数字经济对自然灾害下农村家庭生计韧性的缓解作用 基于中国家庭追踪调查CFPS的实证

1. Introduction

In recent years, frequent natural disasters related to climate change have posed numerous challenges to agricultural production and rural livelihoods [1]. Extreme weather events (e.g., droughts, floods, frosts, etc.) have increased the vulnerability of agricultural systems, resulting in food yield declining, household income decrease, and population outflows [2,3,4]. The adverse effects of natural disasters are particularly severe for smallholder farmers who are dependent on the use of farmland resources and have a single livelihood. Moreover, farmers have limited livelihood capital and weak capacity and may tend to return to poverty when exposed to risk shocks [5]. Existing research suggests that disaster relief instruments based on financial compensation can help to mitigate the negative impacts of disaster shocks by increasing the livelihood capital of farmer households in the short term [6]. However, this ‘blood transfusion’ approach cannot substantially address the long-term impacts of natural disasters on farm households. Based on the resilience perspective, the resilience of farmer household livelihoods highlights the ability of a household to resist risk and sustain development when faced with complex natural risk shocks [7,8]. Therefore, in the context of natural disaster shocks, enhancing the resilience of farm household livelihoods is an important strategy for farmers to withstand risks and achieve sustainable development.

On the one hand, livelihood resilience enhancement is predicated on the availability of livelihood capacity of farm households [9]. Because of their relatively disadvantaged position in the socio-economic system, farmers often find it difficult to compete with other actors in terms of resource allocation and market access. Farmers need to be provided with equal rights and opportunities through various policies or institutional means [10]. On the other hand, farmers have complex household assets, and the key to improving the resilience of their livelihoods lies not only in increasing the total amount of their assets, but also in achieving an efficient allocation of their asset portfolios and diversity of livelihood strategies [11].

China’s rapid development of the digital economy provides important momentum for the growth of the national economy [12]. In order to promote the process of agricultural and rural informatization, the state has introduced and implemented a series of policies, such as the “Information into Villages and Households Project”, the “Rural E-commerce Development Policy”, and the “Broadband Countryside Plan”. The implementation of these policies has protected the institutional equality of rural households in terms of their livelihood ability and facilitated the inclusive development of rural economy [13]. At the same time, a large number of scholars have proved that the development of the digital economy has achieved significant results in expanding the sale of agricultural products, promoting farmers’ income and accelerating the integration of rural industries, which effectively promotes the diversification of the livelihood capital of rural households [14,15]. The development of digital economy provides opportunities to alleviate the risk vulnerability faced by farming households [16]. However, current research has focused on the relationship between the digital economy and farm household income, but whether the digital economy has a significant role in mitigating risk vulnerability and empowering farm households to enhance their livelihood resilience, as well as the transmission mechanism between them, still needs to be further tested. Moreover, some past studies have shown that the information welfare brought by the digital economy cannot fully benefit all farmers [17,18]. In fact, the application of the digital economy has a threshold in different regions and individuals, and it is unclear whether the digital economy has a heterogeneous role in alleviating natural risk shocks.

Based on the above research background, the impact and transfer mechanism of digital economy between the natural risk and livelihood resilience of farmer households were empirically examined. The research contribution of this study includes the following three aspects. First, this study developed a comprehensive framework for measuring rural household livelihood resilience by integrating the three resilience capacities of buffering capacity, self-organization capacity, and learning capacity. It further extended existing frameworks by incorporating psychological capital into buffering capacity to capture households’ internal resources for coping with external shocks. Second, based on the constructed indicator of livelihood resilience, the moderating role of the digital economy in the relationship between natural risks and livelihood resilience was examined. Third, three mechanistic paths of the digital economy, including non-farm employment, credit access, and agricultural production strategies, were further explored. Then, some theoretical and policy implications are provided for rural households to cope with disaster impacts and improve their livelihood resilience through the development of the digital economy.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

2.1. The Concept of Livelihood Resilience

Ecologist Holling [19] first introduced the term ‘resilience’ into ecosystem studies to analyze the dynamics of ecosystems and their ability to maintain stability in the face of external disturbances. Over time, the concept of livelihood resilience has been gradually applied to a variety of disciplines, such as ecology, engineering, and economics. The concept of livelihood resilience in this paper refers to the ability of rural households to avoid falling into poverty and maintain their livelihoods when faced with natural risk.

