Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services

By Jianguo Liu, Shuxin Li, Zhiyun Ouyang, Christine Tam, Xiaodong Chen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008

1,362 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/caa5fa6050611ca12b415327c3b77d19d643f6fd

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework (2014, background): “Liu et al. (2008) suggest that 30 million farming households have benefitted directly from the SLCP.”
Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions (2012, background): “China, for instance, has pursued multiple national policies on payments for ecosystem services aiming to harmonize human development goals with watershed protection, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and other environmental objectives, with planned investment on the order of $100 bill”
Range-wide analysis of wildlife habitat: Implications for conservation (2010, background): “As nation-wide conservation programs have the promise to increase forest cover in China (Liu et al., 2008), we suggest that the managers of these programs in the southernmost mountain regions of the giant panda range consider including active restoration of giant panda habitat in their operations…”
Reconnecting to the Biosphere (2011, background): “Overall, social impacts of the programs are mixed and depend on the details of the financial incentives and property rights (Liu et al. 2008; Cao et al. 2009).”
Giant panda distributional and habitat‐use shifts in a changing landscape (2018, background): “This finding is a strong endorsement of China's forestry policies, such as the logging ban and reforestation programs (Liu et al., 2008, 2016; Loucks et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2017), and suggests that having set these ecological processes in motion, habitat will continue to improve.”
Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “Some developing countries like Mexico, Costa Rica and Ecuador have already included PES in national policy (Wunder et al., 2008), while other major players like China are getting on board as well with large-scale projects valued in the billions of dollars (Liu et al., 2008).”
The Role of Forest-Related Income in Household Economies and Rural Livelihoods in the Border-Region of Southern China (2013, background): “In theory, both forest and crop land should have been originally allocated to households in an egalitarian fashion based on household numbers, with larger households entitled to proportionally larger allocations (Lohmar & Somwaru, 2002).”
Climate adaptation, local institutions, and rural livelihoods: A comparative study of herder communities in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, China (2013, background): “One of these policies, known as ‘‘Grain to Green,’’ involves converting pastures and farmland to grasslands (Liu et al., 2008).”
Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver (2009, background): “China, for instance, is investing over 700 billion yuan (about US$102.6 billion) in ecosystem service payments, in the current decade (Liu et al. 2008).”
Forest Sustainability in China and Implications for a Telecoupled World (2013, neutral): “The NFCP and the GTGP initiated in the late 1990s (Liu & Diamond 2005; Liu et al. 2008) prompted increases in the imports of forest products and food because NFCP banned the logging of natural forests, and GTGP converted agricultural land to forests or grasslands.”
Notions of Justice in Payments for Ecosystem Services:Insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province (2015, background): “revisions of the program’s implementation modalities has qualified the initial insights into local livelihood outcomes, noting that it may actually generate positive income effects and thereby contribute to reforestation and economic development under certain conditions (Liu et al., 2008; Hoga”