The Impact of Rural Industrial Development on Farmers’ Livelihoods—Taking Fruit-Producing Area as an Example

Abstract

Analyzing the impact of industry development on farmers’ livelihoods is of great significance for promoting rural revitalization and the sustainable development of farmers’ livelihoods in China. In this paper, taking Dali County of the Guanzhong Plain as an example, in accordance with the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), we adopted the comprehensive index method, statistical analysis method and relevant analysis method to explore the impact of rural industry development on farmers’ livelihoods by analyzing the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies in different times (2000, 2010 and 2019) and the differentiation of forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes among different types of farmers in 2019 under the background of industrial development. The main conclusions were as follows: The degree of commercialization of the agricultural industry has improved, and the overall development of the rural industry presents an obvious trend away from agriculture. With the upgrading of the rural industrial structure, the leading livelihood strategies of farmers have gradually changed from the crop-planting type to the work-oriented type, and forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes differ significantly among farmer households. Compared to traditional agriculture, the development of the fruit industry and service industry and the degree of participation in these industries are conducive to the accumulation of farmers’ livelihood capital, while migrant work alone has a negative impact on the improvement in farmers’ livelihood capital. The development of the fruit industry and nonagricultural industries and the degree of participation in these industries are more conducive to the improvement in farmers’ livelihood outcomes than is participation in traditional agriculture.

1. Introduction

Industry is the product of the social division of labor; it is produced with the emergence of the social division of labor and develops with the development of the social division of labor [1,2,3]. Traditionally, rural industries are mainly based on agricultural production. With the development of productive forces, especially after the Industrial Revolution, non-agricultural industries began to shift to rural areas with the aim of obtaining production resources and labor, which resulted in the gradual diversification and non-agriculturalization of rural industries [4,5,6]. Rural industries are not only the main means for farmers to achieve local employment and increase their income but also an important medium to stimulate the various functional values of agriculture and rural areas [7,8,9]. Through the impact on the rural planting structure, employment structure and income structure, rural industries affect the development process of the rural social economy.

Farmers are the basic units engaged in industrial production and living activities in rural areas, and their livelihood development is closely related to industry. The Petty–Clark law and Kuznets law indicate that with economic development and increasing per capita national income, the proportion of labor and national income in the primary industry or agricultural sector continues to decline, and the proportion of labor and national income in the secondary and tertiary industries continues to increase [10,11,12]. Affected by the upgrading of the regional industrial structure, the livelihoods of farmers also change. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the rural industrial structure of developed countries has been continuously upgraded, and the livelihoods of farmers have been promoted to complete the transition to the specialization of agricultural production and non-agriculturalization [13,14,15,16]. Limited by the level of productivity development, the development and upgrading of rural industries in developing countries are relatively slow. However, limited by the level of productivity, the income difference between traditional agriculture and other industries drives farmers in developing countries to continuously seek income in nonagricultural industries. The new livelihood activities are gradually differentiated from traditional agricultural production, and development trends of non-grain, part-time and non-agriculturalization are obvious [17,18,19]. It is therefore important to understand the evolutionary characteristics of rural industries and analyze the impact of industrial development on farmers’ livelihoods for the cultivation of rural industries and the healthy development of farmers’ livelihoods in developing countries.

Rural industry is the carrier of farmers’ livelihood development, and farmers develop their livelihoods by participating in different industrial production activities. Scholars from different disciplines have studied rural industries and the livelihoods of farmers. With the development of productivity and global marketization, the structure of agricultural production has undergone major changes. Scholars have considered the impact of agricultural nonfood and marketization on farmers’ livelihoods [20,21,22]. Wamalwa found that some elements of Jatropha farming as an agricultural strategy can improve farmers’ livelihoods [23]. Through a study on agricultural development and farmers’ livelihoods on the Loess Plateau, Wu et al. found that fruit production was one of the important reasons for the differentiation of farmers’ livelihood strategies [24]. Global industrialization and urbanization have promoted the development of non-agricultural industries in rural areas in developing countries, which in turn has promoted the development of farmers’ livelihoods [25,26]. For example, Watanabe et al. explored the contribution of the agricultural product processing industry to the livelihoods of farmers and concluded that the agricultural processing industry can have a positive impact on the development of farmers’ livelihoods in terms of raising the market price of agricultural products and promoting employment [9]. Bachmangregori et al. claimed that better employment opportunities and education brought by the mining industry were the main reasons for migration from rural areas in Mongolia [27]. In recent years, the rapid development of the rural service industry, especially the rural tourism industry, has become a new boost to the livelihood development of farmers [28,29,30,31]. Through a comparative analysis of farmers’ participation in tourism in Sapa District, Vietnam, Hoang et al. found that tourism development can bring new sources of income to regional farmers and thereby improve their living standards [32]. The study by Bires et al. in Ethiopia found that the development of tourism is conducive to the improvement in farmers’ livelihood diversity and livelihood capital [33]. In addition, scholars have explored the impact of rural industries on the livelihoods of farmers from other perspectives and have achieved relatively fruitful results [34,35,36,37]. However, with the deepening of research, many scholars have realized that the development of new industries in rural areas disrupts the original livelihood environment and social network to a certain extent and entails a series of social and ecological problems, which have negative effects on the livelihood development of farmers [38,39,40]. Kouame et al. emphasized that the mining industry not only destroys the land but also threatens the health of the regional population, which increases farmers’ livelihood risk [41]. Chen et al. revealed that the development of rural tourism has led to a series of problems, such as the reduction in regional cultivated land resources, the decline in neighborhood trust, and environmental pollution, which has a negative impact on the accumulation of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital [42]. In summary, the impact of rural industrial development on the livelihoods of farmers is multifaceted, and related research should be carried out from a more comprehensive perspective.

