Examines livelihood diversity in rural households, revealing spatial impacts of policies.
Although rural livelihoods act as a critical mediator between poverty alleviation policies and sustainable outcomes, the spatial heterogeneity of this interaction remains underexplored within those agrarian systems that are crucial for food production. This study examines how China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation policies shape livelihood strategies and the livelihood diversity of rural households across different spatial contexts in Jilin Province, a main grain production region of Northeast China. Using survey data from 2306 households, this study employs multiple logistic and linear regression models. The results indicate that (1) industrial and employment policies are associated with development-oriented strategies, whereas enterprise-driven and cash transfer policies tend to reinforce asset-based or welfare-dependent livelihoods; (2) these policy effects exhibit significant spatial heterogeneity, mediated by local agricultural productivity conditions, labor endowments, and off-farm livelihood availability; and (3) industrial policies show stronger associations with agricultural livelihoods in the east, while financial policies are more effective in sustaining agricultural engagement in the capital-constrained west. Integrating the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework with a spatial lens, this study shifts the focus of policy assessment from static outcome metrics to process-oriented analysis and reveals the mechanisms underlying the spatial divergence of livelihood strategies, providing a nuanced analytical framework for assessing the impacts of PAPs across diverse agricultural contexts. Based on these findings, this study highlights that spatially differentiated, livelihood context-sensitive policies are essential for securing sustainable and long-term poverty reduction in grain production regions, offering a replicable template for policy evaluation and practical implications for achieving SDGs 1 and 2 in agrarian regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: