The implementation and impacts of China's largest payment for ecosystem services program as revealed by longitudinal household data

By R. Yin, Can Liu, Minjuan Zhao, Shunbo Yao, Hao Liu. 2014

171 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “For instance, SLCP payments were higher than the opportunity costs of retired land (Liang et al., 2012), while the payments of the PSAH in Mexico were lower than alternative incomes (Alix-Garcia et al., 2014; García-Amado et al., 2011; Scullion et al., 2011).”
China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects (2016, unknown): “While studies conducted in Shaanxi–Gansu–Sichuan provide empirical evidence for an overall increase in farmers’ incomes [23– 25], it was only after several years that the CCFP effectively promoted a shift in employment from agriculture to livestock-rearing, and then towards off-farm activities, thus”
The Sloping Land Conversion Program in China: Effect on the Livelihood Diversification of Rural Households (2015, methodology): “As for the configuration of the sample (See Table 1), a stratified sampling technique was adopted (Yin et al., 2014).”