ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE SLOPING LAND CONVERSION PROGRAMME ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, WESTERN CHINA

Download ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE SLOPING LAND CONVERSION PROGRAMME ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, WESTERN CHINA

Post on 06-Aug-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE SLOPININ

    HESF) e.ademtsdam

    8 Mar

    TRA

    o comabilitIA)lternaRegcontids environonom

    were still tolerable. The FoPIA results were evaluated against the available literature on the SLCP. Overall, the assessment results appeared to be

    land degradation & developmentLand Degrad. Develop. (2012)

    Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyokeywords: land conversion; land use; afforestation; land use functions; Grain forGreen Project; ex-ante impact assessment; sustainable development; stakeholder participation

    INTRODUCTION

    The remote and less-developed region of Guyuan in WesternChina is threatened by vast soil erosion and land degradationproblems due to fragile soils, droughts and increasing con-sumption of natural resources by a growing population. Theimpact of land conversion programmes on rural sustainabilityin such a problematic area is of particular interest, the infor-mation has the potential to help avoid a further worseningof undesired development trends.In 1999, the Chinese government initiated the nationwide

    sloping land conversion programme (SLCP), also known asthe Grain for Green Project to tackle this problem (Xuet al., 2004). The programme was implemented by convert-ing crop production on erosion prone land with steep slopesinto forests and grassland in large parts of the upper Yellowand the Yangtze River basins (Xu et al., 2006). Besides

    having the major goal of reducing land degradation, the SLCPalso aimed at alleviating rural poverty and at stimulatingeconomic development in rural regions (Bennett, 2008;Grosjean and Kontoleon, 2009). Cropland on slopes steeperthan 25 degrees was intended to be converted into ecologicalforests (with primary ecological functions) and grassland,whereas cropland on slopes between 15 and 25 degrees wasintended to be converted into economic forests or grasslandincluding fruit orchards and timber plantations (Weyerhaeuseret al., 2005; Ye et al., 2003). Between 2000 and 2009, 48per cent of the cropland was been converted into forest landin Guyuan, according to regional experts. Between 2010 and2016, an additional 34 per cent of cropland will be retiredand used for afforestation purposes.Farmers affected by the programme are supposed to

    receive compensation as cash (300Yuan per ha) and grains(1500 kg per ha) (Bennett, 2008). Financial compensationis provided for varying duration, depending on the type ofconversion: 2 years for conversion into grassland, 5 years

    *Correspondence to: H. J. Knig, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural LandscapeResearch (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Strae 84, D-15374 Mncheberg,contributing to economic and social benets in Guyuan. Copyright reasonable, but the results of the regional stakeholders appeared to be too optimistic compared with the more critical assessment of the scientists.The SLCP seems to have the potential to tackle soil erosion but requires integrated forest management to minimize the risk of water stress while

    2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY

    H. J. KNIG1,3*, L. ZHEN2, K. HELMING1, S. UT1Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZAL

    2Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Ac3Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Po

    Received: 13 July 2011; Revised:

    ABS

    The goal of Chinas sloping land conversion programme (SLCP) is tof possible SLCP impacts was conducted with a focus on rural sustainexample. The Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPassessing SLCP impacts at regional level and a second one assessing athe economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.erosion but felt it negatively affected rural employment, and a furthermanagement scenarios by scientists showed that an orientation towarsions. Ecological forests had disproportionate positive impacts on endimensions. Economic forests were assessed to serve primarily the ecGermany.E-mail: hkoenig@zalf.dePresent address: Beijing Tsinghua Urban Planning & Design Institute,Environmental & Infrastructural Division, 1A, East Qinghe Jiayuan, Beijing100085, China

    Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.G LAND CONVERSION PROGRAMMEGUYUAN, WESTERN CHINA

    1, L. YANG2, X. CAO2 AND H. WIGGERING1,3

    V., Eberswalder Strae 84, 15374 Mncheberg, Germanyy of Sciences, 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101 PR China, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 2425, 14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany

    ch 2012; Accepted: 5 April 2012

    CT

    bat soil erosion and to reduce rural poverty. An ex-ante assessmenty, taking the drought-prone region of Guyuan in Western China as anwas used to conduct two complementary impact assessments, onetive forest management options, to explore possible trade-offs amongional stakeholders assessed the SLCP to be capable of reducing soilnuation of the Programme was advocated. Assessment of three forestergy forests is potentially benecial to all three sustainability dimen-mental functions and adverse impact on the other two sustainabilityic and social sustainability dimensions, while environmental impacts

    nlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2164for conversion into economic forests, and for a maximum8 years for conversion into ecological forests.The SLCP has widely been recognized as being effective

    in terms of land conversion efforts with a total size of

  • 146 000 square kilometres of cropland being converted atnational level between 1999 and 2010 (Yin and Yin,2010). Several studies have attempted to evaluate the SLCP,for example, related to food security issues (e.g., Feng et al.,2005; Peng et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2006; Yang, 2004), soilproperties (e.g., Cao et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007b;Zhang et al., 2010), water balance (e.g., Chen et al.,2007a; Gates et al., 2011; Huang and Pang, 2011; Sunet al., 2006) as well as aspects of programme implementa-tion, participation and effectiveness (e.g., Bennett, 2008;Uchida et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2004; Yin and Yin, 2010).In summary, most available SLCP impact studies lookedat economic and social aspects, whereas few studies inves-tigated environmental impacts (this might be reasonablebecause quantitative data related to forest ecology requirelong-term monitoring systems). However, none of thesestudies have integrated all dimensions of sustainabilityyet, nor have they adequately the ex-ante impacts of theSLCP at aggregated level.In this study, an attempt is made to combine regional

    stakeholder knowledge with scientic expertise in order toconduct a more comprehensive and reected impact assess-ment study. Stakeholder participation in environmental stud-ies can be used, for example, to integrate local knowledge(Stringer and Reed, 2007; Vogt et al., 2011) and to considerdifferent perceptions of stakeholders (Reed et al., 2007;

    explored possible contributions of alternative forest man-agement scenarios to regional sustainability. The studyhad an isolated view of the forestry sector, while in thisstudy the focus was on impacts of different SLCP imple-mentation options (conversion of cropland into forests) onregional sustainability covering all land use sectors. Findingsfrom Knig et al. (2010) are used to study the regionalimpacts of the SLCP implementation as well as possible con-sequences of alternative forest management. Subsequently,results from both assessments are discussed in a complemen-tary way. The aim of this study therefore was to conducta comprehensive ex-ante impact assessment of the SLCPcovering the economic, social and environmental dimensionsof sustainability. The results of the Framework for Participa-tory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) were evaluated underconsideration of the available scientic literature on theSLCP reviewed.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study Area

    The case study region of Guyuan is located in the centreof the Loess Plateau in the southern part of the Huiautonomous region of Ningxia (Figure 1). The main regionalproblems are harsh environmental conditions, land degrada-

    he stu

    H. J. KNIG ET AL.Schwilch et al., 2011). A previous study of Knig (2010)

    Figure 1. Location map of tCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.dy area of Guyuan, China.tion and low economic development (Zhen et al., 2009a;LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • SLCP LAND CONVERSION IMPACTS ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, CHINAZhu et al., 1986). The climate is semi-arid with cold, drywinters and hot, wet summers. The average annual rainfallis 470mm with regional variability. The terrain is mountain-ous with elevations ranging from 1248 to 2942m a.s.l.The main land use activities are smallholder subsistence

    agriculture and livestock husbandry with an average farmsize of 46mu (15mu=1ha) per family household. In 2009,the rural farm household activities were typically 61 per centon-farm activities, such as cropping (50 per cent), livestockbreeding (11 per cent), off-farm work (37 per cent) and otheractivities (2 per cent). Agriculture is rainfed, and the majorcrops include maize, wheat, potato, millet, oilseeds and severallegume species (Zhen et al., 2009a). The livestock includessheep, goats, beef cattle, dairy cows, pigs and poultry. Theremaining natural vegetation includes wild grassland andshrubs that grow mainly on the steep slopes where humanactivities are restricted (Chen et al., 2001).Poor economic development is considered a major con-

    straint for development in Guyuan where there is a lowGDP per capita of RMB8470, which was only 29 per centof the Chinese national average of RMB 29 992 in 2010.The average income per rural households was RMB3477,which is 59 per cent of the national average of RMB5919in 2010. With the SLCP, Guyuan follows a model centredon environmental priority where economic developmentcomes only as a second goal (Zhen et al., 2009b).

