IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1888-d150795.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Poverty Matter in Payment for Ecosystem Services Program? Participation in the New Stage Sloping Land Conversion Program

Author

Listed:
  • Linjing Ren

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28 Xianning West Road, Xi’an 710049, China
    Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

  • Jie Li

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28 Xianning West Road, Xi’an 710049, China)

  • Cong Li

    (School of Economics and Finance, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China)

  • Shuzhuo Li

    (School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28 Xianning West Road, Xi’an 710049, China)

  • Gretchen C. Daily

    (Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA)

Abstract

Poverty is increasingly stressed in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, from targeting to outcomes. As the world’s largest PES scheme of its kind, the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China started its new stage (NSLCP), aiming to convert another 2.9 million ha sloping croplands into forest or grasslands. This paper examines whether and to what extent different dimensions of poverty impact households’ participation in the NSLCP. By using the data collected from a key demonstration area, Wuqi County in 2015, based on Sen’s capability theory, we measure the multidimensional poverty of the households, like poverty in education, physical health, food security, rights, assets and living standards. Then, we evaluate the effects of different poverty dimensions on households’ participation in the NSLCP and their efforts to comply with the policy. We find that different dimensions of poverty had very different impacts, as revealed in the participating rate and the intensity of efforts to manage the enrolled lands through different methods. The households with poverty in education, food security, or rights were less likely to be enrolled in the NSLCP. Dimensions like income, health and assets were significant contributions to fulfill the practices required by the NSLCP. Besides, the degree of multidimensional poverty further weakened households’ efforts to manage and protect the trees on enrolled lands.

