Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:13:00.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Program sustainability and the determinants of farmers’ self-predicted post-program land use decisions: evidence from the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2013

Xiaojun Yang  and
Jintao Xu
Xiaojun Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, SE 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. Tel: +46 31 786 4669. E-mail: xiaojun.yang@economics.gu.se
Jintao Xu
Affiliation:
College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, and National School of Development, Peking University, China. E-mail: xujt@pku.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we evaluate the long-run sustainability of China's Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) by investigating the determinants of farmers’ self-predicted post-program land use decisions. We use data from a household survey conducted in 2005, with a particular focus on a dependent variable that reflects farmers’ ordinal responses to a question about their probability of converting the enrolled lands back to cultivation after the program ends. First, we find that targeting the program on steeper sloped and lower quality plots can significantly decrease the probability of reconversion. Second, there is a significant and robust household income structure effect on the reconversion probability. Third, participating households with the right to decide what to plant on enrolled land have a higher probability of maintaining the reforested land after the program ends. Finally, subsidy shortfall has a positive influence on the probability of reconversion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 1: China's Environmental Policy , February 2014 , pp. 30 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, M. and Chytilova, C. (2009), ‘Women, children and patience: experimental evidence from Indian villages’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 4241. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, M. (2009), ‘When perception is reality: subjective expectations and contracting’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 1377–1381.Google Scholar
Bennett, M.T. (2008), ‘China's Sloping Land Conversion Program: institutional innovation or business as usual?’, Ecological Economics 65: 699–711.Google Scholar
Bennett, M.T., Aashish, M., and Xu, J. (2011), ‘Incomplete property rights, exposure to markets and the provision of ecosystem services in China’, China Economic Review 22(11): 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J.C. and Osborn, T. (1998), ‘The effect of rental rates on the extension of Conservation Reserve Program contracts’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1): 184–194.Google Scholar
Delavande, A. and Kohler, H.P. (2009), ‘Subjective expectations in the context of HIV/AIDS in Malawi’, Demographic Research 20: 817–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deng, X.Z., Huang, J.K., Rozelle, S., and Uchida, E. (2006), ‘Cultivated land conversion and agricultural productivity in China’, Land Use Policy 23(4): 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, Z.M., Yang, Y.Z., Zhang, Y.Q., Zhang, P.T., and Li, Y.Q. (2005), ‘Grain-for-Green policy and its impact on grain supply in west China’, Land Use Policy 22(4): 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B.S. and Stutzer, A. (2002), ‘What can economists learn from happiness research?’, Journal of Economic Literature 40(2): 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauvin, C., Uchida, E., Rozelle, S., Xu, J., and Zhan, J. (2009), ‘Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation’, Environmental Management 45(3): 488–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groom, B., Grosjean, P., Kontoleon, A., Swanson, T., and Zhang, S. (2010), ‘Relaxing rural constraints: a “win-win” policy for poverty and environment in China?’, Oxford Economic Papers 62: 132–156.Google Scholar
Grosjean, P. and Kontoleon, A. (2009), ‘How sustainable are sustainable development programs? The case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China’, World Development 37(1): 268–285.Google Scholar
Johnson, P., Misra, S., and Ervin, R. (1997), ‘A qualitative choice analysis of factors influencing post-CRP land use decisions’, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 29(1): 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C.F. (2004), ‘Measuring expectations’, Econometrica 72: 1329–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyarko, Y. and Schotter, A. (2002), ‘An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs’, Econometrica 70: 971–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A., and Platais, G. (2005), ‘Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America’, World Development 33: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M.J. and Lubowski, R.N. (2007), ‘Enduring impacts of land retirement policies: evidence from the Conservation Reserve Program’, Land Economics 83(4): 516–538.Google Scholar
Rozelle, S., Loren, B., Li, G., and Huang, J.K. (2002), ‘Land rights in China: fact, fiction, and issues’, China Journal 47: 67–97.Google Scholar
SFA (2003), Sloping Land Conversion Program Plan (2001–2010), Beijing: State Forestry Administration [in Chinese].Google Scholar
Skaggs, R.K., Kirksey, R.E., and Harper, W.M. (1994), ‘Determinants and implications of post-CRP land use decisions’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2): 299–312.Google Scholar
Uchida, E., Xu, J., and Rozelle, S. (2005), ‘Cost effectiveness and sustainability of China conservation set-aside program’, Land Economics 81(2): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchida, E., Xu, J., Xu, Z., and Rozelle, S. (2007), ‘Are the poor benefiting from China's land conservation program?’, Environment and Development Economics 12(4): 593–620.Google Scholar
Uchida, E., Rozelle, S., and Xu, J. (2009), ‘Conservation payment, liquidity constraints, and off-farm labor: impact of the Grain-for-Green program of rural households in China’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1): 70–86.Google Scholar
Xu, J. and Cao, Y. (2002), ‘The sustainability of converting the land for forestry and pasture’, International Economic Review 2: 56–60.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Tao, R., and Xu, Z. (2004b), ‘Sloping Land Conversion Program cost-effectiveness, structural effect and economic sustainability’, China Economic Quarterly 4(1): 139–162.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Yin, R., Li, Z., and Liu, C. (2006b), ‘China's ecological rehabilitation: unprecedented efforts, dramatic impacts and requisite policies’, Ecological Economics 57(4): 595–607.Google Scholar
Xu, J., Tao, R., Xu, Z., and Bennett, M.T. (2010), ‘China's Sloping Land Conversion Program: does expansion equal success?’, Land Economics 86(2): 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Z., Bennett, M., Tao, R., and Xu, J. (2004a), ‘China's Sloping Land Conversion Program four years on: current situation, pending issues’, International Forestry Review 6(3–4): 317–326.Google Scholar
Xu, Z., Xu, J., Deng, X., Huang, J., Uchida, E., and Rozelle, S. (2006a), ‘Grain for Green versus grain: conflict between food security and conservation set-aside in China’, World Development 34(1): 130–148.Google Scholar
Yang, X. and Carlsson, F. (2012), ‘Intra-household decision-making on intertemporal choices: an experimental study in rural China’, Working Paper No. 537, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Zilberman, D., Lipper, L., and McCarthy, N. (2008), ‘When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?’, Environment and Development Economics 13: 255–278.Google Scholar