In reviewing the literature, we found that the existing studies are in some ways insufficient. First, the rural industry does not exist alone, but a variety of industries exist at the same time, such that farmers’ participation in industrial activities is often diversified. Existing studies mainly focus on the impact of the development of a single industry on the livelihoods of farmers, and there are relatively few studies on the impact of different industries on the livelihood development of farmers. In addition, most of the existing studies are based on comparative studies of specific groups and ignore the impact of the degree of industry participation. Such research needs to be further deepened.

China is the largest developing country in the world. With the deepening of the reform of China’s rural system, the development of rural industries tends to move away from grain cultivation and agriculturalization, which has greatly promoted the development of farmers’ livelihoods [19,24,43]. However, the development of rural industries also faces a series of problems. First, the small-farmer economy still exists, resulting in low agricultural output efficiency. Second, the loss of the rural labor force leads to insufficient endogenous power for rural industrial development. Finally, the development of supporting industries, such as rural service industries, is insufficient, which limits the upgrading and improvement of the industrial structure. To escape the predicament of rural development and promote the healthy development of farmers’ livelihoods, the Chinese government is implementing a rural revitalization strategy with rural industry revitalization as its core content [44,45]. Therefore, studying the impact of rural industry development on farmers’ livelihoods under the current background is of great significance for promoting coordinated development between rural industries and farmers’ livelihoods in China.

Dali County is located in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, in the northern part of the Guanzhong Plain and on the southern edge of the Loess Plateau, with superior agricultural production conditions. The agricultural production of Dali County is still dominated by traditional grain crops (wheat, and corn) and cash crops (peanuts, cotton, fruits, etc.). However, in recent years, with the support of government policies and the influence of rural industrial development, the focus of agricultural production has gradually shifted to fruit planting. However, the degree of commercialization and marketization of agricultural products is still not high, and the sales of primary agricultural products are still dominated. In addition, taking farmers as the basic unit for agricultural production is the main organizational form, with fewer family farms, cooperatives, and other organizations, resulting in a smaller production scale. To sum up, Dali County is a typical traditional agricultural area of Guanzhong Plain in China. Hence, we selected Dali County as the case area in my study. Based on the sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) proposed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the impact of rural industrial development on the livelihood strategies, forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes of farmers was investigated, and the impact of the degree of industry participation on the livelihood development of farmers was explored. This study aims to answer the following questions:

(1)

What are the characteristics of rural industrial development?

(2)

What impact does the development of rural industries have on the evolution of livelihood strategies, as well as the differentiation of forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes among different types of farmers?

2. Analytical Framework

Livelihood provides scholars with a new perspective through which to pay attention to the development of rural areas and farmers [46,47]. In 2000, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) was established by The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) [48]. This framework has been most widely adopted and applied in empirical research due to its adaptability to the livelihood process and ease of operation. In this framework, farmers are regarded as subjects with certain forms of livelihood capital (human capital, natural capital, financial capital, materialized capital, and social capital) to survive and develop in a certain livelihood environment (policy, economy, culture, etc.). The acquisition of farmers’ forms of livelihood capitals is closely related to the surrounding livelihood environment. According to their forms of livelihood capital, farmers organize and distribute these forms of capital within the scope permitted by society, and then form different livelihood strategies to produce certain livelihood outcomes in the process of social reproduction to meet their survival and development needs.

We constructed an analytical framework that combined SLA with the research theme (Figure 1). As the basic production and living units in rural areas, farmers’ livelihood development is affected by the rural industrial environment [49,50]. First of all, in order to adapt to the development and change of rural industry, farmers will adjust the direction of input of production factors driven by economic rationality. This change will not only enable farmers to constantly reshape the structure of livelihood capitals in the process of participating in the development of rural industries, but also form different types of livelihood strategies. With the upgrading and improvement of the development of rural industries, the livelihood strategies of farmers are developing in the direction of part-time, non-agricultural and service-oriented. In addition, due to the different outcome benefits of different industries, the outcome benefits of participating in production activities of different industries are also different, which leads to the differences in the livelihood outcomes of farmers with different livelihood strategies. The accumulation of livelihood output will further change the stock and structure of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

Dali County is in Western China (ranging from 109°43′ to 110°19′ E and from 34°36′ to 35°02′ N) (Figure 2C, the location overview of Dali County), in the transition zone between the Loess Plateau and the Guanzhong Plain (Figure 2A, the location of the Shaanxi Province in China; Figure 2B, the location of Dali County in the Guanzhong Plain of Shaanxi Province), and is at the confluence of the Yellow River, Luo River and Wei River. There are 15 towns and 1 community under the jurisdiction of the county, which has a total area of 1800 km². Affected by geotectonic movement and rivers, the county is divided into four major geomorphic areas: the northern plateau area, the central Weihe stage area, the southern aeolian sand area, and the northeastern Yellow River beach area. It is a typical representative region of traditional Chinese agriculture.

Since the 1990s, with the establishment of the market economy system and the support of government industrial policies, the core of Dali County’s agricultural production has gradually shifted from traditional crop planting to fruit planting, which has subsequently driven the development of the regional transportation industry, promoting industry, logistics and other service industries. In addition, with rapid urbanization and industrialization in the Guanzhong region, rural laborers are gradually attracted to urban areas and the secondary and tertiary industries. The rural industry in Dali County has entered the stage of dual-track development of fruit production and work away from the hometown, which has a significant influence on the livelihoods of rural farmers.