Suggested Citation

  • Linjing Ren & Jie Li & Cong Li & Shuzhuo Li & Gretchen C. Daily, 2018. "Does Poverty Matter in Payment for Ecosystem Services Program? Participation in the New Stage Sloping Land Conversion Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1888-:d:150795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1888/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1888/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodríguez, Luis C. & Pascual, Unai & Muradian, Roldan & Pazmino, Nathalie & Whitten, Stuart, 2011. "Towards a unified scheme for environmental and social protection: Learning from PES and CCT experiences in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2163-2174, September.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 279-297, June.
    3. Démurger, Sylvie & Pelletier, Adeline, 2015. "Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households' participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 25-33.
    4. Guo, Huanhuan & Li, Bo & Hou, Ying & Lu, Shubing & Nan, Bo, 2014. "Rural households' willingness to participate in the Grain for Green program again: A case study of Zhungeer, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 42-49.
    5. Duesberg, Stefanie & Upton, Vincent & O'Connor, Deirdre & Dhubháin, Áine Ní, 2014. "Factors influencing Irish farmers' afforestation intention," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 13-20.
    6. Sabina Alkire & Maria Santos, 2013. "A Multidimensional Approach: Poverty Measurement & Beyond," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 239-257, June.
    7. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    8. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & De Janvry, Alain & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 2008. "The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 375-394, June.
    9. Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
    10. Urvashi Narain & Shreekant Gupta & Klaas van ’t Veld, 2008. "Poverty and the Environment: Exploring the Relationship Between Household Incomes, Private Assets, and Natural Assets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 148-167.
    11. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    12. Pagiola, Stefano & Zhang, Wei & Colom, Ale, 2009. "Can payments for watershed services help save biodiversity? A spatial analysis of highland Guatemala," MPRA Paper 13728, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. François Bourguignon & Satya R. Chakravarty, 2019. "The Measurement of Multidimensional Poverty," Themes in Economics, in: Satya R. Chakravarty (ed.), Poverty, Social Exclusion and Stochastic Dominance, pages 83-107, Springer.
    14. Liu, Zhaoyang & Gong, Yazhen & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "How do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Land Tenure? Theory and Evidence From China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 195-213.
    15. Minjuan Zhao & Runsheng Yin & Liuyang Yao & Tao Xu, 2015. "Assessing the impact of China’s sloping land conversion program on household production efficiency under spatial heterogeneity and output diversification," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(2), pages 221-239, May.
    16. Alkire, Sabina & Foster, James, 2011. "Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 476-487.
    17. Emi Uchida & Jintao Xu & Scott Rozelle, 2005. "Grain for Green: Cost-Effectiveness and Sustainability of China’s Conservation Set-Aside Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    18. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    19. John M. Antle & Jetse J. Stoorvogel, 2009. "Payments for Ecosystem Services, Poverty and Sustainability: The Case of Agricultural Soil Carbon Sequestration," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Leslie Lipper & Takumi Sakuyama & Randy Stringer & David Zilberman (ed.), Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes, chapter 7, pages 133-161, Springer.
    20. Zilberman, David & Lipper, Leslie & Mccarthy, Nancy, 2008. "When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 255-278, June.
    21. Mazunda, John & Shively, Gerald, 2015. "Measuring the forest and income impacts of forest user group participation under Malawi's Forest Co-management Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 262-273.
    22. Fisher, Janet A. & Patenaude, Genevieve & Giri, Kalpana & Lewis, Kristina & Meir, Patrick & Pinho, Patricia & Rounsevell, Mark D.A. & Williams, Mathew, 2014. "Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A conceptual framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 34-45.
    23. Bulte, Erwin H. & Lipper, Leslie & Stringer, Randy & Zilberman, David, 2008. "Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 245-254, June.
    24. Li, Hua & Yao, Shunbo & Yin, Runsheng & Liu, Guangquan, 2015. "Assessing the decadal impact of China's sloping land conversion program on household income under enrollment and earning differentiation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 95-103.
    25. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    26. Xu, Zhigang & Xu, Jintao & Deng, Xiangzheng & Huang, Jikun & Uchida, Emi & Rozelle, Scott, 2006. "Grain for Green versus Grain: Conflict between Food Security and Conservation Set-Aside in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 130-148, January.
    27. Reardon, Thomas & Vosti, Stephen A., 1995. "Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1495-1506, September.
    28. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne & Porras, Ina & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1511-1527, September.
    29. A. Atkinson, 2003. "Multidimensional Deprivation: Contrasting Social Welfare and Counting Approaches," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(1), pages 51-65, April.
    30. Zbinden, Simon & Lee, David R., 2005. "Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 255-272, February.
    31. Uchida, Emi & Xu, Jintao & Xu, Zhigang & Rozelle, Scott, 2007. "Are the poor benefiting from China's land conservation program?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 593-620, August.
    32. Paul Ferraro & Merlin Hanauer, 2011. "Protecting Ecosystems and Alleviating Poverty with Parks and Reserves: ‘Win-Win’ or Tradeoffs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 269-286, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Chenyang Xue & Chaofeng Shao & Junli Gao, 2020. "Ecological Compensation Strategy for SDG-Based Basin-Type National Parks: A Case Study of the Baoxing Giant Panda National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Sheng, Jichuan & Wang, Hui, 2022. "Participation, income growth and poverty alleviation in payments for ecosystem services: The case of China's Wolong Nature Reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Zhang, Qi & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Song, Conghe & Tao, Shiqi & Huang, Qingfeng, 2019. "Rural household income distribution and inequality in China: Effects of payments for ecosystem services policies and other factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 114-127.
    5. Wang, Ying & Zhang, Qi & Bilsborrow, Richard & Tao, Shiqi & Chen, Xiaodong & Sullivan-Wiley, Kira & Huang, Qingfeng & Li, Jiangfeng & Song, Conghe, 2020. "Effects of payments for ecosystem services programs in China on rural household labor allocation and land use: Identifying complex pathways," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Wang, Zihan & Huang, Fubin & Liu, Jing & Shuai, Jing & Shuai, Chuanmin, 2020. "Does solar PV bring a sustainable future to the poor? -- an empirical study of anti-poverty policy effects on environmental sustainability in rural China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hegde, Ravi & Bull, Gary Q., 2011. "Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 122-130.
    2. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    3. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & Wolff, Hendrik, 2014. "Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests," IZA Discussion Papers 8179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2012. "Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China's experience as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 56-65.
    6. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    8. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    9. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    10. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    11. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    12. Yuan Yuan & Yanxu Liu & Yi’na Hu & Xin Chen & Jian Peng, 2017. "Identification of Non-economic Influencing Factors Affecting Farmer’s Participation in the Paddy Landto-Dry Land Program in Chicheng County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Suhardiman, Diana & Wichelns, Dennis & Lestrelin, Guillaume & Thai Hoanh, Chu, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or state control of resources?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 94-101.
    14. Suhardiman, Diana & Wichelns, Dennis & Lestrelin, Guillaume & Hoanh, Chu Thai, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: market-based incentives or state control of resources?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 64-71.
    15. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    16. Liu, Ping & Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2019. "Reformulating China's ecological restoration policies: What can be learned from comparing Chinese and American experiences?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 54-61.
    17. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    18. Perrings, Charles, 2014. "Environment and development economics 20 years on," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 333-366, June.
    19. Bennett, Michael T. & Mehta, Aashish & Xu, Jintao, 2011. "Incomplete property rights, exposure to markets and the provision of environmental services in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 485-498.
    20. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1888-:d:150795. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.