Does China’s Anti-Poverty Relocation and Settlement Program Benefit Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Household Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical and Empirical Background
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Indicator Construction
The Construction of an Index of Dependence on Ecosystem Services (IDES)
3.3. Analysis Method
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Comparison of Rural Households’ Benefits from Ecosystem Services
4.2. Comparison of Rural Households’ Dependence on Ecosystem Services
4.3. Determinants of IDES
5. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, C.; Zheng, H.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Li, J.; Zeng, W.; Liang, Y.; Polasky, S.; Feldman, M.W.; Ruckelshaus, M.; et al. Impacts of Conservation and Human Development Policy across Stakeholders and Scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7396–7401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, R.S.; Zhao, J.Z. Ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 1999, 5, 635–640. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, H.; Robinson, B.E.; Liang, Y.-C.; Polasky, S.; Ma, D.-C.; Wang, F.-C.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Ouyang, Z.-Y.; Daily, G.C. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 16681–16686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, D.S.; Li, Y.F.; Zheng, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y. Ecosystem services’ spatial characteristics and their relationships with residents’ well-being in Miyun Reservoir watershed. Acta Ecol. Sinica 2014, 34, 70–81. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, Y.; Xie, G.D.; Lu, C.X.; Xu, J. Involvement of ecosystem service flows in human wellbeing based on the relationship between supply and demand. Acta Ecol. Sinica 2016, 36, 3096–3102. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Butler, C.D.; Oluoch-Kosura, W. Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larondelle, N.; Haase, D. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L.M.; Case, J.L.; Smith, H.M.; Harwell, L.C.; Summers, J. Relating ecoystem services to domains of human well-being: Foundation for a U.S. index. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rall, E.L.; Kabisch, N.; Hansen, R. A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Dietz, T.; Liu, W.; Luo, J.; Liu, J. Going Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Zheng, H.; Li, S.Z.; Wang, Y.K.; Feldman, M.; Kareiva, P.; Polasky, S.; Ruckelshaus, M. Securing Natural Capital and Human Well-Being: Innovation and Impact in China. Acta Ecol. Sinica 2013, 33, 677–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C.; Matson, P.A. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9455–9456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Alberti, M.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Ostrom, E.; Pell, A.N.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Ambio 2007, 36, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daily, G.C. ECOLOGY: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value. Science 2000, 289, 395–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dasgupta, P. Nature’s role in sustaining economic development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balmford, A.; Bruner, A.; Cooper, P.; Costanza, R.; Farber, S.; Green, R.E.; Jenkins, M.; Jefferiss, P.; Jessamy, V.; Madden, J.; et al. Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature. Science 2002, 297, 950–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Busch, M.; Gee, K.; Burkhard, B.; Lange, M.; Stelljes, N. Conceptualizing the link between marine ecosystem services and human well-being: the case of offshore wind farming. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wegner, G.; Pascual, U. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polasky, S.; Nelson, E.; Pennington, D.; Johnson, K.A. The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota. Environ. Resour. Econom. 2010, 48, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liekens, I.; Schaafsma, M.; De Nocker, L.; Broekx, S.; Staes, J.; Aertsens, J.; Brouwer, R. Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broekx, S.; Liekens, I.; Peelaerts, W.; De Nocker, L.; Landuyt, D.; Staes, J.; Meire, P.; Schaafsma, M.; Van Reeth, W.; Kerckhove, O.V.D.; et al. A web application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.; Dietz, T.; Kramer, D.B.; Chen, X.; Liu, J. Going Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Well-Being. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e64582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, X.Y. Environmental Impact of Different Livelihood Strategies of Farmers: A Case of the Gannan Plateau. Sci. Geogr. Sinica 2013, 33, 545–552. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.F.; Zhao, X.Y. A review of ecological effect of peasant’s livelihood transformation in China. Acta Ecol. Sinica 2015, 35, 3157–3164. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Jia, G.P.; Zhu, Z.L.; Wang, X.T.; Deng, H.L.; Pei, Y.B. Research on the changes of migrant’s livelihood strategies and their ecological effects: A case study of Hongsipu District in Ningxia Province. Res. Agric. Mod. 2016, 37, 505–513. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Li, S.; Feldman, M.W.; Li, J.; Zheng, H.; Daily, G.C. The impact on rural livelihoods and ecosystem services of a major relocation and settlement program: A case in Shaanxi, China. Ambio 2017, 47, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems & Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
- Wang, F.C.; Zheng, H.; Wang, X.K.; Peng, W.J.; Ma, D.C.; Li, C. Classification of the relationship between household welfare and ecosystem reliance in the Miyun Reservoir watershed, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, L.Z.; Wang, G.Y. Spatial Analysis on Family-livelihood Vulnerability Affected by Climate Change in Arid Area. An Example of Yu-tian in XinJiang. Chin. J. Popul. Sci 2012, 67–77. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.Z.; Liang, Y.C.; Feldman, M.W.; Daily, G.C. The Impact of Grain for Green Program on Rural Livelihoods in China: Sustainable livelihoods Analysis in a Perspective of Household Composition. J. Public Manag. 2010, 7, 1–10. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Li, S.Z.; Feldman, M.W.; Daily, D.C.; Li, J. Does Out-migration Reshape Rural Households’ Livelihood Capitals in the Source Communities? Recent Evidence from Western China. Asian Pac. Migr. J. 2012, 21, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobin, J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958, 26, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Subclasses | Item | Type of Related Ecosystem Services |
---|---|---|---|
Operating Income | Crop income | Cabbage | P0 |
Carrot | P0 | ||
Potato | P0 | ||
Corn | P0 | ||
Other crops | P0 | ||
Husbandry income | Bacon | P1 | |
Pig | P0 | ||
Ox | P0 | ||
Yak | P0 | ||
Horse | P0 | ||
Poultry and eggs | P0 | ||
Bee | P0 | ||
Other farming | P0 | ||
NTFPs income | Non-timber forest product | P0 | |
Other agricultural income | Other agricultural income | P0 | |
Non-agricultural income | Hotel and restaurant | C1 or NA† | |
Eco-tourism | C1 or NA† | ||
Transportation | C1 or NA† | ||
Contract work | NA | ||
Other small business | C1 or NA† | ||
Wages Income | Wages and bonuses | NA | |
Local labor income | NA | ||
Immigrant labor income | NA | ||
Property Income | Lease of land and houses | Lease of land and houses | C1 or NA† |
Other property income | interest income | NA | |
Land compensation | NA | ||
Other rental | NA | ||
Transfer Income | Revenue received from relatives and friends | Gift income | NA |
Income pay for ES | Subsidies for returningfarmland to forest | R0 | |
Subsidies for ecologicalpublic welfare forest | R0 | ||
Agricultural subsidies | R0 | ||
Social security benefits | The lowest income subsidy | NA | |
Pensions | NA | ||
Other subsidies | NA | ||
Other Income | Other social and economic income | NA | |
Avoided Costs | Firewood collection | P0 |
Variables | Variables Setting | Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Mean | Standard Deviation | ||
Relocation Factors | |||
Relocated-family | Dummy variable. Relocated-family takes 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.28 | 0.45 |
Relocation Feature | |||
Relocation type | Dummy variable. Involuntary relocation takes 1, voluntary relocation takes 0 | 0.73 | 0.44 |
Settlement mode | Dummy variable. Centralized settle takes 1, scattered settle takes 0 | 0.62 | 0.49 |
Relocation time | Dummy variable. New stage (2011 and after) takes 1, early stage takes 0 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
Livelihood Assets | |||
Land per capita | Continuous variables. Ratio of total land area to total population (unit: mu/person) | 1.22 | 1.58 |
Forest per capita | Continuous variables. Ratio of total forest area to total population (unit: mu/person) | 10.34 | 18.17 |
Own assets | Continuous variables. The total number of household-owned production tools, vehicles, and durable goods | 2.82 | 1.72 |
Housing valuation | Continuous variables. Estimated value of family housing (unit: ten thousand yuan) | 9.97 | 7.01 |
Social support net | Continuous variables. The number of households that can provide help urgently when the family needs a large sum of money | 4.36 | 4.03 |
Specialized cooperative | Dummy variable. Join in specialized cooperative takes 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.05 | 0.22 |
Cadre relative | Continuous variables. The number of household’s relative who is cadres at village or township level | 0.54 | 1.3the |
Head of Household | |||
Gender (nominal) | Dummy variable. Female takes 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.11 | 0.31 |
Gender (actual) | Dummy variable. 1 for the household that the male head of household went out for more than six months, the actual family decision-making power is transferred to the female, otherwise takes 0 | 0.13 | 0.34 |
Age | Continuous variables. Age of head of household | 50.62 | 12.64 |
Average education years | Continuous variables. The ratio of the total number of education years to the family size | 6.21 | 2.75 |
Total labor force | Continuous variables. Number of members over the age of 16 and under 65 | 2.74 | 1.39 |
Family Structure | |||
Elderly + adult | Dummy variable. Elderly and adult workers | 0.17 | 0.38 |
Adults | Dummy variable. Adult workers take 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.36 | 0.48 |
Adults + children | Dummy variable. Adult workers and children take 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.28 | 0.45 |
Elderly + adult + child | Dummy variable. Adult workers, children and elderly takes 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.13 | 0.34 |
Geographical Features | |||
Distance to the town | Continuous variables. The distance from the village where the farmer lives to the township (unit: ten kilometers) | 10.34 | 7.96 |
Adjacent reserve | Dummy variable. Close to or in nature reserve takes 1, otherwise takes 0 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
Net income (Unit: Yuan) | Relocated Households | Non-Relocated Households | The Total Sample | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (Standard Deviation) | Minimum: Maximum | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Minimum: Maximum | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Minimum: Maximum | |
Total Net Ecosystem Income | 15,145 (26,330) | −50,000:193,281 | 13,646 (23,709) | 0:252,725 | 14,084 (24,502) | −50,000:252,725 |
Social Economic Activities | 12,244(14,335) | 0:94,000 | 5489 (8342) | 0:70,000 | 7475 (10,904) | 0:94,000 |
Provisioning Services | 10,463 (19,716) | −1027:192,501 | 9747 (17,195) | −362:201,805 | 9948 (17,934) | −1027:201,805 |
Regulating Services | 980 (977) | 0:7625 | 819 (892) | 0:7080 | 864 (919) | 0:7625 |
Cultural Services | 3642 (16,159) | −50,000:150,000 | 2875 (16,653) | 0:250,300 | 3099 (16,507) | −50,000:250,300 |
Indices | Whether Relocated | t-test | Relocation Type | t-test | Settlement Mode | t-test | Relocation Time | t-test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Voluntary | Involuntary | Centralized | Scattered | New Stage | Early Stage | |||||
Total IDES | 0.51 | 0.67 | 7.31 *** | 0.51 | 0.92 | 4.36 *** | 0.45 | 0.60 | 3.15 *** | 0.42 | 0.56 | 2.95 *** |
Provisioning services | 0.37 | 0.52 | 7.44 *** | 0.37 | 0.35 | −0.54 | 0.34 | 0.42 | 2.45 ** | 0.33 | 0.40 | 1.92 |
