Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Earth Science

ISSN 2095-0195

ISSN 2095-0209(Online)

CN 11-5982/P

Postal Subscription Code 80-963

2018 Impact Factor: 1.205

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Earth Sci.    2020, Vol. 14 Issue (1) : 209-220    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-019-0764-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Understanding the relationships between poverty alleviation and ecosystem conservation: empirical evidence from western China
Xujun HU1,2, Huiyuan ZHANG1, Haiguang HAO1(), Danyang FENG1, Haiyan LIU1, Qiang ZHANG1
1. State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
2. Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Center, Wageningen 6700 EW, The Netherlands
 Download: PDF(1387 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Despite growing interest in the use of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) for both social and ecological benefits, few studies have investigated the feedback and interaction between poverty alleviation and ecosystem protection outcomes. In this study, the poverty reduction effects of PES policies and their subsequent influence on environmental protection outcomes are investigated. To address these questions, 222 local rural households who were involved in PES programs from the Habahu National Nature Reserve in western China were interviewed. The results showed that the social and ecological outcomes of PES policies are neither two separate entities nor a trade-off. While rural households are the key participants in PES programs, the social and ecological outcomes of PES policies are closely related to each other. In addition, poverty reduction results could greatly influence ecosystem conservation effects. Livelihood assets, as well as the attitudes of rural households, play important roles in both of the outcomes. This research provides a new perspective that considers the social and ecological benefits of PES policies, and it also calls for an integrated consideration of social and ecological components in the design of PES policies to achieve enhanced results both for poverty alleviation and ecosystem conservation.
Keywords payments for ecosystem services (PES)      ecosystem protection      poverty alleviation      livelihood assets     
Corresponding Author(s): Haiguang HAO   
Online First Date: 27 December 2019    Issue Date: 24 March 2020
 Cite this article:   
Xujun HU,Huiyuan ZHANG,Haiguang HAO, et al. Understanding the relationships between poverty alleviation and ecosystem conservation: empirical evidence from western China[J]. Front. Earth Sci., 2020, 14(1): 209-220.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/10.1007/s11707-019-0764-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fesci/EN/Y2020/V14/I1/209
Fig.1  Habahu National Nature Reserve in the key ecological function area of the Loess Plateau.
Fig.2  Sustainable livelihoods framework.
Asset type Variable Weight
1. Human capital /h 1.1 Number of available laborers 0.50
1.2 Educational degree of householder 0.50
2. Social capital /s — —
3. Natural capital /n 3.3 Cultivated land 0.33
3.4 Forest land 0.33
3.5 Grass land 0.33
4. Physical capital /p 4.6 Number of houses 0.33
4.7 Farm machinery 0.33
4.8 Vehicles 0.33
5. Financial capital /f 5.9 Annual income 0.80
5.10 Livestock 0.20
Tab.1  Sustainable livelihood asset variables of rural households
Fig.3  Basic characteristics of the investigated householders.
Variables Definition and value Mean Std. d Max Min
Number of available laborers continuous variable 2.05 0.85 6.00 0.00
Educational degree of Householder 0–no education background; 0.25–primary school or lower than ps; 0.5–junior high; 0.75–senior high; 1–junior college or higher 0.40 0.27 1.00 0.00
Cultivated land /mu continuous variable 31.04 23.72 230.00 0.00
Forest land /mu continuous variable 94.78 91.88 714.00 0.00
Grass land /mu continuous variable 216.13 304.83 4000.00 8.00
Number of houses 0–no house; 0.5–adobe house; 1–brick house 4.31 2.05 12.00 0.00
Farm machinery 0–no farm machinery; 0.5–three-wheeler machinery; 1–four-wheeler machinery 0.42 0.40 1.00 0.00
Vehicles 0–no vehicle; 0.33–manpower tricycle; 0.66–electromobile or motorcycle; 1–car 0.61 0.34 1.00 0.00
Annual income continuous variable 36445.92 47258.78 499100.00 700.00
Livestock continuous variable 57.95 65.44 300.00 0.00
Tab.2  Variables of respondent livelihood assets and their descriptive statistics
Fig.4  The predicted probability curve of income changes under increasing natural capital.
Livelihood assets Increased income Decreased income Unchanged income
b sig. b sig. b sig.
Human capital
Number of available laborers -0.821 ns 1.486 ns -0.618 ns
Educational degree of householder 0.149 ns -0.885 ns 0.740 ns
Natural capital
Cultivated land 0.787 ns 3.940 ** -7.365 ***
Forest land 2.124 * 0.418 ns -5.124 **
Grass land -2.604 ns 2.768 ns -0.011 ns
Physical capital
Number of houses -0.442 ns -0.321 ns 0.825 ns
Farm machinery -0.402 ns 0.059 ns 0.736 *
Vehicles 0.118 ns 0.499 ns -0.594 ns
Financial capital
Annual income -0.320 ns -1.624 *** 1.943 ***
Livestock 0.202 ns 0.861 * -1.037 **
Tab.3  Logistic regression of the impact of livelihood assets on household incomes
Income changes Unsatisfied with pes programs Unwilling to continue with pes programs
b sig. b sig.
Increased income -1.753 *** -1.170 ***
Decreased income 2.354 *** 1.892 ***
Little influence -0.190 ns -0.580 ns
Tab.4  Logistic regression of the impact of household income changes on sustained ecosystem protection
Fig.5  The attitudes of local households toward PES policies.
Index Unsatisfied with PES programs Unwilling to continue with PES programs
Income increased Income decreased Income increased Income decreased
Human capital
Number of available laborers -0.925 -1.291 -0.235 -0.799
Educational degree of householder -0.310 0.068 -0.435 -0.245
Natural capital
Cultivated land 3.950* 1.540 3.366 1.530
Forest land 0.100 -1.231 2.442 1.886
Grass land 0.394 0.255 -6.832 -7.680
Physical capital
Number of houses -0.153 0.277 0.730 1.143
Farm machinery -0.380 -0.210 0.241 0.367
Vehicles -0.991* -1.335** -0.008 -0.268
Financial capital
Annual income -0.784 0.173 0.386 1.297*
Livestock 0.810 0.292 0.134 -0.337
Income change -1.988*** 2.530*** -1.299*** 2.236***
Tab.5  Logistic regression of the impact of household income changes and livelihood assets on sustained ecosystem protection
1 B Adhikari, A Agrawal (2013). Understanding the social and ecological outcomes of PES projects: a review and an analysis. Conserv Soc, 11(4): 359–374
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125748
2 J M Alix-Garcia, K R Sims, P Yañez-Pagans (2015). Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Am Econ J Econ Policy, 7(4): 1–40
https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130139
3 A Angelsen, S Wertz-Kanounnikoff (2008). What are the Key Design Issues for REDD and the Criteria for Assessing Option. Bogor: CIFOR
4 R A Arriagada, E O Sills, P J Ferraro, S K Pattanayak (2015). Do payments pay off? Evidence from participation in Costa Rica’s PES program. PLoS One, 10(7): e0131544
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131544 pmid: 26162000
5 N Ash, H Blanco, K Garcia, C Brown (2010). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Manual for Assessment Practitioners. Washington D.C: Island Press
6 K Baylis, D Fullerton, P Shah (2013). What drives forest leakage? Working Paper. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
7 F Bétrisey, J Bastiaensen, C Mager (2018). Payments for ecosystem services and social justice: using recognition theories to assess the Bolivian Acuerdos Recíprocos por el Agua. Geoforum, 92: 134–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.04.001
8 J Börner, K Baylis, E Corbera, D Ezzine-de-Blas, J Honey-Rosés, U M Persson, S Wunder (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Dev, 96: 359–374
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
9 S Cao, X Xu, W Wu (2017). A comparative analysis of household livelihoods in Zhejiang mountainous areas under the background of farmer households differentiation. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 34(01): 161–169 (in Chinese)
10 K M A Chan, A D Guerry, P Balvanera, S Klain, T Satterfield, X Basurto, A Bostrom, R Chuenpagdee, R Gould, B S Halpern, N Hannahs, J Levine, B Norton, M Ruckelshaus, R Russell, J Tam, U Woodside (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience, 62(8): 744–756
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
11 R Costanza, R de Groot, L Braat, I Kubiszewski, L Fioramonti, P Sutton, S Farber, M Grasso (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv, 28: 1–16
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
12 DFID (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: DFID
13 S Engel, S Pagiola, S Wunder (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ, 65(4): 663–674
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
14 D Ezzine-de-Blas, S Wunder, M Ruiz-Pérez, R P Moreno-Sanchez (2016). Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS One, 11(3): e0149847
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149847 pmid: 26938065
15 S Fan, L Zhou, Y Ma (2005). The effects of environmental protection policy on households: a case study in Yanchi County. China Population, Resources and Environment, 15 (3): 124–128 (in Chinese)
16 P J Ferraro, A Kiss (2002). Ecology. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298(5599): 1718–1719
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078104 pmid: 12459569
17 M Grieg-Gran, I Porras, S Wunder (2005). How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev, 33(9): 1511–1527
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.002
18 Habahu National Nature Reserve Management Bureau (HNNRMB) (2018). General situation of protected areas. Available at Habahu Government website (in Chinese)
19 R Hegde, G Q Bull (2011). Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: a household level analysis. Ecol Econ, 71: 122–130
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.014
20 C Howe, H Suich, B Vira, G M Mace (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Change, 28: 263–275
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005
21 J C Ingram, D Wilkie, T Clements, R B McNab, F Nelson, E H Baur, H T Sachedina, D D Peterson, C A H Foley (2014). Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst Serv, 7: 10–21
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.003
22 L Krantz (2001). The sustainable livelihood approach to poverty reduction. SIDA. Division for Policy and Socio-Economic Analysis, 44
23 N Landell-Mills, I T Porras (2002). Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor. Nottingham: Russell Press
24 B Leimona, E Lee (2008). Pro-poor Payment for Environmental Services: Some Considerations. Borgor: RUPES-ICRAF SEA
25 C Li, S Li, M W Feldman, J Li, H Zheng, G C Daily (2018). The impact on rural livelihoods and ecosystem services of a major relocation and settlement program: a case in Shaanxi, China. Ambio, 47(2): 245–259
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0941-7 pmid: 28983793
26 H Li, H Ma, R Yang (2017). Influence of cotton farmer’s livelihood capitals on livelihood strategy—based on the survey data of Manas and Awat counties, Xinjiang. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 31(05): 57–63 (in Chinese)
27 D K Liebenow, M J Cohen, T Gumbricht, K D Shepherd, G Shepherd (2012). Do ecosystem services influence household wealth in rural Mali? Ecol Econ, 82: 33–44
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.005
28 C Liu, J Lu, R Yin (2010). An estimation of the effects of China’s Priority Forestry Programs on farmers’ income. Environ Manage, 45(3): 526–540
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9433-2 pmid: 20140673
29 J Liu, G C Daily, P R Ehrlich, G W Luck (2003). Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature, 421(6922): 530–533
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01359 pmid: 12540852
30 B W Miller, S C Caplow, P W Leslie (2012). Feedbacks between conservation and social-ecological systems. Conserv Biol, 26(2): 218–227
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01823.x pmid: 22443128
31 E J Milner-Gulland (2012). Interactions between human behaviour and ecological systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 367(1586): 270–278
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0175 pmid: 22144389
32 Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (MEP) (2015). National Ecological Functional Zoning (in Chinese)
33 Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China (MOF) (2016). 2017 central budget for local tax return and transfer payments (in Chinese)
34 Ministry of finance (MOF) and State forestry administration (SFA) (2004). Management measures of the central forest ecological compensation fund (in Chinese)
35 National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China (NBS) (2018). People’s Republic of China 2017 national economic and social development statistical bulletin (in Chinese)
36 Z Y Ouyang, H Zheng, P Yue (2013). Establishment of ecological compensation mechanisms in China: perspectives and strategies. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 33 (3): 0686–0692
37 S Pagiola, P Agostini, J Gobbi, C de Haan, M Ibrahim, E Murgueitio, E Ramírez, M Rosales, J P Ruíz (2005a). Paying for biodiversity conservation services: experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Mt Res Dev, 25(3): 206–212
https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0206:PFBCS]2.0.CO;2
