IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i9p286-d402106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers (EFRs) for the Poor: Goal Positioning and Realistic Choices—Evidence from the Re-Employment Behavior of EFRs in Sichuan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhongcheng Yan

    (College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be regarded as co-first authors.)

  • Feng Wei

    (College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and should be regarded as co-first authors.)

  • Yaru Chen

    (Economic Development Research Center, National Forestry and Grassland Bureau, China, Beijing100011, China)

  • Xin Deng

    (College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Yanbin Qi

    (College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

Abstract

Ecological or environmental compensation policies are usually designed with multiple policy objectives such as protecting the ecological environment and promoting farmers’ livelihoods, but in the enforcement process, there are often inconsistencies between realistic choices and policy objectives. Based on pooled cross-section data from the 2017–2019 public announcement of the selection of ecological forest rangers (EFRs, who mainly refers to manage and protect forests, grasslands, deserts and rivers, and report or prevent the situation or behavior of the forest area disasters, animal and plant resources, and infrastructure damage in time) among the poor in Sichuan Province in China, we used the Probit model to analyze the influencing factors of the re-employment behavior of EFRs among the poor, with the aim of assessing the differences between central government goal positioning and local government enforcement options. We find that (1) EFRs from poor households who have not yet escaped poverty and have a high per capita income level are given priority to be re-employed. This finding shows that the policy of ecological forest rangers for the poor (PEFRP, it mainly refers to an environmental protection policy that only hires the poor) pays close attention to poverty reduction goals, but it does not consider the poorest people because the EFRs with a higher income obtain higher re-employment opportunities. (2) Age, health, and education, which represent the human capital level, have no significant impact on renewal. This finding shows that the local government has not jointly achieved the goal of “poverty reduction and environmental protection” in the enforcement of the PEFRP and has deviated from the initial goal positioning of the central government. Therefore, in order to achieve the multiple policy objectives such as poverty reduction and environmental protection together, future policy enforcement needs to be adjusted in terms of local administrative assessment and the selection and recruitment of EFRs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhongcheng Yan & Feng Wei & Yaru Chen & Xin Deng & Yanbin Qi, 2020. "The Policy of Ecological Forest Rangers (EFRs) for the Poor: Goal Positioning and Realistic Choices—Evidence from the Re-Employment Behavior of EFRs in Sichuan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:9:p:286-:d:402106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/9/286/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/9/286/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    3. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Hu, Yuanning & Huang, Jikun & Hou, Lingling, 2019. "Impacts of the Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on Household Livestock Production in China: An Empirical Study in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 248-256.
    5. Nicholas J Pates & Nathan P Hendricks, 2020. "Additionality from Payments for Environmental Services with Technology Diffusion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 281-299, January.
    6. Haas, Johannes Christian & Loft, Lasse & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2019. "How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 205-214.
    7. Ranjan, Ram, 2019. "Deriving double dividends through linking payments for ecosystem services to environmental entrepreneurship: The case of the invasive weed Lantana camara," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Lei Zhang & Qin Tu & Arthur P. J. Mol, 2008. "Payment for Environmental Services: The Sloping Land Conversion Program in Ningxia Autonomous Region of China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 16(2), pages 66-81, March.
    9. Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J.C. & Budds, J., 2015. "Payments for environmental services and control over conservation of natural resources: The role of public and private sectors in the conservation of the Nima watershed, Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 295-302.
    10. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    11. Brownson, Katherine & Anderson, Elizabeth P. & Ferreira, Susana & Wenger, Seth & Fowler, Laurie & German, Laura, 2020. "Governance of Payments for Ecosystem Ecosystem services influences social and environmental outcomes in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    13. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    14. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Clot, Sophie & Stanton, Charlotte Y., 2014. "Present bias predicts participation in payments for environmental services: Evidence from a behavioral experiment in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 162-170.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lei Hua & Rong Ran & Mingjuan Xie & Tingrou Li, 2024. "The capacity of land carbon sinks in poverty-stricken areas in China continues to increase in the process of eradicating extreme poverty: evidence from a study of poverty-stricken counties on the Qing," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17253-17280, July.
    2. Andrew Rule & Sarah-Eve Dill & Gordy Sun & Aidan Chen & Senan Khawaja & Ingrid Li & Vincent Zhang & Scott Rozelle, 2022. "Challenges and Opportunities in Aligning Conservation with Development in China’s National Parks: A Narrative Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Ran, Rong & Hua, Lei & Xiao, Junfu & Ma, Li & Pang, Mingyue & Ni, Zhengxing, 2023. "Can poverty alleviation policy enhance ecosystem service value? Evidence from poverty-stricken regions in China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1509-1525.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. Gallemore, Caleb & Pham, Thu Thuy & Hamilton, Matthew & Munroe, Darla K., 2024. "Vietnam's Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services scheme's puzzling role in protecting longstanding forests as deforestation rates rise," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Benjamin S. Thompson, 2021. "Corporate Payments for Ecosystem Services in Theory and Practice: Links to Economics, Business, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    7. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Jianmei Zhang & Jiwei Zhu & Yu Liu & Nan Lu & Wenxing Fang, 2022. "The Economic Impact of Payments for Water-related Ecosystem Services on Protected Areas: a Synthetic Control Analysis," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(5), pages 1535-1551, March.
    10. Silva-Muller, Livio, 2022. "Payment for ecosystem services and the practices of environmental fieldworkers in policy implementation: The case of Bolsa Floresta in the Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    11. Shengli Dai & Weimin Zhang & Linshan Lan, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of China’s Ecological Protection Compensation Policy Based on PMC Index Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-24, August.
    12. Naime, Julia & Angelsen, Arild & Rodriguez-Ward, Dawn & Sills, Erin O., 2024. "Participation, anticipation effects and impact perceptions of two collective incentive-based conservation interventions in Ucayali, Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    13. Kemigisha, Esther & Babweteera, Fred & Mugisha, Johnny & Angelsen, Arild, 2023. "Payment for environmental services to reduce deforestation: Do the positive effects last?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    14. Loft, Lasse & Gehrig, Stefan & Le, Dung Ngoc & Rommel, Jens, 2019. "Effectiveness and equity of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Real-effort experiments with Vietnamese land users," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 218-228.
    15. Pham, Van Truong & Roongtawanreongsri, Saowalak & Ho, Thong Quoc & Tran, Phuong Hanh Niekdam, 2021. "Can payments for forest environmental services help improve income and attitudes toward forest conservation? Household-level evaluation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Stefano Bruzzese & Iva Tolić Mandić & Sanja Tišma & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun & Dijana Vuletić, 2023. "A Framework Proposal for the Ex Post Evaluation of a Solution-Driven PES Scheme: The Case of Medvednica Nature Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-22, May.
    17. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    18. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    19. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    20. Garrett, R.D. & Grabs, J. & Cammelli, F. & Gollnow, F. & Levy, S.A., 2022. "Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:9:p:286-:d:402106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.