3.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The data used in this study include statistical data and survey data. The statistical data come from the Dali County Statistical Yearbooks from 1978 to 2018, produced by the Dali County Statistics Bureau. The survey data were collected in three stages. First, the research team went to Dali County to conduct a pre-survey from 19 August to 24 August 2019. Through visiting officials from the government departments of Dali County, such as the Bureau of Statistics, the Bureau of Agriculture, the Bureau of Natural Resources, and the Bureau of Fruit Industry, we learned about the changes in crop structure, labor force employment, fruit planting, and key events in rural development since 1980. Moreover, six villages were randomly selected; two farmers in each village were selected for the pre-survey, and the content of the questionnaire was revised and improved. Next, we conducted a formal survey from 29 October to 4 November 2020. According to the terrain characteristics, social and economic development levels, and population distribution characteristics, 48 administrative villages were selected as survey points, accounting for approximately 17.65% of the total number of administrative villages in Dali County (there were 272 administrative villages in Dali County in 2020). A total of 282 questionnaires were collected via random sampling, accounting for 1.81% of the total number of farmers in all surveyed villages. Finally, 277 surveys were found to be valid, accounting for 98.23% of the total number of questionnaires. The questionnaire mainly assessed farmers’ livelihood capital, livelihood activities, income structure, planting structure and the situation of family employment in different periods (2000, 2010 and 2019). In empirical analysis, we used statistical data to analyze the development process of rural industries in Section 4.1 and used survey data to analyze the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies, the differentiation of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital and the differentiation of farmers’ livelihood outcomes under the background of rural industry development in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4. In addition, in the relevant research on farmers’ livelihoods in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4, we used data from three periods (2000, 2010, and 2019) to explore the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies under the background of rural industry development, and only used data from one time point in 2019 to explore the differentiation of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes under the background of rural industry development.

3.3. Classification Criteria for FLS

From the survey, we learned that the livelihood activities of farmers in the study region mainly concern the planting of traditional agricultural crops (wheat, corn, cotton, etc.), fruit planting, work away from the hometown and other non-agricultural activities, such as running a small shop or a restaurant. According to the proportion of income obtained via various livelihood activities, the farmers’ livelihood strategies were divided into five types: the traditional agricultural crop-planting livelihood strategy (TCPLS), the fruit-planting livelihood strategy (FPLS), the work-oriented livelihood strategy (WOLS), the part-time comprehensive livelihood strategy (PTLS) and other livelihood strategies (OLS). The classification criteria are shown in

Table 1. The classification standard for farmers’ livelihood strategies.

Livelihood Strategies	Livelihood Activity Portfolio	Income Structure
Traditional agricultural crop-planting livelihood strategy (TCPLS)	Traditional agricultural crop cultivation and other activities	Income from traditional agricultural crop cultivation accounts for more than 50% of the total annual household income.
Fruit-planting livelihood strategy (FPLS)	Fruit cultivation and other activities	Income from fruit cultivation accounts for more than 50% of the total annual household income.
Work-oriented livelihood strategy (WOLS)	Work away from hometown and other activities	Income from work away from the hometown accounts for more than 50% of the total annual household income.
Part-time comprehensive livelihood strategy (PTLS)	Traditional agricultural crop cultivation, fruit cultivation, work away from hometown and other activities	The family engages in at least two livelihood activities, and the proportion of the family’s total annual income from each livelihood activity is not more than 50%.
Other livelihood strategies (OLS)	Other non-agricultural livelihood activities, such as running a small shop or a restaurant.	Income from other non-agricultural activities accounts for more than 50% of the total annual household income.

.

3.4. Farmers’ Livelihood Capital Indicator System

In the sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) proposed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), livelihood capital is the core part of the framework, which consists of natural capital, human capital, financial capital, physical capital and social capital [48]. Forms of livelihood capital are the foundation and support for farmers’ livelihood. The amount and utilization of forms of livelihood capital owned by farmers directly determine the outcomes and sustainability of farmers’ livelihoods. According to existing studies [24,51,52,53], combined with the actual situation of rural development and farmers’ livelihoods in the study area, relevant indicators were selected to construct the livelihood capital evaluation indicator system (

Table 2. Indicator system of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital.

Target Layer	Dimension Layer (Weight)	Indicator Layer (Weight)	Indicator Description and Definition
Livelihood capital	Natural capital (0.152)	Per capita actual cultivated land (0.234)	The ratio of the total area of cultivated land and total number of household members.
		Cultivated land quality (0.346)	Actual situation of cultivated land quality: 0 = particularly poor soil, 0.25 = poor soil, 0.5 = general soil, 0.75 = good soil, and 1 = excellent soil
		Irrigation water source guarantee (0.420)	Actual effective irrigation degree: 0 = none, 0.25 = a small portion, 0.5 = about half, 0.75 = vast majority, and 1 = whole.
	Human capital (0.157)	Proportion of the labor force (0.570)	The number of households’ labor force/the total population size of the household.
		Family education level (0.430)	Education level: 0 = illiteracy, 0.25 = primary school, 0.5 = junior middle school or technical secondary school, 0.75 = high school or junior college, and 1 = university and above.
	Physical capital (0.138)	Type of housing (0.281)	The type of housing: 0 = civil structure housing, 0.25 = adobe housing, 0.5 = brick house, 0.75 = concrete structure, and 1 = multistory building.
		Per capita housing area (0.385)	The ratio of the total size of housing and total number of household members.
		Production and living materials (0.334)	The number of main production and living tools owned by a household selected by the farmer from the questionnaire.
	Financial capital (0.231)	Per capita income (0.316)	The ratio of total household income and total number of household members.
		Credit opportunities (0.684)	Binary variable representing lending opportunity according to whether or not a bank loan or personal loan can be obtained; yes = 1, and no = 0.
	Social capital (0.323)	Social network (0.234)	The types of help available in the community, 0 = none, 0.25 = one, 0.5 = two, 0.75 = three, and 1 = four
		Neighborhood trust (0.217)	The degree of mutual trust in the neighborhood. 0 = very little, 0.25 = a small part, 0.5 = about half, 0.75 = vast majority, and 1 = whole.
		Training opportunities (0.549)	Whether or not production skills training can be obtained from outside. Yes = 1, no = 0.

).

3.5. Evaluation of Farmers’ Forms of Livelihood Capital

Dimensionless processing is performed on the selected indicators to eliminate the influence of different indicators’ dimensions on the calculation results. The formula is as follows:

$${X^{\prime }}_{ij}=\frac{X_{ij}-\min \left\{X_j\right\}}{\max \left\{X_j\right\}-\min \left\{X_j\right\}}$$

(1)

where X’_ij is the standardized index value of the indicators; X_ij is the jth indicator of the ith evaluation object; and max{X_j} and min{X_j} are the maximum and minimum values of the jth indicator, respectively. The mean square error decision method is used to calculate the indicator weight and dimension weight (see Table 2). We used the weighted summation of indicators and dimensions to calculate the farmers’ livelihood capital index. The formula is as follows:

$$RT=w_1\times r_1+w_2\times r_2+w_3\times r_3+w_4\times r_4+w_5\times r_5$$

(2)

where RT is the livelihood capital index of farmers; r₁, r₂, r₃, r₄, and r₅ are various types of livelihood capital indexes, which are calculated via the weighted summation of indicators of each dimension; and w₁, w₂, w₃, w₄, and w₅ are the weights of various types of livelihood capital.

The weight calculation formula of the indicators in each dimension layer is as follows:

$$s_{ij}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_1^n{\left(X{’}_{ij}-u_{ij}\right)}^2}$$

(3)

$$w_{ij}=s_{ij}/{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{s}_{ij}$$

(4)

The weight calculation formula of each dimension layer is as follows:

$$r_i={\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{w}_{ij}\times X{’}_{ij}$$

(5)

$$s_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_1^n{\left(r_i-u_i\right)}^2}$$

(6)

$$w_i=s_i/{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^5{s}_i$$

(7)

In the formulas, the subscript ij refers to the jth indicator of the ith dimension layer, and X’ represents the standardized value of the indicator, which is calculated using Formula (1). u represents the mean value, s represents the variance, w represents the weight, n is the number of research samples, and m is the number of indicators included in each dimension layer.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Development Process of Rural Industries

According to the evolution of the rural employment structure, planting structure and income structure (Figure 3a, the changes in rural employment structure in Dali County from 1990 to 2018; Figure 3b, the changes in rural planting structure in Dali County from 1990 to 2018; Figure 3c, the changes in rural income structure in Dali County from 1990 to 2018), the development of rural industries in Dali County can be divided into three stages: the traditional agricultural stage, new agricultural stage, and nonagricultural industry stage. The specific analysis is as follows:

In terms of the traditional agriculture stage (1990–2000): agricultural crop planting was dominated by traditional grain crops. By 1990, the grain crop planting area reached 1,024,771 mu, which was higher than the fruit planting area (Figure 3b). The ratios of non-agricultural employment and per capita non-agricultural income were low, reaching only 7.89% and 11.64% (Figure 3a,c). Traditional agriculture was the leading industry in rural areas at this stage. The establishment of the market economy system promoted the adjustment of the agricultural planting structure in Dali County. The fruit planting area continued to expand with higher market prices. By 2000, the fruit planting area had increased to 912,252 mu, approaching the planting area of grain crops (Figure 3b). The change in planting structure promoted the development of the rural industrial structure towards the new agriculture stage dominated by fruit planting.

In terms of the new agriculture stage (2001—2014), agricultural production was dominated by fruit planting, and per capita non-agricultural income was lower than per capita agricultural income, which was the main feature of rural industrial development in Dali County. By 2001, the fruit planting area in Dali County was 946,821 mu, which exceeded the scale of grain crops (Figure 3b). The status of the fruit industry exceeded that of traditional agriculture. The rural labor force was still dominated by agricultural production. By 2014, the non-agricultural employment ratio was only 25.85% (Figure 3a). However, with the development of productivity, non-agricultural income increased. By 2014, the ratio of per capita non-agricultural income in Dali County had increased to 36.37% (Figure 3c), and the degree of non-agriculturalization of rural industries had been further deepened.

In terms of the non-agricultural industry stage (2015—present), non-agricultural income exceeded agricultural income, and the non-agricultural industries represented by work away from the hometown, transportation, and logistics became dominant over rural industries, representing the main feature of the development of rural industries in Dali County at this stage. Fruit planting promoted the development of regional transportation, catering and logistics industries and expanded the opportunities for rural laborers to work on-site. In addition, as the new generation of the labor force gradually moved to the secondary and tertiary industries, the level of non-agricultural income gradually exceeded that of agricultural income. By 2015, the ratio of per capita non-agricultural income was 53.12% (Figure 3(c)), and non-agricultural income became the main source of rural income. However, affected by the market price, the income from fruit planting still played an important role in the development of the rural economy, and fruit planting still occupied an important position in rural industries.

