households dataset from 9 provinces. J Agrotech Econ 1:122–131 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong F, Lu W, Xu Z (2016) Is rural-urban labour migration bad for grain production? Analysis on rural household factor substitution, plantation structure adjustment and constraint condition. China Rural Econ 7:36–47 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X, Shi Q, Li R (2010) Farmers’ operational investment behavior in transition: evidence from 15 villages in the Yangtze River delta. Econ Res J 9(2):713–730 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X, Shi Q, Ge Q (2011) Misallocation and TFP in rural China. Econ Res J 5:86–98 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu L, Ma B, Wen Y (2017) Research on the problems and perfecting countermeasures for new round reform of collective forest property right system. J Northwest A&F Univ 17(3):143–151 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z, Xu Z, Shen Y, Huang C, Zhang Y (2019) How off-farm work drives the intensity of rural households" investment in forest management: the case from Zhejiang, china. For Policy Econ 98:30–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For their constructive suggestions and help in this research, we are grateful to Dr Candidate Zhenjiang Song. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (71803050), Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education, China (17YJC790029), and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong province, China (2017A030310077) supported this study. Any remaining errors are solely our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Wei Duan, Jinyu Shen & Yijing Zhang

  2. Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI), Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, and Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Nicholas J. Hogarth

  3. Guangdong University of Finance, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Qian Chen

Authors
  1. Wei Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas J. Hogarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinyu Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yijing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qian Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qian Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Household Questionnaire (Partial Content)

Appendix 1 Household Questionnaire (Partial Content)

  1. 1.

    Personal information of family membersa

Codes of family members

Relationship with household head

Gender

Age

Ethnic group

Religion

Educationb

Health condition

Village leadership

Rural migrationc

Migration Time

Average Monthly incomed

Average Monthly expendituree

Q1

1 male 2 female

Years

Q2

Q3

years

Q4

Q5

1Yes0No

months

yuan

yuan

H1

1 household head

           

H2

            

H3

            

H4

            

H5

            

H6

            

H7

            

H8

            

H9

            

H10

            

H11

            

H12

            
  1. Q1: 1 household head 2 spouse 3 parents 4 children 5 grandchildren 6 others 9 respondent.
  2. Q2: 1 the Han nationality 2 the Qiang nationality 3 the Tibetan nationality 4 the Baima Tibetan nationality 5 the Yi nationality 6 others
  3. Q3: 0 no belief 1 folk belief (worship Mazu, Guan Yu, etc.) 2 Buddhism 3 Tibetan Buddhism 4 Taoism 5 Christianity 6 Islam 7 Catholicism 8 others
  4. Q4: 1 healthy 2 non-serious disease 3 chronic disease 4 serious illness 5 disability
  5. Q5:1 Now you are a village cadre; 2 You used to be a village cadre; 0 You are not a village cadre
  6. aA family is a group of people living under the same roof, sharing various resources (labor force and income), sharing the income and expending together.
  7. bYears of study: 6 years in primary school, 9 years in junior high school, 12 years in senior high school, 16 years in university, 11 years in technical secondary school, 15 years in junior college, 19 years in post-graduate school.
  8. cRural migrants were defined as a family member who chose to work outside the county for more than three months in the survey year.
  9. dAverage monthly income refers to the total income of the family migrants outside the town per month.
  10. eAverage monthly expenditure refers to the total expenses of the family migrants outside the town per month.
  1. 2.

    Residence location information

Residence location coordinates_______E________N. It is _____ meters above sea level.

The living house is____ meters away from the center of the town, and ____ meters away from the cement road.

  1. 3.

    Cropland information

Cropland codes

Area

Main crops

Type

Distance from home

Distance from road

Soil quality

mu

Name

1 paddy field 2 dry land 3 gardena

Meter

Meter

1 very good, 2 not very good, 3 bad

A1

      

A2

      

A3

      

A4

      

A5

      

A6

      
  1. aGarden: It especially refers to the areas of small land that is used for vegetable planting in front of or behind the house
  1. 4.

    Forestland information

Forestland codes

Area

Tree species

Origin

Type

Distance from home

Distance from road

Slope

Soil quality

mu

Name

1 Natural forest

2 Man-made forest

1 Public welfare forest

2 Commercial forest

Meter

Meter

1 flat

2 a little steep

3 very steepa

1 very good

2 not very good

3 bad

F1

        

F2

        

F3

        

F4

        

F5

        

F6

        

F7

        

F8

        

F9

        
  1. aLand < 15° is flat, 15°–30° is a little steep, > 30° is very steep
  1. 5.

    Forestry production information

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duan, W., Hogarth, N.J., Shen, J. et al. Effects of Rural-Urban Labour Migration on Household Forest Management in the Context of Rural Reform and Development in China. Small-scale Forestry 20, 543–568 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-021-09480-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-021-09480-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation