The European Journal of Development Research

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 250–263 | Cite as

A Case Study on Changing Livelihood Strategies of the Community of Ban Non Sao-e Village, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand

Original Article


In an attempt to better understand household response to natural and socio-economical conditions in a rural community, this paper examines the livelihood strategies developed by members of the village of Ban Non Sao-e. Using data compiled from 44 household surveys, I investigate how the village community adapted to these new livelihood strategies, in which landownership and farming become gradually less important. I examine the income-generating capacity of each occupation, as well as the average income of households. Results indicate that those who own land have a higher average income than those who do not. The respondents stressed that agricultural production was not a viable income-generating strategy for most households in the study area. Landownership, access to water resources and institutional financial sources all have a significant effect on average income. The case study suggests that a purely economic or natural approach is not sufficient to explain livelihood strategy changes, especially in rural communities.

Dans le but de mieux comprendre la réponse des ménages aux évolutions des conditions naturelles et socio-économiques dans une communauté rurale, cet article examine les stratégies de subsistance des membres du village de Ban Non Sao-e. En utilisant les données de 44 enquêtes auprès de ménages, je cherche à voir comment la communauté villageoise s’adapte aux nouvelles stratégies de subsistance, dans lesquelles la propriété foncière et l’exploitation agricole prennent de moins en moins de place. J’examine la capacité à générer des revenus de chaque type d’activité, ainsi que le revenu moyen des ménages. Les résultats indiquent que les propriétaires fonciers ont des revenus moyens supérieurs à ceux qui ne sont pas propriétaires. Les enquêtés soulignent que la production agricole ne correspond pas à une stratégie fiable pour générer des revenus en ce qui concerne la plupart des ménages dans la zone de l’étude. La propriété de la terre, l’accès à l’eau et les sources de financement institutionnelles ont un effet significatif sur le revenu moyen. L’étude de cas suggère qu’une approche purement économique ou naturelle n’est pas suffisante pour expliquer les changements dans les stratégies de subsistance, tout particulièrement dans les zones rurales.


livelihood strategies rural Thailand landownership livestock 



Special thanks to Ms Sinprom, Ms Thongthuam, Ms Kongmak and Mr Douangdavong from Kasetsart University for their support and help. I send my sincere gratitude to the people of Ban Non Sao-e village for their hospitality, participation and patience.


  1. Adams, R.H. (1994) Nonfarm income and inequality in rural Pakistan – A decomposition analysis. Journal of Development Studies 31: 110–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balisacan, A.M. (1993) Agricultural growth, landlessness, off-farm employment, and rural poverty in the Philippines. Economic Development and Cultural Change 41: 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardhan, K. (1993) Women and Rural Poverty: Some Asian Cases. In: M.G. Quibria (ed.) Rural Poverty in Asia: Priority Issues and Policy Options. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barlett, P.F. (1980) Adaptive strategies in peasant agricultural production. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 545–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T. and Webb, P. (2001) Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26: 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, S. (1989) Social institutions and access to resources. Africa 59: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binswanger, H., McIntire, J. and Udry, C. (1991) Production relations in semi-arid African agriculture. The Economic Theory of Agrarian Institutions 24: 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryceson, D.F. (1996) Deagrarianization and rural employment in sub-Saharan Africa: A sectoral perspective. World Development 24: 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carney, D. (ed.) (1998) Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? London: Department of International Development.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, M.R. (1997) Environment, technology, and the social articulation of risk in West African agriculture. Economic Development and Cultural Change 45: 557–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chambers, R., Longhurst, R., Bradley, D. and Feachem, R. (1979) Seasonal dimensions to rural poverty – Analysis and practical implications. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 82: 156–172.Google Scholar
  12. Conway, D. and Cohen, J.H. (1998) Consequences of migration and remittances for Mexican transnational communities. Economic Geography 74: 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, S. (1996) Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel. Science, Technology-and-Development 14: 144–150.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, S. and Hossain, N. (1997) Livelihood Adaptation, Public Action and Civil Society: A Review of the Literature. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Report no. 57.Google Scholar
  15. Delang, C.O. (2002) Deforestation in northern Thailand: The result of Hmong farming practices or Thai development strategies? Society & Natural Resources 15: 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eakin, H. (2000) Smallholder maize production and climatic risk: A case study from Mexico. Climatic Change 45: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis, F. (1998) Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal of Development Studies 35: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO Statistics Division. (2004) FAO Statistical Country profile. Thailand: FAO Statistical Yearbook,;1_core;2/pdf/Thailand.pdf.
  19. Feder, G. and Feeny, D. (1991) Land-tenure and property-rights – Theory and implications for development policy. World Bank Economic Review 5: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feder, G. and Onchan, T. (1987) Land ownership security and farm investment in Thailand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsyth, T. and Leach, M. (1998) Poverty and Environment: Priorities for Research and Policy, An Overview Study. Institute of Development Studies. Prepared for the United Nations Development Programme and European Commission, Scholar
  22. Hart, G. (1994) The Dynamics of Diversification in an Asian Rice Region. In: B. Koppel et al (eds.) Development or Deterioration?: Work in Rural Asia. Chapter 2, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, pp. 47–71.Google Scholar
  23. Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V.W. (1988) Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heyer, J. (1996) The complexities of rural poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford-Development-Studies 24: 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IBSRAM. (1998) Indigenous Technical Knowledge for Land Management in Asia. Papers presented at the Assembly of the Management of Soil Erosion Consortium; 28 January–2 February 1997, Nan, Thailand. Issues-in-Sustainable-Land-Management 152.Google Scholar
  26. Joshi, H. (1990) A home divided: Women and income in the third world. Population Studies 44: 362–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kleinman, P.J.A., Pimentel, D. and Bryant, R.B. (1995) The ecological sustainability of slash-and-burn agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 52: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Land Development Department (LDD). (2002) Soil Education: Science and Technology Exhibition Guide. 17th World Congress of Soil Science. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  29. Longhurst, R. (1988) Agricultural-Development in Southern-Africa – Farm-household economics and the food crisis – Low, A. Development and Change 19: 343–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malik, S.J. (1999) Rural Poverty and Land Degradation: What Does the Available Literature Suggest For Priority Setting for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research? Report prepared for the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR; Vienna, Virginia.Google Scholar
  31. Mol, J. (1976) Conditions of agricultural growth (economics of agrarian change under population pressure) – Boserup, E. Economist 124: 361–362.Google Scholar
  32. Monticha, S. (2004) Land Tenure Security and Investment Incentives; the case of Thailand. A Proposal submitted to the Jastro-Shields Graduate Research Scholarship Award; University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  33. Ochoa-Gaona, S. (2001) Traditional land-use systems and patterns of forest fragmentation in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Environmental Management 27: 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pasuk, P. and Baker, C. (1998) Thailand's Boom and Bust. Ching Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  35. Pitiyont, B. et al (2006) Basic Information for the Sluse Field Study in Nakhon Ratchasima Province Northeastern Thailand. Thailand: Kasetsart University.Google Scholar
  36. Ponette-Gonzalez, A.G. (2007) 2001: A household analysis of Huastec Maya agriculture and land use at the height of the coffee crisis. Human Ecology 35: 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rakodi, C. (1999) From self-help housing to sustainable settlement: Capitalist development and urban planning in Lusaka, Zambia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23: 404–405.Google Scholar
  38. Ratanakomut, S., Ashakul, C. and Kirananda, T. (1994) Urban poverty in Thailand: Critical issues and policy measures. Asian Development Review 12: 204–224.Google Scholar
  39. Rigg, J. (1997) The village concept in the transformation of rural Southeast Asia: Studies from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand – Hoadley, MC, Gunnarsson, C. Journal of Development Studies 33: 725–726.Google Scholar
  40. Sahn, D.E. (1989) Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture: The Consequences for Food Security. Baltimore, MD: IFPRI by Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sato, J. (2000) People in between: Conversion and conservation of forest lands in Thailand. Development and Change 31: 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scherr, S.J. (1999) Poverty–Environment Interactions in Agriculture: Key Factors and Policy Implications. New York: United Nations Development Programme and the European Commission.Google Scholar
  43. Scherr, S.J. (2000) A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy 25: 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scoones, I. and Toulmin, C. (1998) Soil nutrient balances: What use for policy? Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 71: 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing Like a State How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Siamwalla, A. et al (1990) The Thai rural credit system – Public subsidies, private information, and segmented markets. World Bank Economic Review 4: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. et al (1994) More people, less erosion: Environmental recovery in Kenya. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Turner, B.L. and Ali, A.M.S. (1996) Induced intensification: Agricultural change in Bangladesh with implications for Malthus and Boserup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93: 14984–14991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Dijk, H. (1998) Adaptable livelihoods: Coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel. Development and Change 29: 396–397.Google Scholar
  50. Walker, R., Perz, S., Caldas, M. and Silva, L.G.T. (2002) Land use and land cover change in forest frontiers: The role of household life cycles. International Regional Science Review 25: 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Bank Thailand Office. (2005) Thailand Economic Monitor. M.K. Matin and K. Bhaopichitr (eds.). Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  52. Zimmerer, K.S. (2004) Cultural ecology: Placing households in human-environment studies – The cases of tropical forest transitions and agrobiodiversity change. Progress in Human Geography 28: 795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zoomers, A.E.B. and Kleinpenning, J. (1996) Livelihood and urban-rural relations in central Paraguay. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 87: 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HorticultureFaculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus

Personalised recommendations