By sorting out the existing studies, three main approaches to livelihood resilience measurement are summarized: i. According to the sustainable livelihood framework, the livelihood resilience of farmer households can be divided into five types of capital: financial, physical, natural, human, and social capital [20]. ii. An analysis framework, namely “Capacity Framework”, based on buffering capacity, self-organizing capacity, and learning capacity, is constructed to measure livelihood resilience [21]. iii. The livelihood resilience of farmer households has been estimated through dynamic and non-linear modelling, which is measured based on conditional probabilities of specific welfare levels [22]. This paper followed the study of Speranza et al. [21] and measured the livelihood resilience of farmer households in terms of buffering capacity, self-organization capacity, and learning capacity. The buffering capacity referred to the ability of farmer households to cope with risky shocks and maintain their livelihoods at the same level; the self-organizing capacity was the ability to communicate with and receive assistance from external organizations when coping with risky shocks; and the learning capacity represented the ability of farmers to acquire knowledge and skills, as well as the ability of farmers to translate knowledge into action.

2.2. Livelihood Resilience Needs in the Context of Disaster Vulnerability

Rural households remain disproportionately exposed to natural hazards such as floods, droughts, and extreme storms, and these shocks affect rural livelihoods through multiple interdependent channels [23,24]. First, by causing physical damage to farmland and crops, natural disasters erode rural households’ natural and economic capital, thereby directly weakening their buffering capacity [25]. Second, natural disasters can severely undermine local social networks among villagers and organizations by triggering labor migration, destroying livelihood assets and infrastructure, disrupting information and communication channels, and intensifying resource competition, thus reducing households’ self-organizing capacity [26]. Third, the economic burden and psychological stress induced by disasters impair households’ learning capacity, diminishing both their motivation and their ability to acquire new knowledge for adaptive action [27]. In light of these multiple and interlinked pathways of influence, the vulnerability of rural households lies not only in their exposure to natural hazards, but also in the post-shock decline of the three core capacities (buffering capacity, self-organizing capacity, and learning capacity) that underpin livelihood resilience.

This recognition underscores an urgent need to shift the analytical focus from assessing disaster impacts to identifying the conditions that can sustain or restore livelihood resilience when shocks occur. While existing research has examined post-disaster coping strategies, such as income diversification and asset adjustment, a critical question remains underexplored: which external interventions can durably mitigate the intensity of natural hazard impacts on rural household livelihoods, rather than merely compensating for losses ex post?

2.3. The Moderating Role of the Digital Economy

With the ongoing development of the digital economy in rural areas, digital technologies are increasingly supporting agricultural activities, offering practical channels for reducing farmers’ disaster vulnerability [28]. First, digital platforms lower the barriers to non-farm employment and e-commerce entrepreneurship, enabling rural households to offset disaster-induced agricultural losses with off-farm income [29,30]. Mobile payment and digital credit services further allow households to rapidly mobilize financial resources for post-disaster recovery, thus alleviating the depletion of economic capital [31,32]. Digital technologies can broaden income sources and thereby strengthen households’ buffering capacity.

Second, when physical social interactions are disrupted by disasters, the digital economy can restore and enhance self-organizing capacity. Online communication tools enable households to remotely maintain social networks, exchange recovery information, and access institutional support [33]. Such social connectivity becomes particularly valuable when geographical mobility is constrained in the aftermath of a disaster. Third, the digital economy can safeguard learning capacity by providing continuous access to knowledge and skill training, even during periods of livelihood stress. Through online platforms, household members can acquire agricultural techniques, disaster preparedness knowledge, and market information that are essential for adaptive action [34,35].

Notably, the existing literature on the rural digital economy has largely focused on its income-enhancing effects. Research on whether and how the digital economy alters the relationship between natural shocks and livelihood resilience remains limited. Moreover, the transmission mechanisms underlying such a moderating effect have yet to be empirically tested within a unified framework. This study aims to fill these gaps.

2.4. Transmission Mechanisms of the Digital Economy

Building on the preceding framework, three potential pathways through which the digital economy mitigates the impact of natural disaster shocks on rural household livelihood resilience are further explored: non-farm employment, credit access, and production strategy diversification.