38 S Pagiola, A Arcenas, G Platais (2005b). Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev, 33(2): 237–253
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011
39 S K Pattanayak, S Wunder, P J Ferraro (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy, 4(2): 254–274
https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req006
40 U M Persson, F Alpízar (2013). Conditional cash transfers and payments for environmental services—a conceptual framework for explaining and judging differences in outcomes. World Dev, 43: 124–137
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.10.006
41 L Petheram, B M Campbell (2010). Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. J Environ Manage, 91(5): 1139–1149
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.002 pmid: 20122788
42 C Samii, M Lisiecki, P Kulkarni, L Paler, L Chavis (2014). Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev, 10(1):1–95
43 W Shang, Y Gong, Z Wang, M J Stewardson (2018). Eco-compensation in China: theory, practices and suggestions for the future. J Environ Manage, 210: 162–170
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.077 pmid: 29339334
44 E Soini (2005). Land use change patterns and livelihood dynamics on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Agric Syst, 85(3): 306–323
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.013
45 State forestry administration information office (SFAIO) (2006). The state forestry administration Grain for Green Project management office (in Chinese)
46 Statistical Bureau of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (SBNHAR) (2017). Ningxia statistical yearbook 2017 (in Chinese)
47 H Suich, C Howe, G Mace (2015). Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a review of the empirical links. Ecosyst Serv, 12: 137–147
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005
48 The CPC Central Committee the State Council (CPCCC and SC) (2011, Dec 1). The Outline for Development-oriented Poverty Reduction for China’s Rural Areas (2011–2020) (in Chinese)
49 The State Council (SC) (2010). National Main Function Area Planning (in Chinese)
50 The State Council (SC) (2016). Opinions on Perfecting the Compensation Mechanisms of Ecological Protection (in Chinese)
51 G Van Hecken, J Bastiaensen (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ Sci Policy, 13(8): 785–792
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.006
52 H Wang, Z Dong, Y Xu, C Ge (2016). Eco-compensation for watershed services in China. Water Int, 41(2): 271–289
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1138023
53 K J Wendland, M Honzák, R Portela, B Vitale, S Rubinoff, J Randrianarisoa (2010). Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecol Econ, 69(11): 2093–2107
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.002
54 L Wu, L Jin (2018). Influence of eco-compensation on peasant households’ livelihood in poverty-stricken regions in Guizhou Province. J Arid Land Resour Environ, 32(08): 1–7 (in Chinese)
55 Z Wu, M J Penning, W Zeng, S Li, N L Chappell (2016). Relocation and social support among older adults in rural China. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 71(6): 1108–1119
https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu187 pmid: 25617401
56 S Wunder (2005). Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor: CIFOR
57 S Wunder (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol, 21(1): 48–58
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x pmid: 17298510
58 S Wunder, S Engel, S Pagiola (2008). Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ, 65(4): 834–852
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
59 H Xie, X He, W You, D Yu, H Liu, J Wang, S Gu, Q Nie, Y Liang, J Zhang (2016). Effects of ecological stoichiometry on biomass and species diversity of the Artemisia ordosica commuty in Habahu National Nature Reserve. Acta Ecol Sin, 36(12): 3621–3627 (in Chinese)
60 S Xu (2013). State Council Report on the Construction of Ecological Compensation Mechanism (in Chinese)
61 Yanchi County People’s Government (YCPG) (2017). Yanchi County Overview (in Chinese)
62 W Zhao, S Yang, X Wang (2016). The relationship between livelihood capital and livelihood strategy based on logistic regression model in Xinping County of Yuanjiag dry-hot valley. Resour Sci, 38(01): 136–143 (in Chinese)
63 X Zhao, L Zhang, J Jiang, C Hou (2013). The impact of ecological compensation on the farmers’ livelihood: a case study of Huanghe River Water Supply Areas of Gannan. Geogr Res, 32(03): 531–542 (in Chinese)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed