Hum Ecol (2010) 38:675–690 Fig. 1 A conceptual framework for the impacts of rural migra- tion on the rural environment, adapted from Qin (2009) Rural Out-migration Rural Household Livelihoods Agricultural production Agricultural technology use Income and consumption Resource use and management 677 Rural Environment (land quality, soil erosion, forest conservation, rural pollution, etc.) survey-based study in the southern Ecuadorian Andes, which suggests that migrant-sending households do not differ from non-migrant-sending households regarding the area cultivat- ed in subsistence crops (Gray 2009). Taken together, these findings illustrate that rural labor migration has complicated and diverse effects on agricultural production practices. A number of studies that have examined the influence of migration on rural household agricultural technology use also present opposing perspectives. The pessimistic view argues that labor scarcity resulting from rural out-migration leads to the decay and abandonment of traditional labor-intensive agricul- tural technologies by migrant households (Garcia-Barrios and Garcia-Barrios 1990; Zimmerer 1993), and prevents adoption of innovative agricultural technologies (Mazambani 1990; Black 1993). By contrast, Oberai and Bilsborrow (1984) argue that migration leads to technological improvement in rural areas through investment of remittances in more modern technologies and the stimulating effects of the new ideas and knowledge brought back by labor migrants. Other studies also found that labor-migrant households were more likely than non-labor-migrant households to use new farming technolo- gies to improve agricultural productivity (Simelane 1995; Mendola 2008). There is a general consensus that migration and remittances reduce rural poverty and contribute to the improvement of household living standards. Migrant house- holds (especially those receiving remittances) normally have higher levels of income and consumption than non- migrant households (Taylor and Mora 2006; Airola 2007; Schmook and Radel 2008; Wouterse and Taylor 2008). In terms of consumption patterns, several household survey- based studies showed that migrant households with remit- tances tended to spend more than non-migrant households on durable goods and productive activities (Zarate-Hoyos 2004; Adams 2006; Taylor and Mora 2006; Airola 2007). A subset of the research on the impacts of migration on household income and consumption has also assessed the differences between rural migrant and non-migrant house- holds in asset accumulation (Adams 1998; Entwisle and Tong 2005; Ford et al. 2007; Garip 2007). Overall, these studies suggest the effects of rural out-migration on household assets differ across origin regions. Finally, there is a common view that migrants differ significantly from non-migrants in terms of resource use behavior, resource extraction technologies, and knowledge of local ecosystems in rural areas of destination (Browder 1995; Garland 1995; Pichon 1997; Perz 2003). However, consis- tent support for such differences between migrants and non- migrants in natural resource use is not always found in empirical research. And although it is often claimed that settlement of agricultural migrants in or near environmen- tally sensitive areas such as rainforest and wetlands leads to serious deforestation and environmental degradation (Bilsborrow 2002), some studies have shown that environ- mental degradation is not particularly associated with migrant households (Sierra 1999; Cassels et al. 2005). In addition, several studies relevant to the environmental consequences of migration in rural areas revealed that rural out-migration led to local labor shortage, which in turn disrupted traditional resource conservation practices (Collins 1988; Garcia-Barrios and Garcia-Barrios 1990; Zimmerer 1993). Thus, we may expect to find significant differences between migrant and non-migrant households regarding resource use and management in rural areas of origin. In summary, research on migration and rural livelihoods compares the agricultural production, agricultural technol- ogy use, income and consumption, and asset accumulation of migrant and non-migrant households in migrant-sending areas, while research on the environmental impacts of rural migration focuses on the differences between migrants/ migrant households and non-migrants/non-migrant house- holds in resource use and conservation in areas of destination. This study contributes to the existing literature by examining all these differences between migrant and non-migrant households in rural areas of origin. Methods Study Area During the past 30 years, China has seen a large-scale flow of labor migrants from rural to urban areas. It is estimated that presently there are at least 140 million rural migrant workers in the cities of China, and this migrant population continues to grow (CMHRSS and CBS 2008). Chongqing Municipality in Southwest China currently has the highest percentage of rural work force as rural-to-urban labor migrants (55.8%) among the provinces in China. Chong- qing is a hilly-mountainous region characterized by eco-