One secondary target of the SLCP is poverty reduction. Therefore, the impact of the SLCP on household income is a subject of much research. This study was conducted to determine whether the SLCP has affected incomes of households at different income levels13 years after its implementation. Using survey data from 2012 on rural households’ livelihoods in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River in Sichuan Province and using the non-participating households as a reference, the current impact of the SLCP on household income is calculated with a multiple linear regression model and a quantile regression model. The socio-geographic features of participating and non-participating households are also be compared. The results show no significant differences between the SLCP participating and non-participating households in many socio-demographic characteristics. Participating in the SLCP had no significant impact on household income at all income levels in the study area in 2012. This finding suggests that the SLCP is not currently increasing household income significantly in the study area, and that the implementation plan of the SLCP should be changed in this area in order to achieve its poverty reduction goal.
HUANG Jiali, ZHAO Hui, LIU Yunwei, YANG Jianying
. Assessing the Impact of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on Rural Household Income in the Upper Reaches of Minjiang River, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018
, 9(5)
: 516
-525
.
DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2018.05.009
[1] Chen G J, Tu J J, Fan H, et al.2006. Ecological construction of theory and practice in the upper reaches of Minjiang River. Chongqing: Southwest Normal University Press. (in Chinese)
[2] Chen Q.2010. Advanced econometrics with STATA. Beijing: High Education Press. (in Chinese)
[3] Demurger S, Wan H.2012. Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the Sloping Land Conversion Program in Ningxia.IZA Journal of Migration, 1(1): 10.
[4] Duan W, Lang Z, Wen Y.2015. The effects of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on poverty alleviation in the Wuling mountainous area of China.Small-scale Forestry, 14(3): 331-350.
[5] Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S.2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues.Ecological Economics, 65(4): 663-674.
[6] Fan J R, Zhang Z Y, Li L H.2015. Mountain demarcation and mountainous area divisions of Sichuan Province.Geographical Research, 34(1): 65-73. (in Chinese)
[7] FAO. 2015. Rapid guide for missions: analyzing local institutions and livelihoods. VialedelleTerme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008.a0273e/a0273e00.pdf
[8] Groom B, Palmer C.2012. REDD+ and rural livelihoods.Biological Conservation, 154(10): 42-52.
[9] He J, Sikor T.2015. Notions of Justice in payments for ecosystem services: insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province.Land Use Policy, 43(1): 207-216.
[10] Kang H H, Liu S B.2014. Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: a quantile regression approach.Quality & Quantity, 48(6): 3311-3325.
[11] Kelly P, Huo X.2013. Land retirement and nonfarm labor market participation: an analysis of China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program.World Development, 48: 156-169.
[12] Knutsson P.2006. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: a framework for knowledge integration assessment.Human Ecology Forum, 13(1): 90-99.
[13] Kolinjivadi V K, Sunderland T.2012. A review of two payment schemes for watershed services from China and Vietnam: the interface of government control and PES theory.Ecology & Society, 17(4): 10.
[14] Komarek A M, Shi X, Heerink N.2014. Household-level effects of China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program under price and policy shifts.Land Use Policy, 40: 36-44.
[15] Li H, Yao S, Yin R, et al.2015. Assessing the decadal impact of China’s sloping land conversion program on household income under enrollment earning differentiation.Forest Policy & Economics, 61: 95-103.
[16] Li J, Feldman M W, Li S Z, et al.2011. Rural household income and inequality under the sloping land conversion program in western China.PNAS, 108(19): 7721-7726.
[17] Li X Y, Dong Q, Rao X L, et al.2007. On rural household vulnerability and its application in China.Chinese Rural Economics, 4: 37-45. (in Chinese)
[18] Liang Y, Li S, Field M W, et al.2012. Does household composition matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China.Ecological Economics, 75(2): 152-160.
[19] Liu C, Zhang W.2006. Impacts of conversion of farmland to forestland program on household income: evidence from a sand control program in the vicinity of Beijing and Tianjin. China Economic Quarterly, 6(1): 273-290. (in Chinese)
[20] Liu C, Lu J Z, Yin R S.2010. An estimation of the effects of China’s priority forestry programs on farmer’s income.Environmental Management, 45(3): 526-540.
[21] Liu J, Li S, Ouyang Z, Chen X.2008. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services.PNAS, 105(28): 9477-9482.
[22] Lin Y, Yao S B.2014. Impact of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on rural household income: an integrated estimation.Land Use Policy, 40(1): 56-63.
[23] Liu Z, Henningsen A.2014. The effects of China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program on agricultural households.Agricutural Economics, 47(3): 295-307.
[24] Liu Z, Lan J.2015. The Sloping Land Conversion Program in China: effect on the livelihood diversification of rural households.World Development, 70(C): 147-161.
[25] Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G.2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to data from Latin America.World Development, 33(2): 237-253.
[26] Pattanayak S K, Wunder S, Ferraro P J.2010. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?Review of Environmental Economics & Policy, 4(2): 254-274.
[27] SFA.2003. Sloping land conversion program plan (2001-2010).
[28] Statistical Bureau of Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous State (SBAS). 2001. 2001 A Ba statistical year book. (in Chinese)
[29] Statistical Bureau of Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous State (SBAS). 2013. A Ba statistical year book. (in Chinese)
[30] The Ministry of Water Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Enginerring (MWR CAS CAR). 2010. Soil loss control and ecological security in China: the Data Volume. Beijing: The Science Press. (in Chinese)
[31] The rural social and economic investigation department of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) .2013. 2013 China Rural Statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press. (in Chinese)
[32] Uchida E, Xu J, Xu Z, et al.2007. Are the poor benefiting from China’s land conservation program?Environment & Development Economics, 12(4): 593-620.
[33] Wang C M, Maclaren V, 2012. Evaluation of economic and social impacts of the sloping land conversion program: a case study in Dunhua County, China.Forest Policy & Economics, 14: 50-57.
[34] Weyerhaeuser H, Wilkes A, Kahrl F.2005. Local impacts and responses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China’s northwest Yunnan Province.Agricultural System, 85(3): 234-253.
[35] Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S.2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries.Ecological Economics, 65(4): 834-852.
[36] Xu J T, Qin P, 2004. Case studies of the socioeconomic influence of the converting cropland to forestland and grassland program and the Nature Forest Protection Program. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House. (in Chinese)
[37] Xu J T, Tao R, Xu Z G.2004. Sloping land conversion program: cost-effectiveness, structural effect and economic sustainability.China Economic Quarterly, 4(1): 139-162. (in Chinese)
[38] Yao S, Guo Y, Huo X.2010. An empirical analysis of the effects of China’s land conversion program on farmers’ income growth and labor transfer.Environmental Management, 45(3): 502-512.
[39] Yin R, Liu C, Zhao M, et al.2014. The implementation and impacts of China’s largest payment for ecosystem services program as revealed by longitudinal household data.Land Use Policy, 40: 45-55.