2.4.1. The Non-Farm Employment Pathway

Natural disasters often compel rural households to seek non-farm income to compensate for agricultural losses; however, information asymmetries in the labor market tend to render this channel precarious. The digital economy reduces these frictions by providing timely labor market information, creating remote work opportunities, and facilitating e-commerce participation [36]. Through this pathway, the digital economy helps rural households enrich their income sources. As an alternative source of agricultural income, non-agricultural income reduces farmers’ dependence on agricultural activities, allowing households to maintain basic consumption and production inputs when agricultural income decreases. Especially for households with limited land resources and a high proportion of agricultural income, this channel is particularly crucial. In the context of natural risk, the buffering capacity of rural households is consolidated through their participation in non-agricultural employment, and their livelihood resilience is further enhanced.

2.4.2. The Credit Access Pathway

Natural disasters often cause serious mobility restrictions on rural households, leaving them with insufficient funds for post-disaster recovery and consumption smoothing. However, for a long time, the problem of information asymmetry in traditional rural financial markets has led to farmers with good credit being excluded from formal loans. The development of the digital economy provides new technological possibilities to solve this dilemma. Digital finance utilizes big data and mobile technology to reduce information friction, enabling institutions to more accurately assess creditworthiness and provide credit to previously underserved households [35]. The core value of credit access lies in providing a liquidity support for farmers. When disasters occur, timely credit funds can alleviate the funding gap in household consumption and production recovery, prevent farmers from selling their productive assets due to short-term liquidity depletion, and thus avoid falling into a vicious cycle of poverty, asset shrinkage, and weak recovery. Therefore, the credit pathway not only enhances farmers’ ability to allocate funds in response to current shocks, but also builds a financial defense line against future risks in their livelihood system, becoming a key support for enhancing farmers’ livelihood resilience.

2.4.3. The Production Strategy Diversification Pathway

A key principle of risk management is that diversified production portfolios are better able to withstand idiosyncratic shocks [37]. Digital technologies, particularly including precision agriculture tools and big data analytics, can assist households in adjusting crop mixes, adopting integrated farming systems, and optimizing resource allocation based on real-time weather and market information [38]. The diversification of this production strategy not only enhances the flexibility of the agricultural system, but also establishes a dual resilience support for farmers. Firstly, diversification itself is an effective risk diversification mechanism. When a crop is reduced in yield due to disasters, the output of other crops or management projects can compensate for the loss of household income, avoiding livelihood difficulties caused by the collapse of a single link, and thus consolidating the buffering capacity of farmers. Secondly, diversified operations enable farmers to constantly come into contact with new crop varieties and production methods. Farmers accumulate knowledge through attempt and adaptation, thereby enhancing their learning capacity. The strengthening of buffering capacity and the improvement of learning ability complement each other, jointly building a more solid foundation for farmers’ livelihood resilience.

Based on this, this article proposes hypotheses H1 to H3.

H1.

Natural risk shocks have a negative impact on the livelihood resilience of rural household.

H2.

The digital economy alleviates the negative impact of natural disasters on the livelihood resilience of farmers.

H3.

The digital economy alleviates the negative impact of natural disasters on farmers’ livelihood resilience by promoting non-agricultural employment transfer, improving rural households’ access to credit, and diversifying agricultural production strategies.

After clarifying the dependent and independent variables and their relationships, we constructed the conceptual framework of this study (Figure 1), which linked the livelihood resilience of rural households, natural risk shocks, and the level of digital economic development. Livelihood resilience was the focus of this study and consisted of buffering capacity, self-organization capacity, and learning capacity. Natural shock exposure and digital economy were considered as important influencing factors for livelihood resilience. As indicated by the arrows in Figure 1, the natural risk shocks had a negative impact of on livelihood resilience, while the direct impact of the digital economy on livelihood resilience was positive, and the digital economy played a moderating effect in the negative impact of natural risk shocks.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework linking natural risk shocks, resilience capacities, and digital economy. Solid boxes represent the relationships among the three core research variables; dashed boxes highlight the heterogeneous scenarios, realistic contradictions, and policy implications examined in this study.