Social-Ecological Impacts of China's Payments For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF CHINA’S PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROGRAMS ON LAND USE, MIGRATION AND LIVELIHOODS Qi Zhang A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Geography. Chapel Hill 2017 Approved by: Conghe Song Richard Bilsborrow Xiaodong Chen Pamela Jagger Stephen Walsh ©2017 Qi Zhang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT QI ZHANG: Social-ecological impacts of China’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs on land use, migration and livelihoods (Under the direction of Conghe Song) Payments for ecosystem services (PES) has emerged as an innovative approach to address the problems in the human-environment nexus. Understanding the ecological and socio-economic impacts of PES programs is essential to the sustainability of environmental goods and services conserved by these programs. The Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program (CCFP) and the Ecological Welfare Forest Program (EWFP) were among the major PES programs initiated in China in the late 1990s. This dissertation draws on data collected from household surveys to investigate human adaptation to the socio-economic and environmental changes in Tiantangzhai Township, Anhui, China, where both CCFP and EWFP were implemented. I found that the PES programs, together with other factors, both directly and indirectly affected cropland abandonment, individual out-migration and rural livelihoods. Proximity of land parcels to the nearest CCFP and EWFP forests increases the likelihood of cropland abandonment. Households receiving higher EWFP payments are associated with higher probabilities of cropland abandonment. I also found that the CCFP and EWFP have different effects on individual’s out-migration decisions. The CCFP compensation increases the likelihood of out-migration partly because it not only covers initial migrating costs but also releases farm labor after enrolling their cropland in the program. However, the EWFP compensation has an opposite though far smaller effect on out-migration. Out-migration is also affected by other variables such as individual attributes, household characteristics and community factors. Lastly, CCFP households have a higher and more diversified sources of income than households without CCFP. CCFP households diversify their livelihoods by investing in agriculture (intensifying land use), raising farm animals and using forest resources. In addition, income inequality among CCFP households is greater than iii that among nonparticipants. Remittances increase total income inequality for all households regardless whether their participation in the CCFP. Local off-farm income, however, have the opposite effects for the two types of households. A random effect regression analysis suggests EWFP payments significantly increase total income and add to income inequality while CCFP payments make little contribution to income inequality. Overall, these findings provide valuable inputs for policy makers aiming to achieve sustainability for PES programs in the future. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my advisor, Conghe Song, for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of my dissertation. I offer my sincere appreciation for the learning opportunities provided by my committee, Dick Bilsborrow, Xiaodong Chen, Pam Jagger and Steve Walsh, for their advices throughout the research. My completion of this dissertation could not have been accomplished without the support my research group members: Matt Dannenberg, Chris Hakkenberg, Chong Liu, Tong Qiu, Ling Shi, Ying Wang and Yulong Zhang. The discussion with them provides me with great thoughts in survey data analysis and spatial data interpretation. Thanks also to the support of Matthew J. Burbank Summer Research Fellowship from the graduate school of UNC, which provided me with the opportunity for data collection during summer 2013. I am also deeply grateful to my parents for their help and guidance for my life. Their valuable and constructive suggestions shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark. Special thanks to my girlfriend, to whom I will propose soon. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... x INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 IMPACTS OF PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON CROPLAND ABANDONMENT ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Study area .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Household survey and fieldwork ........................................................................................ 11 2.2.3 Statistical analyses .............................................................................................................. 12 2.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Temporal dynamics of cropland abandonment ................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Reasons for cropland abandonment .................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Statistical modeling of cropland abandonment ................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 23 IMPACTS OF PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON OUT-MIGRATION ......................... 25 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Theories on migration ................................................................................................................. 28 3.3 Study area .................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4 Research questions and hypotheses ............................................................................................ 33 3.5 Data sources ................................................................................................................................ 34 vi 3.6 Sampling design .......................................................................................................................... 35 3.7 Analytical and statistical methods ............................................................................................... 37 3.8 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 41 3.8.1 Temporal trend .................................................................................................................... 41 3.8.2 Descriptive analysis ............................................................................................................ 44 3.8.3 Determinants of out-migration: multivariate results ........................................................... 48 3.8.4 Interpreting the marginal effects ......................................................................................... 53 3.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 54 IMPACTS OF PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON RURAL LIVELIHOODS ................. 58 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.2 Materials and methods ................................................................................................................ 61 4.2.1 Study area ............................................................................................................................ 61 4.2.2 Data acquisition, entry and preparation .............................................................................. 63 4.2.2.1 Household survey ............................................................................................................ 63 4.2.2.2 Data estimation and imputation ...................................................................................... 63 4.2.3 Income levels and sources ................................................................................................... 64 4.2.4 Income inequality and income generation .........................................................................