Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China

As payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs proliferate globally, assessing their impact upon households’ income and livelihood patterns is critical. The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) is an exceptional PES program, in terms of its ambitious biophysical and socioeconomic objectives, large geographic scale, numbers of people directly affected, and duration of operation. The SLCP has now operated in the poor mountainous areas in China for 10 y and offers a unique opportunity for policy evaluation. Using survey data on rural households’ livelihoods in the southern mountain area in Zhouzhi County, Shaanxi Province, we carry out a statistical analysis of the effects of PES and other factors on rural household income. We analyze the extent of income inequality and compare the socio-demographic features and household income of households participating in the SLCP with those that did not. Our statistical analysis shows that participation in SLCP has significant positive impacts upon household income, especially for low- and medium-income households; however, participation also has some negative impacts on the low- and medium-income households. Overall, income inequality is less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that do not after 7 y of the PES program. Different income sources have different effects on Gini statistics; in particular, wage income has opposite effects on income inequality for the participating and nonparticipating households. We find, however, that the SLCP has not increased the transfer of labor toward nonfarming activities in the survey site, as the government expected.

[1]  A. Kontoleon,et al.  How sustainable are sustainable development programs? The case of the sloping land conversion program in China. , 2009 .

[2]  F. Ellis Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries , 2000 .

[3]  S. Wunder,et al.  Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries , 2008 .

[4]  Alan Stuart,et al.  THE CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIATE-VALUES AND RANKS IN SAMPLES FROM A CONTINUOUS DISTRIBUTION , 1954 .

[5]  J. Taylor,et al.  Remittances and Inequality , 1986 .

[6]  S. Yitzhaki,et al.  Income Inequality Effects by Income , 1985 .

[7]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making , 2005 .

[8]  L. Lipper,et al.  Payment for environmental services in agricultural landscapes : economic policies and poverty reduction in developing countries , 2009 .

[9]  John C. H. Fei,et al.  The Distribution of Income by Factor Components , 1980 .

[10]  Carl Folke,et al.  Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Stefano Pagiola,et al.  Selling Forest Environmental Services : Market-Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development , 2002 .

[12]  S. Pagiola,et al.  Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America , 2005 .

[13]  S. Yitzhaki,et al.  Effect of Marginal Changes in Income Sources On U.S. Income Inequality , 1994 .

[14]  S. Rozelle,et al.  Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints, and Off‐Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain‐For‐Green Program on Rural Households in China , 2008 .

[15]  Partha Dasgupta,et al.  Nature's role in sustaining economic development , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Jianguo Liu,et al.  Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  K. Arrow,et al.  The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value , 2000, Science.