Grain for Green: Cost-Effectiveness and Sustainability of China’s Conservation Set-Aside Program

By E. Uchida, Jintao Xu, Scott Rozelle. Land Economics, 2005

385 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2137c182cba2a187f3fc284e54aa518bc00b4fdc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects (2016, positive): “In another study conducted in Ningxia and Guizhou provinces, the payments paid to farmers for entering their plots into the program largely exceed the plot’s opportunity cost, although there was a considerable degree in differentiation between lower-yielding plots’ over-compensation (mostly in Ningx”
Payment for Ecosystem Services from Forests (2014, background): “Ajayi et al.. (2012) and Jack (2013) are two notable exceptions.”
How sustainable are sustainable development programs? The case of the sloping land conversion program in China. (2009, background): “The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China PAULINE GROSJEAN University of California at Berkeley, CA, USA and ANDREAS KONTOLEON * University of Cambridge, UK Summary.”
The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services (2008, background): “China’s ‘Grain for Green’ program also offers flat payments, although farmers are paid for conservation activities such as reforestation rather than for preserving standing forests (Uchida et al., 2005).”
Targeted poverty alleviation and land policy innovation: Some practice and policy implications from China (2018, background): “Institutional factors affecting China’s effectiveness of poverty alleviation mainly include land system, household registration system and ecological environment protection policies (Dong, 1996; Uchida et al., 2005; Heilig et al., 2006; Emran and Hou, 2013; Zhang et al., 2015).”
Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program (2012, methodology): “Previous studies on China’s Sloped Land Conversion Program (Xu et al. 2004, 2005; Uchida, Xu, and Rozelle 2005) also indicate that programs in China have achieved significant soil conservation benefits on the basis of modeling using household surveys on participant behavior and targeting criteria.”
Implications for development of grain-for-green policy based on cropland suitability evaluation in desertification-affected north China (2007, background): “Important causes for the low survival rate and slow growth include water deficit problems, inappropriate choice of tree species, careless planting and inadequate management (Uchida et al., 2004).”
Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints, and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on Rural Households in China (2009, neutral): “For example, if an average household in Sichuan Province (Yangtze River basin) received full compensation, it would receive 340 yuan per capita, an amount equal to 24 percent of the average household’s preprogram total per capita income in 1999 (Uchida et al., 2005).”
Quantifying the effectiveness of ecological restoration projects on long-term vegetation dynamics in the karst regions of Southwest China (2017, background): “Limited by a low water use efficiency, planted trees grow slowly (or do not grow at all) and the ecological value is thereby questionable (Cao, 2011; Trac et al., 2007; Uchida et al., 2005; Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005).”
Are the poor benefiting from China's land conservation program? (2007, neutral): “If implemented to its intended size, such a program would surpass in area the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the United States (Xu et al. , 2004a).”
The tradeoff and synergy between ecosystem services in the Grain-for-Green areas in Northern Shaanxi, China (2014, background): “One of the world’s most ambitious ecosystem conservaion set-aside programs is the Grain for Green Program launched n China in 1999 (Uchida et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2009).”
China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? (2008, methodology): “Uchida et al. (2004) and Xu et al. (2005) also find little evidence in the 2003 survey that poorer households within the areas where SLCP is being implemented are being predominantly targeted.”
Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services (2008, background): “Slope steepness, 15° in northwestern China and 25° elsewhere (32), is the main criterion by which plots are chosen for inclusion in the GTGP.”
Grain for Green versus Grain : Conflict between Food Security and Conservation Set-Aside in China (2006, background): “Although it is perhaps not surprising that total income did not fall since farmers received compensatory payments from the government, contrary to some prior expectations, even agricultural income did not decrease in some regions (Uchida et al., 2004, 2005; Xu et al., 2002).”
Impact of China's Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Program on the Environment and Society in Arid and Semiarid Areas of China: Achievements, Problems, Synthesis, and Applications (2011, background): “…project areas, most of which are located in impoverished regions of China, decreased significantly because the ban on logging and grazing led to severe shrinkage of the parts of the economy that were based on these activities without an offsetting development of new industry (Uchida et al., 2005).”
Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “Part of the PES literature is about taking land out of production (91), ecological restoration, and nature management.”