    General Impact Assessment Approach

    An approach for structuring the impact assessment of landuse changes while equally covering the three sustainabilitydimensions (economic, social, environmental) is proposedby Helming et al. (2011) making use of so-called land usefunctions (LUFs) as developed by Prez-Soba et al.(2008). This framework appeared to be suitable for Guyuanand was therefore adopted for this study, but it proved to bechallenging to quantify the impact of alternative land usescenarios, such as land conversion as in the case of theSLCP, on the LUFs. Ideally, impacts on LUFs would bederived from a combination of (i) ex-post analysis of moni-toring data; (ii) ex-ante simulation experiments, for example,as in the case of the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool(Sieber et al., 2008; Uthes et al., 2010); and (iii) participa-tory expert-based tools (Morris et al., 2011) to also considerstakeholder perceptions and expert knowledge. A thoroughliterature survey should accompany all three steps to ensurethey are up-to-date and allow for validation.However, as in many cases in developing and transition

    countries, lack of data prevented the rst two types of analysis(Reidsma et al., 2011). Area-wide, spatially explicit monitor-ing data of the SLCP implementation in Guyuan did not exist.Some unofcial paper-based reports were found, but their reli-ability is unclear, reporting high tree survival rates of 80 to 90per cent. Personnel from the responsible government agenciesCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.disclosed that dead trees were simply replaced by new seed-lings, without actually reporting this. Field visits were limitedto demonstration sites and therefore not representative. Otherstudies circumvented such diculties by surveying SLCP parti-cipants (e.g., Uchida et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2004; Yang, 2004).Participants answers are a common source of information, buttheir reliability is unclear, particularly because farmers usuallyhave a sector-specic view and are often less well educated,therefore less likely to be capable of performing sustainabilityassessments, and involuntary participation is a frequentlyobserved phenomenon (Grosjean and Kontoleon, 2009).

    The FoPIA Approach

    To assess programme effects at an aggregated regional scale,it appeared to be more promising to take the road of a partic-ipatory expert-based approach to analysis, by making use ofthe FoPIA (Morris et al., 2011). The FoPIA comprises a prep-aration phase and an expert workshop, which follows a struc-tured sequence of assessment steps, including (i) interactivedevelopment of regional land use scenarios; (ii) specicationof the sustainability context; and (iii) expert-based assessmentof scenario impacts and analysis of possible trade-offs amongthe economic, social and environmental sustainability dimen-sions. An after-workshop evaluation phase is used to furtheranalyze and document workshop results.The approach benets from a diverse group composition, as

    only then, a variety of different views can be considered, butgroup diversity also adversely affects scenario complexity.For example, a heterogeneous group can usually handle rela-tively simple scenarios because the group members will feelcapable of assessing them. On-the-other-hand, because of thevariety of views considered, an aggregated assessment, for ex-ample, at the level of sustainability, is more likely to achievesucccess with such a group. In contrast, a more homogenousgroup, for example, experts in one eld, will be able to dealwith complex scenario assumptions; results, however, willlikely remain at the level of the disciplines involved and there-fore not allow for overall conclusions on sustainability.Given the aforementioned issues, we decided to follow a

    two-step approach. A rst FoPIA workshop was held in 2009in Guyuan with a heterogeneous group of regional expertsSLCP (from now on referred to as regional group) to assessthe impact of SLCP land conversion on sustainability at the re-gional level, with the use of relatively simple scenario assump-tions. A second FoPIA workshop was held at the ChineseAcademy of Science in Beijing in 2010 with a relatively ho-mogenous group of scientists from different national researchinstitutes to assess the impact of more complex scenarios focus-ing on alternative SLCP forest management options (from nowon referred to as forest group). Work from the second work-shop has been published in a previous article by Knig(2010), but this study had an isolated view on the forestry sectorand did not consider SLCP impacts on regional sustainability.LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • Workshop Participants

