Poverty alleviation resettlement (PAR) is China’s largest-ever resettlement program and one of China’s flagship poverty alleviation initiatives. Resorting to this state-led conversation and development program, the central and provincial governments aim to lift the poor out of the poverty trap and into sustainable livelihoods, by delivering improvements in housing conditions, infrastructure services, public amenities, and living standards. Taking Ankang as an example, this study examines the PAR from the perspective of vulnerability through a household survey conducted in Ankang prefecture of Shaanxi province, China. A total of six townships in Ankang are covered, with 657 valid questionnaires collected. This study shows that there is a difference in exposure, sensitivity, and the adaptive capacity of rural households with different relocation characteristics, hence generating different livelihood vulnerabilities. The PAR generally achieves the target of livelihood vulnerability reduction. Specifically, the project-induced relocation has a significant positive effect on vulnerability, but there is a significant negative correlation between livelihood vulnerability and relocation region, relocation time, and relocation subsidy. Challenges and problems remain to be addressed for the next phases of the PAR, including diminishing the financial burden on those relocated and providing free public transportation services, carrying out community-building programs and updating the household registration institution, balancing the redistribution and sharing of farmland, furnishing assistance measures for employment searches and training in specific skills, and creating an impartial project to safeguard the non-movers from the significant negative impacts on their physical and spiritual dimensions.

Based on survey data collected from five counties across southern Shaanxi, China, the present study employs a multinomial logistic model to explore the main factors related to the type of poverty of rural households, particularly focusing on the role of relocation time, reason for relocation, and type of relocation. The results showed that three types of poverty, “voluntary poverty”, “transient poverty”, and “chronic poverty”, are distinguished by combining income and consumption criteria. Moreover, relocation and settlement programs contribute to a certain degree to these three kinds of poverty, and the effects vary according to the relocation characteristics. Specifically, those relocated long-term were more likely to be trapped in “voluntary poverty” and “chronic poverty”, whereas those relocated short-term were less likely to fall into “voluntary poverty” and “transient poverty”. The poverty alleviation and disaster-related resettlers were less likely to be trapped in “chronic poverty”, whereas centralized resettlers were less likely to be trapped in “voluntary poverty” and “chronic poverty”. Additionally, demographic characteristics, capital endowment variables, and geographical features are all important factors affecting rural households’ type of poverty. This study can serve as a reference for further resettlement practice in China and other developing countries.

It has long been thought that the implementation of resettlement programs should focus on livelihood reconstruction in the long run rather than just concentrating on material compensation. There is to date little empirical evidence of the extent to which disaster resettlement may affect household adaptive capacity (HAC) in rural communities. To explore whether and how disaster resettlement is shaping HAC, this article conceptualizes and measures adaptive capacity at the household level using household surveys in rural China. An indicator-based framework is adopted to identify and evaluate HAC. The results indicate that resettlement and its consequences have a significant negative impact on HAC. Although resettlement appears to have a central place in development projects in China, we provide evidence that it leads to reducing rather than improving household capacity to adapt to natural disasters.

With the full implementation of poverty alleviation resettlement (PAR), the restoration and improvement of the comprehensive living standards of relocated households have received increasing attention from policy researchers. The measurement of resilience and its determinants provides new ideas for PAR at the community level. This article proposes a method for examining community resilience in the context of PAR through a survey of 459 relocated households in western China and uses regression analysis to identify the determinants of community resilience. The results showed that the four dimensions of community resilience, in descending order, included: environmental resilience, economic resilience, management resilience, and social resilience. Income level and livelihood diversification were positively correlated with the community resilience index. Relocation time, relocation type, and resettlement mode were all essential determinants of the community resilience of relocated households. Finally, some suggestions were put forward, such as the need to build an interpersonal relationship network, guide pure farmers and non-farmers to transform into diversified livelihood households, and formulate a unified community action plan and interest protection mechanism so as to provide a reference for decision-making among managers to make decisions.

Livelihood status of rural households is the focus of disaster resettlement research. Influenced by various factors, rural households face multiple environmental and social pressures after relocation, and the study of livelihood resilience and vulnerability provides a new framework for research into the livelihoods of relocated households. There has been a call for more quantitative evidence about the links between livelihood resilience and livelihood vulnerability in the context of disaster resettlement. This study uses data from a sample of 657 individuals from the relocation area of Ankang prefecture in southern Shaanxi, China. The resilience of rural household livelihood systems is quantified in terms of two dimensions of general resilience and specific resilience using the spatial vector method from systems engineering. The IPCC framework was used to measure three dimensions of livelihood vulnerability: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability, and a threshold regression model was applied to investigate the impacts of livelihood resilience on livelihood vulnerability. Results show that: (i) livelihood vulnerability of relocated households (−0.042) was significantly lower than that of local households (0.091), while relocated households in the process of livelihood reconstruction had a certain degree of vulnerability risk. (ii) there is a significant threshold effect of livelihood resilience on livelihood vulnerability of rural households. (iii) increasing livelihood resilience significantly reduced the degree of vulnerability of rural households, and the marginal effect of general resilience on livelihood vulnerability shows a decreasing trend. Specific resilience has a positive influence on livelihood vulnerability before it exceeds the threshold, but the effect disappears above the threshold of resilience. (iv) The threshold value of livelihood resilience of local households (0.5039) is generally lower than that of relocated households (0.6548), and relocation does improve the ability of rural households to resist uncertainty risks. It is necessary for local governments to formulate more targeted policies to reduce the livelihood vulnerability of rural households and thereby promote sustainable livelihood development.