Subsidy, training or material supply? The impact path of eco-compensation method on farmers' livelihood assets.

The impact of ecological compensation policies on farmers' livelihoods is related to the sustainability of policies and social equity. How do different compensation methods affect farmers' livelihood assets? This paper uses China's Three-River-Source National Park System Pilot Area (TNP) as the research area, and designs three compensation scenarios: cash subsidy, material supply, and technical training. We evaluated the impact of different compensation methods on the livelihood assets of farmers, and reveals the impact path of ecological compensation on different livelihood assets. The results show that cash subsidies can effectively improve the livelihood assets of farmers (17.04%), the five types of livelihood capital distribution are most reasonable under technical training method (0.306); Three compensation methods have improved the human assets of rural households (40.48%, 18.57%, and 0.48% respectively) and physical assets (30.15%, 26.84%, and 9.56% respectively). It also show different effects on farmers' financial assets (44.00%, -11.43%, and 1.14%) and social assets (19.15%, -17.02%, and 10.64%, respectively). Ecological compensation reduced farmers' natural assets (32.89%), but all three compensation methods stimulated farmers to improve their education levels (59.06%, 0.79%, and 7.87%, respectively), which affected farmers' human assets; The improvement of means of production (41.54%, 50.00% and 7.69% respectively) and the family living conditions (75.00%, 25.00% and 75.00% respectively) affect the physical assets of farmers; Changes in natural assets, human assets, and physical assets affect the financial assets of farmers, while social assets is affected by financial assets and human assets.