    The regional group was directly consulted in Guyuan andincluded ten experts from the Bureau of EnvironmentalProtection, Development and Reform Commission, GuyuanAgriculture Research Institute, Bureau of Forestry, Depart-ment of Regional Water Management, Bureau of Agricul-ture and Animal Husbandry and Bureau of Land ResourceManagement. The workshop was part of a longer eld tripand was accompanied by a household survey in three vil-lages and a participatory rural appraisal in one village.For the forest group, ten researchers with a specic

    knowledge about the regional conditions in Guyuan andspecic expertise on the SLCP were invited to participatein an expert workshop, including scientists from the ChineseAcademy of Forestry (CAF), the Department of NaturalGeography (IGSNRR, CAS), the Department of HumanGeography (IGSNRR, CAS), the Department of Natural

    forest group assessed the impact of three alternative forestmanagement scenarios, including an economic-forest (F1),an ecological-forest (F2) and an energy forest management(F3) scenario (Table I). Land use sectors included agricul-ture, forestry and build-up areas. The target year for allscenarios was 2020. Both workshops started with the intro-duction of a drafted set of scenario narratives, which werepresented to the corresponding workshop participants.

    Expert-based Impact Assessment

    A set of nine LUFs and nine forest functions (FFs) had beendeveloped prior to the workshop, taking the general set ofLUFs from a paper by Prez-Soba et al. (2008) as startingpoint and were introduced to the regional group and theforest group, respectively (Table II). Both sets of functionswere equally balanced among the economic, social and envi-ronmental sustainability dimensions. Together with the

    anag

    ly

    opes8% and 2009

    slopeover

    prico

    econ

    prod

    H. J. KNIG ET AL.Resources and Environmental Security (IGSNRR, CAS)and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).

    Expert-developed Scenarios

    Scenario narratives were drafted by the research team, on thebasis of available data and gures, and presented to theregional group and the forest group for discussion, respec-tively. Scenario assumptions were elaborated together withthe group participants considering implicit knowledge andto ensure a commonly understood and accepted set ofscenarios (Table I). In the regional group, three scenarioswere assessed, including two SLCP implementation scenarios[rst phase of the implementation between 2000 and 2009(S2), and a second implementation phase between 2010 and2016 (S3)] and a reference scenario (S1) that served asa counterfactual to assess impacts in the absence of theSLCP (continuation of crop production) (Table I). The

    Table I. SLCP implementation scenarios (S1, S2, S3) and forest m

    Scenario Scenario characteristics

    S1: (REF) Forest cover at 128%; remaining land mainused for agriculture

    S2: SLCP-1 Conversion of cropland into forest land on slabove 25 degrees; forest cover increases by 4to 176%

    S3: SLCP-2 Conversion of cropland into forest land onbetween 15 degrees and 25 degrees; forest cincreases by additional 34% to 21%

    F1: economic forest Orchards for fruit plantations (e.g., apple, nuts, a

    F2: ecological forest Planting and maintaining trees with limiteduse to restore degraded land

    F3: energy forest Use of sloped and marginal land for bio-energy

    SLCP, Sloping Land Conversion Programme; REF, reference scenario.Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.s All sectors Further expansion of the SLCP between2010 and 2016

    t, etc.) Forest sector Partially established agro-forest type at2025%

    omic Forest sector Main forest type established under theSLCP at 7080% in Guyuan

    uction Forest sector Little recognition yet of less than 1%workshop participants, each function was assigned onecorresponding indicator in order to have a precise criterionfor the impact assessment, for example, regional employ-ment rate for the provision of work or water availability forthe provision of abiotic resources (Table II). We decidedto have only one indicator per function in order to avoidcomplexity and to keep the scenario assessment focusedand operational during the workshops.Subsequently, experts passed two paper-based assessment

    rounds on each workshopone for assigning weights fromone to nine to the different LUFs, reecting their perceivedimportance, and one for assessing the impact of the differentscenarios on the LUFs using a scale from 3 to +3. Aftereach round, the assessment results were projected, discussedand re-scoring was allowed as needed, to reduce the range ofassessment results. For further reading on each step of theFoPIA, see Morris et al. (2011).

    ement scenarios (F1, F2, F3)

    Land usesectors Relevance to Guyuan

    All sectors Reference scenario as without SLCPpolicy implementation

    All sectors SLCP implementation between 2000LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • sessm

    L

    SOC 1: Provision of work

    F

    rrespo

    SLCP LAND CONVERSION IMPACTS ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, CHINAThe assessment of the scenarios for the three sustainabil-ity dimensions is based on an aggregation of the scenarioimpact scores and corresponding LUF and FF weights byusing the following equation:

    wid Xn

    f1wf ;d if ;d (1)

    where: wi is the weighted impact, w is the weight assigned toeach function, i is the average impact for each function, d isthe sustainability dimension (economic, social, environmental)

    SOC 2: Quality of lifeSOC 3: Food securityENV 1: Abiotic resourcesENV 2: Biotic resourcesENV 3: Ecosystem processes

    Forest functions (FFs)ECO 1: Wood productionECO 2: Non-wood productionECO 3: Industry and servicesSOC 1: Forest labourSOC 2: HealthSOC 3: Access to landENV 1: Abiotic resourcesENV 2: Biotic resourcesENV 3: Ecosystem processes

    ECO, economic; SOC, social; ENV, environmental. Forest functions and coTable II. Land use functions, forest functions and corresponding as

    Land use functions (LUFs)ECO 1: Land-based productionECO 2: Non-land-based productionECO 3: Infrastructureand f is the function (n=9).This allows for comparison of different scenarios and a

    ranking of scenarios, based on which, possible implicationsfor land use and decision support can be discussed.

    Literature Survey of SLCP Impact Studies

    A literature survey of SLCP impact studies was conducted onthe basis of scientic databases including SCOPUS and ISIWeb of Knowledge. Key words including sloping landconversion and grain for green were combined with topicsrelated to the nine LUFs and nine FFs (Table II) and resultedin a list of 39 publications covering the relevant topics(Table III). Although we are aware that much has been pub-lished in Chinese, we were only able to consider articles pub-lished in English.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Relative Importance of Land Use Functions

    In the regional group, the economic LUF land-basedproduction (85) was assessed to be of highest priority, as

    Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.it was considered to be the major economic activity of ruralpeople in Guyuan (Table II). Of slightly lower importancewere the environmental LUFs maintenance of ecosystemprocesses (75) and provision of biotic resources (76),reecting the regional vulnerability of the environment inGuyuan, prone to land degradation and losses in bio-diversity. The lowest weights were assigned to the LUFnon-land-based production (60), reecting that most ofthe rural society in Guyuan is still employed in the agricul-tural sector and that opportunities for non-land-basedproduction in this remote region are limited. The LUFs food

    ent indicators

    UF indicatorEconomic production from land (yield)Build-up area (m)Road density and quality (network size and status)Regional employment (%)Net income per household (RMB)Regional food availability (kg/capita)Soil health/quality (status)Habitat and biodiversity (status)Vegetation cover (status)F indicatorIncome from wood harvests (RMB)Income from fruit yields (RMB)Income from forest industry and services (RMB)Sectoral employment (%)Clean air (status)Right to access and utilize forestSoil health/quality (status)Habitat and biodiversity (status)Water availability/yield (m3)

    nding indicators are adapted from Knig (2010) with permission.security (71) and quality of life (70) were reported to betwo major concerns for rural farmers in Guyuan, as agricul-tural production and rural livelihood were frequentlyaffected by droughts, loss of harvests and rural poverty,respectively, and therefore received high scores. Theprovision of abiotic resources (65) related to soil wasperceived to be a critical factor for land-based productionbut relatively less important than other functions. This mayappear contradictory, as the SLCP has a particular focuson this aspect, but reects that the workshop participantsapplied a kind of fairness principle when comparingdifferent functions. Of relatively lowest importance werethe LUFs provision of work (61) and infrastructure (61).Relative Importance of Forest Functions

    In the forest group, all environmental functions were givenhigh weights reecting the need to reduce land degradationin Guyuan with abiotic resources (87), biotic resources(77), maintenance of ecosystem processes (97) (Table II).The economic function income from wood production(60) was assessed to be of lowest importance compared

    LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • TableIII.