Regulating services | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1.18 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 6.22 *** | 0.06 | 0.11 | 4.34 *** | 0.04 | 0.10 | 4.37 *** |
Cultural services | 0.06 | 0.06 | −0.5 | 0.07 | 0.03 | −1.14 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.57 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Relocation Factors | ||||
Relocated-family | −0.096 *** | |||
(0.025) | ||||
Relocation Feature | ||||
Relocation type | \ | 0.195 *** | ||
(0.064) | ||||
Settlement mode | \ | \ | ™0.188 *** | \ |
(0.05) | ||||
Relocation time | \ | \ | \ | −0. 198 *** |
(0.046) | ||||
Livelihood Assets | ||||
Land per capita | 0.036 *** | 0.085 *** | 0.075 *** | 0.057 ** |
(0.007) | (0.027) | (0.025) | (0.024) | |
Forest per capita | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 | −0.001 |
(0.001) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
Own assets | 0.028 *** | 0.061 *** | 0.062 *** | 0.058 *** |
(0.007) | (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.013) | |
Housing valuation | −0.006 *** | −0.009 *** | −0.009 *** | −0.009 *** |
(0.001) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
Social support net | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
(0.002) | (0.005) | (0.005) | (0.005) | |
Specialized cooperative | 0.011 | −0.058 | −0.079 | −0.013 |
(0.047) | (0.079) | (0.079) | (0.076) | |
Cadre relative | −0.013 * | −0.021 | −0.018 | −0.026 * |
(0.008) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.016) | |
Family Demographic Characteristics | ||||
Average education years | −0.001 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
(0.004) | (0.01) | (0.009) | (0.009) | |
Total labor force | −0.014 * | −0.019 | −0.019 | −0.021 |
(0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
Head of Household | ||||
Gender (nominal) | −;0.077 ** | −0.027 | 0.016 | −0.015 |
(0.039) | (0.111) | (0.111) | (0.109) | |
Gender (actual) | −0.225 *** | −0.223 *** | −0.207 *** | −0.239 *** |
(0.031) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.058) | |
Age | 0.005 | 0.026 ** | 0.025 ** | 0.024 ** |
(0.006) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | |
Age2 | −0.00006 | −0.0003 *** | −0.0003 *** | −0.0003 ** |
(0.0001) | (0.0001) | (0.0001) | (0.0001) | |
Family Structure | ||||
Elderly + adult | 0.027 | 0.011 | −0.069 | −0.033 |
(0.062) | (0.142) | (0.139) | (0.138) | |
Adults | −0.023 | −0.072 | −0.112 | −0.077 |
(0.065) | (0.144) | (0.143) | (0.141) | |
Adults + children | −0.034 | −0.177 | −0.243 * | −0.193 |
(0.067) | (0.146) | (0.145) | (0.143) | |
Elderly + adult+ child | −0.049 | −0.071 | −0.140 | −0.085 |
(0.067) | (0.149) | (0.146) | (0.145) | |
Geographical Features | ||||
Distance to the town | 0.003 *** | 0.0004 | 0.001 | 0.005 * |
(0.001) | (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | |
Adjacent reserve | 0.049 ** | 0.190 *** | 0.206 *** | 0.157 *** |
(0.024) | (0.048) | (0.048) | (0.047) | |
Constant | 0.572 *** | 0.083 | 0.161 | 0.047 |
(0.157) | (0.337) | (0.335) | (0.328) | |
LR chi2(20) | 230.18 *** | 96.62 *** | 102.89 *** | 107.59 *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.403 | 0.486 | 0.518 | 0.542 |
Sample size | 1,074 | 282 | 282 | 282 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, C.; Kang, B.; Wang, L.; Li, S.; Feldman, M.; Li, J. Does China’s Anti-Poverty Relocation and Settlement Program Benefit Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Household Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030600
Li C, Kang B, Wang L, Li S, Feldman M, Li J. Does China’s Anti-Poverty Relocation and Settlement Program Benefit Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Household Perspective. Sustainability. 2019; 11(3):600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030600
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Cong, Bowei Kang, Lei Wang, Shuzhuo Li, Marcus Feldman, and Jie Li. 2019. "Does China’s Anti-Poverty Relocation and Settlement Program Benefit Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Household Perspective" Sustainability 11, no. 3: 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030600