4.2. The Evolution of Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies under the Background of Rural Industry Development

With the development of rural industries, farmers in Dali County have gradually formed five types of livelihood strategies, the traditional agricultural crop-planting livelihood strategy (TCPLS), fruit-planting livelihood strategy (FPLS), work-oriented livelihood strategy (WOLS), part-time comprehensive livelihood strategy (PTLS) and other livelihood strategy (OLS), which continue to evolve with the shift of the focus of rural industries from 2000 to 2019 (Figure 4).

In 2000, the TCPLS was the dominant livelihood strategy of farmers in Dali County, with 51.26% of farmers adopting this strategy, which was a higher proportion than that of farmers adopting the other four types of livelihood strategies. At that time, most of the migrant workers worked part-time during the slack farming season, and the benefits of fruit planting had just begun to appear, resulting in a relatively small proportion of farmers with the FPLS and WOLS, 22.47% and 20.22%, respectively, while 3.979% and 1.81% of farmers adopted the PTLS and OLS. The improvement in agricultural production efficiency and the degree of commercialization of fruits led to a continuous increase in the proportion of farmers adopting the FPLS and WOLS. By 2010, 29.96% and 41.16% of farmers adopted the FPLS and WOLS, respectively. In contrast, the proportion of farmers adopting the TCPLS continued to decline; by 2010, it was 18.41%, which was lower than the proportion of farmers with the FPLS and WOLS. By 2019, the proportion of farmers with the TCPLS was 6.14%, and the proportions of farmers with the WOLS and OLS were 54.87% and 8.3%, respectively. The dominance of the WOLS further increased. In addition, the proportion of farmers with the FPLS was 22.38%, a slight decrease compared to that in the previous period. The fruit industry still played an important role in the development of farmers’ livelihoods.

4.3. The Differentiation of Farmers’ Livelihood Capital under the Background of Rural Industry Development

According to Formula (2), the livelihood capital index of farmers with different types of livelihood strategies was calculated in 2019, and the differences among the forms of livelihood capital of farmers with different types of livelihood strategies were analyzed. The results are shown in

Table 3. Comparison of livelihood capital among different farmers.

	Natural Capital	Human Capital	Physical Capital	Financial Capital	Social Capital	Livelihood Capital
TCPLS	0.611	0.515	0.531	0.558	0.626	0.578
FPLS	0.617	0.523	0.578	0.638	0.744	0.643
WOLS	0.532	0.570	0.505	0.608	0.578	0.567
PTLS	0.561	0.596	0.521	0.698	0.654	0.623
OLS	0.542	0.531	0.512	0.694	0.682	0.617

and

Table 4. ANOVA results of farmers’ livelihood capital.

	Mean Square Error	F	Sig.
Natural capital	0.094	4.755	0.001
Human capital	0.044	2.019	0.092
Physical capital	0.059	3.514	0.008
Financial capital	0.091	1.921	0.107
Social capital	0.326	3.577	0.007
Livelihood capital	0.075	4.695	0.001

.

Overall, except for human capital and financial capital, there were significant differences in natural capital, physical capital, social capital and total livelihood capital among farmers in 2019 (Table 4). From the perspective of farmers with different livelihood strategies, there were differences in the forms of livelihood capital of farmers with different livelihood strategies. The natural capital (0.617), physical capital (0.578), social capital (0.744), and total livelihood capital (0.643) of farmers with the FPLS were higher than those of farmers with the other four livelihood strategies (Table 3). The box locations and median lines of natural capital, physical capital, social capital and total livelihood capital of farmers with the FPLS were in the high-value area as a whole (Figure 5). The financial capital (0.558/0.608), social capital (0.626/0.578) and total livelihood capital (0.578/0.567) of farmers with the TCPLS and WOLS were lower than those of farmers with the other three livelihood strategies. The box locations of financial capital, social capital and total livelihood capital of farmers with the TCPLS and WOLS were in the 1ow-value area overall (Figure 5). Such farmers only chose work away from their hometown or traditional agricultural crop planting, which was not conducive to the accumulation of livelihood capital of different forms. The human capital (0.596) and financial capital (0.698) of farmers with the PTLS were higher than those of farmers with the other four livelihood strategies (Table 3). The box location of human capital of farmers with the PTLS was in the high-value area as a whole, while the financial capital box was relatively short and distributed in the high-value area overall (Figure 5). It can be seen that diversified industrial activities were beneficial to the accumulation of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital to a certain extent.

4.4. The Differentiation of Farmers’ Livelihood Outcomes under the Background of Rural Industry Development

The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) proposed by the DFID lists five possible types of livelihood outcomes: more income, improved welfare, reduced vulnerability, improved food security and more sustainable use of natural resources. Among them, income, as the most direct representation of livelihood outcomes, has been used by many scholars in related livelihood research [54]. Taking the net income of farmers’ households as the characterization indicator of livelihood outcomes in 2019, we analyzed the farmers’ livelihood outcomes under the background of rural industrial adjustment in 2019. The comparative analysis results and distribution characteristics of the livelihood outcomes of various farmers are shown in

Table 5. ANOVA results of farmers’ livelihood outcomes.

	Mean (Ten Thousand Yuan)	Standard Deviation	F	Sig.
TCPLS	4.337	2.840	2.437	0.047
FPLS	5.423	5.175
WOLS	4.448	3.772
PTLS	4.798	5.310
OLS	7.38	6.420

and Figure 6.

