682 Variables Table 2 Bivariate comparisons of household groups, given as means of variables Hum Ecol (2010) 38:675–690 Two household groups Three household groups Non-labor-migrant (N=166) Labor-migrant (N=179) Local off-farm work (N=76) Labor-migrant (N=179) 30.5** 5.0*** 3.7*** 40.4*** 3.2*** 1.1*** 5.6 396 430.5 262.6 3.7 4.1 3,675.5** 2,711.6 2.4* 46.2* 0.6 5.3 Farming (N=90) 29.4*** 3.5*** 2.2*** 48.0*** 2.6*** 2.1*** 5.6 447.9 422.4 282.9 3.8 4.2 1,560.9*** 2,037.6** 1.8*** 62.0** 0.8 5.5 24.2*** 4.4*** 2.8*** 40.5*** 3.2*** 1.2*** 5.4 416.9 418.6 251.0 3.7 4.1 3,688.0*** 3,015.1** 2.5*** 45.9** 0.6 5.5 30.5*** 5.0*** 3.7*** 40.4*** 3.2*** 1.1*** 5.6 396.0 430.5 262.6 3.7 4.1 3,675.5*** 2,711.6** 2.4*** 46.2** 0.6 5.3 Socio-demographic characteristics Years of residence Total number of household members Number of household laborers Average age of household laborers Average educational level of household laborers Agricultural production Size of per laborer cultivated land (mu) Total number of types of agricultural production involved Yield of rice (kg) per mu of land Yield of corn (kg) per mu of land Use of agricultural technologies Expense of farming chemicals per mu of land (RMB) Total number of traditional agricultural technologies used Total number of modern agricultural technologies used Household income, expenditure, and assets Per capita annual cash income (RMB) Per capita annual cash living expenditure (RMB) Household consumer asset index (rescaled to 0-5) Resource use and management Proportion of firewood and crop residues in total fuels (%) Total number of types of forest products used Total number of resource improvement activities taken 27.0** 3.9*** 2.5*** 44.6*** 2.9*** 1.7*** 5.5 433.7 420.6 268.3 3.7 4.2 2,534.7** 2,485.1 2.1* 54.6* 0.7 5.5 Notes: (1) ***sig. at the .001 level; **sig. at the .01 level; *sig. at the .05 level; (2) The independent t-test was used for the comparison of non- labor-migrant and labor-migrant households; (3) One-way ANOVA was performed for the comparison of farming, local off-farm work, and labor- migrant households fuel. Overall, there was no significant difference between labor-migrant and local off-farm work households in these respects. In summary, the bivariate analyses of survey results showed that in general rural labor-migrant households differed significantly from non-labor-migrant households in socio-demographic characteristics and measures for three of the four livelihood constructs in the conceptual model: agricultural production, income and consumption, and natural resource use. Moreover, the differences between these two groups were largely attributed to the differences between labor-migrant households and the farming house- hold subgroup of non-labor-migrant households. Multivariate Discriminant Analysis for Labor-Migrant and Non-labor-migrant Households The bivariate comparisons above suggest that significant differences exist between labor-migrant and non-labor- migrant households in rural livelihood activities. However, these simple analyses did not account for the effects of household socio-demographic characteristics and the inter- relations among livelihood indicators. As noted earlier, multivariate discriminant analysis was conducted both for the comparison of labor-migrant and non-labor-migrant households and for the comparison of labor-migrant, local off-farm work, and farming households. In each phase of