Table 5 and Figure 6 show that with the adjustment and evolution of rural industries, there were significant differences in the livelihood outcomes of farmers with different livelihood strategies. The farmers with the OLS had the highest livelihood outcomes, with an average of 73,800 yuan per household. The box of outcomes of farmers with the OLS was biased toward the high-value area as a whole, and the median line was shifted to the lower quartile, indicating that the overall livelihood outcomes of farmers were relatively high but concentrated in the low-value area. The livelihood outcomes of farmers with the FPLS ranked second, with an average of 54,230 yuan per household. The box distribution of livelihood outcomes was generally biased toward the high-value area, and the median line was slightly shifted to the lower quartile, indicating that the overall livelihood outcomes of farmers were relatively high, but the overall distribution of outcomes was concentrated in the low-value area. The livelihood outcomes of farmers with the PTLS ranked third, with an average of 47,980 yuan per household. The distribution of the livelihood outcomes box was in the middle position among the five types of farmers, and the median line was slightly shifted to the lower quartile, which showed that the overall livelihood outcomes of farmers with the PTLS were lower than those of farmers with the OLS and FPLS, and the overall distribution of farmers’ livelihood outcomes was concentrated in low-value areas. The livelihood outcomes of farmers with the WOLS and TCPLS ranked fourth and fifth, with averages of 44,480 yuan and 43,370 yuan per household, respectively. The livelihood outcome boxes of the two types of farmers were generally distributed in the low-value area, indicating that livelihood outcomes were generally low.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Impact of Rural Industrial Development on Farmers’ Livelihoods

5.1.1. The Impact on Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies

The disparity in market returns among the products of different industries in rural areas affects the choice of farmers’ livelihood activities and investment levels, which in turn affects the evolution of farmers’ leading livelihood strategies. In the early stage of the study, the TCPLS was the leading livelihood strategy of farmers due to the low level of productivity. With the establishment and improvement of the market economic system and the solution to the problem of food and clothing, the farmers’ leading livelihood strategy began to change. Since the market prices of apples, grapes, winter jujubes and other fruit products were higher than the prices of wheat and corn, some farmers actively adjusted their planting structure and shifted their livelihood activity to fruit planting under the influence of economic rationality, which led to an increase in the proportion of farmers with the FPLS. However, limited by water sources and soil conditions, some regions are not suitable for fruit growing, and the increase was not high. In addition, traditional agricultural production has lower returns than non-agricultural industries, which promoted the continuous transfer of rural laborers in Dali County to the secondary and tertiary industries, resulting in a substantial increase in the proportion of farmers with the WOLS and making it the leading livelihood strategy among rural households.

5.1.2. The Impact on Farmers’ Forms of Livelihood Capital

Participation in the fruit industry and the degree of participation are conducive to the accumulation of farmers’ livelihood capital, and there is a significant positive correlation between the scale of fruit planting and farmers’ natural capital, social capital, physical capital, financial capital and total livelihood capital (

Table 6. Correlation analysis results of industrial development characteristics and forms of livelihood capital.

Variables		Natural Capital	Human Capital	Physical Capital	Financial Capital	Social Capital	Livelihood Capital
Scale of traditional agricultural crop planting	Correlation coefficient	0.017	0.023	0.010	0.013	0.079	0.074
	Sig.	0.783	0.697	0.868	0.826	0.191	0.219
Scale of fruit planting	Correlation coefficient	0.175	0.055	0.128	0.230	0.182	0.287
	Sig.	0.004	0.361	0.033	0.000	0.002	0.000
Number of migrant workers	Correlation coefficient	−0.148	0.342	−0.175	−0.033	−0.163	−0.125
	Sig.	0.013	0.051	0.004	0.589	0.007	0.037

). Fruit planting is an industry developed with the support of Dali County government policies under the stimulation of the market economy. Farmers who choose fruit planting as their dominant livelihood activity can not only obtain more policy support, financial support, and opportunities for agricultural technology learning from government but also expand their social network during the production and sale of fruit products. In addition, with the advent of the information age and the continuous improvement in the degree of marketization of fruit production, economic entities such as cooperatives and logistics companies have begun to emerge to provide farmers with warehousing, logistics, agricultural materials and market information services, which is beneficial to the accumulation of farmers’ forms of livelihood capital. This is the main reason the farmers with the FPLS had higher physical capital, social capital and total livelihood capital than did farmers with the other four types of livelihood strategies.

Traditional agricultural production and work away from the hometown have a relatively weak effect on the accumulation of farmers’ livelihood capital of different forms, and there is a significant negative correlation between the number of household members working away from the hometown and farmers’ natural capital, physical capital, social capital and total livelihood capital (Table 6). However, there is no significant correlation between the scale of traditional agricultural crop planting and the forms of livelihood capital of farmers (Table 6). Traditional agricultural production and work away from the hometown are strongly dependent on traditional “geographical relationships” and “blood relationships” and entail an association with a single group of people, which is not conducive to the expansion and improvement in farmers’ social networks. In addition, with the gradual transfer of government assistance policies to the fruit industry and its related service industries, the support for traditional agricultural production and work away from the hometown in skills training and financial support have gradually weakened, which is not conducive to the accumulation of social capital and financial capital of farmers with the TCPLS and WOLS. The disparity in market returns among products and industries leads to the lower household income of farmers with the TCPLS and WOLS, which also reduces the financial capital of farmers to a certain extent.

Diversified industrial activities are beneficial to the accumulation of farmers’ livelihood capital to a certain extent. The development of various industrial activities not only enables farmers to enjoy regional financial policy support but also facilitates the improvement in social networks and financial channels, which in turn facilitates the accumulation of social and financial capital. In addition, diversified industrial activities enrich household production and living tools to a certain extent, resulting in farmers’ physical capital also occupying certain advantages. This is why the farmers with the FPLS had higher physical capital, social capital and total livelihood capital than farmers with the other four types of livelihood strategies. This is also an important reason why farmers with the PTLS had a certain advantage in terms of livelihood capital.

5.1.3. The Impact on Farmers’ Livelihood Outcomes

The above analysis shows that with the development of rural industries in Dali County, higher livelihood outcomes were gradually concentrated among farmers engaged in the fruit industry, working away from the hometown, and working in logistics, business, catering and other service industries. The livelihood outcome of farmers in Dali County shows the characteristics of farmers with the OLS > farmers with the FPLS > farmers with the PTLS > farmers with the WOLS > farmers with the TCPLS. The market price of fruit products is higher than that of traditional crops, resulting in more income from fruit planting. In addition, Dali County, in the Guanzhong urban agglomeration, is rich in cultivated land, so the market demand is large, and fruit planting easily yields economies of scale, thereby increasing the livelihood income of farmers. Compared with the traditional agriculture industry, non-agricultural industries, such as migrant work and rural service industries, have advantages in output efficiency, which leads to higher livelihood outcomes among farmers engaged in migrant work and industries such as transportation, logistics, and catering than among traditional farmers.

Table 7. Correlation analysis results of industrial development characteristics and livelihood outcome.

		Scale of Traditional Agricultural Crop Planting	Scale of Fruit Planting	Number of Migrant Workers
Livelihood outcome	Correlation coefficient	0.046	0.191	0.128
	Sig.	0.442	0.001	0.033
	N	277	277	277

shows that there were significant positive correlations between the scale of fruit planting, the number of migrant workers and the livelihood outcome of farmers, which further shows that the fruit industry and non-agricultural industries can help farmers improve their livelihood outcomes and indicates that the degree of participation in these industries of farmers is conducive to the improvement in farmers’ livelihood outcomes.

5.2. Comparative Analysis with Existing Research Results

The results of this study have certain similarities with the existing related research results of the Guanzhong Plain and its surrounding area. In terms of the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies, through the study on the dynamic evolution of farmers’ livelihoods in apple-producing area in southern edge of the Loess Plateau, Wu et al. pointed out that under the background of the development of fruit industry and service industry, regional farmers’ livelihood strategies are developing towards fruit industrialization and non-agriculture [24], which is almost consistent with the results on the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies in our study. The difference is that in Wu et al.’s study, the process of the non-agricultural livelihood strategy is faster, which may be due to the fact that the study area is located in the transition zone of the Loess Plateau to Guanzhong Plain, and the cultivated land resources of farmers in the region are less than those of Dali County. In addition, in terms of the relationship between cultivated land resources and farmers’ livelihood development, some existing studies have pointed out that excessive dependence on cultivated land resources is not conducive to the accumulation of livelihood capital and livelihood output [43,55]. Although our research results are similar to these existing research results to some extent, they also present some differences. For the two types of farmers who are more dependent on cultivated land in our research, although the forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes of farmers with TCPLS are at a low level in several types of farmers, the forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes of farmers with FPLS are at a high level in several types of farmers. It can be seen that the impact of cultivated land on farmers’ livelihood development is closely related to the level of rural industrial development and the form of land use.

From a related study on other regions, the research results of Ma et al. pointed out that the degree of impact of industrial development on the development of farmers’ livelihoods is closely related to the type of industry and the participation of farmers, as was revealed through an exploration of the impact of different forms of industrial development on the development of farmers’ livelihoods [49]. By analyzing the influence of industrial park (IP) development on the lives of people living around the IPs in Vietnam, Cu et al. revealed that peasant families enhanced their participation in the development of related industries through employment transfer to industrial development in industrial parks, which had a positive impact on livelihood outcomes [56]. Although the study areas of these studies are different, the research results are consistent with those of our study to a certain extent. It can be seen that timely participation in the development of rural industries is conducive to promoting the development of farmers’ livelihoods to a certain extent. However, the research of Debela et al. in Oromia region of Ethiopia found that the development of rural industrialization caused the destruction of regional agricultural production, which was not conducive to the improvement of farmers’ livelihood outcomes [50]. Farmers in the region have low cultural levels and single-production skills, so they cannot effectively participate in the development of industrialization, resulting in the greater dependence of farmers’ livelihood on cultivated land. The research of Palchick et al. in the Western Cape Province of South Africa showed that agricultural transformation and upgrading had no significant driving effect on the development of farmers’ livelihoods, mainly because the legacy of apartheid caused black families in the region to be unable to effectively use valuable resources such as land, water and agricultural knowledge [57]. These studies presented different results to those of our study, which shows that our research results are not absolutely universal. Only when industrial development is coordinated with the regional productivity level, cultural customs, the natural environment and resource endowment can farmers’ participation in industrial development be effectively improved, thus promoting the development of farmers’ livelihoods.

5.3. Policy Implication

Rural industrial development and farmers’ livelihoods interact with each other, and the mechanism of action is complex. Based on the research results, we proposed some concrete recommendations to provide a reference for the development of regional rural industries and the livelihood of farmers. From the perspective of rural industrial development, firstly, the regional government should rationally optimize the production layout and structure of the fruit industry on the basis of scientific assessment of regional water resources, land resources and market demand to promote the development of the fruit industry. Secondly, the regional government and enterprises should reasonably integrate resources and funds, and continuously expand the industrial chain to process preserved fruit, juice and dried fruit on the basis of original fruit sales, so as to enhance the added value of fruit sales. Third, rural informatization and network construction should be promoted to change the traditional offline sales model of products. The Internet and e-commerce platforms should be fully utilized for parallel offline and online sales. Finally, the regional government should vigorously promote the development of logistics, storage, transportation, catering and accommodation to enhance the linkage effect among different industries, provide basic support for the development of the forest fruit industry, and then improve the outcome efficiency of rural industries.

From the perspective of farmers’ livelihood development, firstly, the regional government should strengthen their support for farmers’ livelihood development in policies, finance, and materials, and regularly organize agricultural technology training such as greenhouse construction, fruit seedling cultivation, and pest control to improve farmers’ participation in fruit production, to promote a shift of farmers’ livelihood focus to fruit planting. In addition, participation in a single industry is not conducive to the development of farmers’ livelihoods. Therefore, the government should strengthen the training of farmers’ production skills and expand the available employment channels, which can improve farmers’ ability to diversify their livelihood development. Finally, regional governments should guide farmers to carry out production cooperation, establish cooperatives, family farms, and other production cooperation organizations in a scientific organizational manner, and achieve the scale of production activities to improve production efficiency and livelihood outcome benefits.

At present, the rural revitalization strategy is steadily advancing in China, with rural industry revitalization at the core. The cultivation of a new type of industry needs to go through a certain process, which is often related to many factors such as resource base, policy orientation, market, technology, original capital accumulation, labor resources, and farmers’ traditional livelihood habits. Therefore, in the process of promoting the rural revitalization strategy, the cultivation of rural industries should be adapted to local conditions and times. First, the regional government should fully consider the agricultural resources, human resources, tourism resources and other resources of the regional villages, scientifically and rationally determine the leading industries, supporting industries and other related industries, and then form a scientific and reasonable industrial structure and layout. Second, industrial revitalization is not “deagriculturalization”. Limited by China’s national conditions and the current level of rural productivity development, agricultural production is still the main content of rural industrial development. Therefore, the regional government should improve the level of mechanization and marketization of agricultural products and realize the organic connection between small farmers and modern agricultural development to ensure food security. Finally, to support the cultivation of rural industries, governments should fully consider the educational level of farmers, the production skills of farmers and the market of products so that farmers can effectively participate in industrial development. Only in this way can farmers’ forms of livelihood capital be effectively utilized in the development of rural industries, thereby promoting the healthy and sustainable development of the entire livelihood system.

5.4. The Limitations of the Study and Future Research

Although this study examines the development of rural industries and the impact of different industries on the livelihood development of farmers, there are still some insufficiencies that need to be improved. Due to the limitation of data availability, the analysis of rural industrial development is only a generalized summary of changes in employment structure, planting structure, and income structure. The lack of specific discussion on the scale of industrial development limits the depth of research on the impact of industrial development on farmers’ livelihoods. The lack of information on the industrial development scale, development time, and degree of farmers’ participation limits the depth of study. In addition, we studied the impact of industrial development on the livelihood of farmers through a comparative analysis of the livelihood status of farmers participating in different industries but did not conduct a more in-depth exploration of the exact relationship between rural industries and the livelihoods of farmers. Therefore, future research should adopt more detailed data on industrial development (in terms of scale, time, farmers’ participation, etc.), further clarify the role of industrial development in farmers’ livelihoods and seek to more accurately determine the relationship between the two, which is an important research direction. Finally, Dali County is in the Guanzhong urban agglomeration. It not only is rich in cultivated land but also has a broad agricultural market and labor market, which provides a very advantageous location for the development of rural industries and farmers’ participation in rural industry development. However, for areas with complex topographical conditions and that are far from the regional economic center, whether or not the development of rural industries has similar characteristics and whether or not rural industries have the same impact on the livelihood development of farmers still need to be confirmed via many case studies.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, taking Dali County of Guanzhong Plain as an example, according to the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), we adopted the comprehensive index method, statistical analysis method and relevant analysis method to explore the impact of rural industry development on farmers’ livelihoods by analyzing the evolution of farmers’ livelihood strategies in different times (2000, 2010 and 2019) and the differentiation of forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes among different types of farmers in 2019 under the background of industrial development. The main conclusions were as follows: ① The development of rural industries in the study area has gone through the process of the traditional agricultural stage → the new agricultural stage → the non-agricultural industry stage. The degree of commercialization of agricultural development has been improved, and the overall development of the industry has obvious characteristics of nonagriculturalization. ② With the upgrading and evolution of the rural industrial structure, the leading livelihood strategies of farmers have gradually changed from the crop-planting type to the fruit-planting type and work-oriented type, and forms of livelihood capital and livelihood outcomes differ significantly among farmer households. ③ Compared to traditional agriculture, the development of the fruit industry and service industry and the degree of participation in these industries of farmers is conducive to the accumulation of farmers’ livelihood capital, while migrant work alone has a negative impact on the improvement in farmers’ livelihood capital. There is a significant positive correlation between the scale of fruit planting and livelihood capital, while there is a significant negative correlation between the number of migrant workers in the household and farmers’ livelihood capital. ④ Compared with traditional agricultural industries, the development of the fruit industry and non-agricultural industry and the degree of participation in these industries are conducive to the improvement in farmers’ livelihood outcomes. There is a significant positive correlation between the livelihood outcomes of farmers, the scale of fruit planting and the number of migrant workers. The non-crop and non-agricultural transformation of rural industrial development is conducive to the improvement in farmers’ livelihood outcomes.