    Overviewof

    land

    usefunctions

    (LUFs)andforestfunctions

    (FFs)coveredby

    theimpactstudies(LUFsandFFsexplanations

    canbe

    foundin

    TableII)

    EconomicLUFs

    EconomicFFs

    SocialLUFs

    SocialFFs

    EnvironmentalLUFs/FFs

    Authors

    Year

    ECO1

    ECO2

    ECO3

    ECO1

    ECO2

    ECO3

    SOC1

    SOC2

    SOC3

    SOC1

    SOC2

    SOC3

    ENV1

    ENV2

    ENV3

    Yeet

    al.

    2003

    xx

    xXuet

    al.

    2004

    (x)

    xx

    Hong

    2004

    xx

    Fenget

    al.

    2005

    xx

    Uchidaet

    al.

    2005

    xx

    xx

    Weyerhaeuseret

    al.

    2005

    xx

    xx

    ChenandCai

    2006

    xx

    Edinger

    andHuafang

    2006

    xx

    x(x)

    Longet

    al.

    2006

    xx

    xSun

    etal.

    2006

    xx

    Xuet

    al.

    2006

    xx

    xx

    xx

    Xuet

    al.

    2006

    xx

    Zheng

    2006

    xx

    Cao

    etal.

    2007

    xx

    xChenet

    al.

    2007

    xx

    xChenet

    al.

    2007

    xx

    xx

    McV

    icar

    etal.

    2007

    xx

    Penget

    al.

    2007

    xx

    xUchidaet

    al.

    2007

    (x)

    xx

    Wanget

    al.

    2007

    xBennett*

    2008

    xx

    xx

    Cao

    2008

    xx

    xx

    Wanget

    al.

    2008

    xx

    xZhang

    eta.

    2008

    xx

    Cao

    etal.

    2009

    x(x)

    xx

    x(x)

    xGrosjeanandKontoleon

    2009

    xx

    x(x)

    Heet

    al.

    2009

    xx

    xStokeset

    al.

    2009

    x(x)

    xx

    xUchidaet

    al.

    2009

    xx

    xChenet

    al.

    2009

    xx

    (x)

    xx

    (x)

    Dai

    2010

    xLiu

    etal.

    2010

    xx

    xx

    xWanget

    al.

    2010

    xx

    xx

    xYanget

    al.

    2010

    x(x)

    xYao

    etal.

    2010

    xx

    xx

    Zhang

    etal.

    2010

    xBennettet

    al.

    2011

    xx

    x(x)

    Cao

    etal.

    2011

    xx

    xx

    xx

    Gates

    etal.

    2011

    xx

    Huang

    andPang

    2011

    xx

    xx

    xLUFsandFFsaddressed(n)

    266

    38

    68

    1316

    44

    44

    134

    15

    Topicsthatareonly

    partly

    addressedandnotexplicitlydirected

    totheSLCPareindicatedby

    (x).

    H. J. KNIG ET AL.

    Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • TableIV.Scenarioimpactassessmentresults

    onregionalland

    usefunctions

    andforestfunctions

    (explanations

    ofcorrespondingfunctions

    canbe

    foundin

    TableII)

    Scenario

    ECO1

    ECO2

    ECO3

    SOC1

    SOC2

    SOC3

    ENV1

    ENV2

    ENV3

    Aggregatedimpact

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wi

    wECO

    wSOC

    wENV

    wi

    S1(REF/crop)

    8504

    6007

    6110

    610

    470

    10

    7101

    650

    876

    19

    751

    0137

    87

    271

    222

    S2(SLCP1)

    1410

    100

    417

    1414

    1817

    240

    194

    355

    789

    S3(SLCP2)

    1714

    161

    122

    2124

    2828

    326

    236

    579

    1141

    F1(economic)

    6008

    8028

    7723

    6723

    7318

    7025

    8704

    7705

    970

    4169

    173

    14944

    F2(ecological)

    09

    0301

    08

    3003

    2728

    250

    672

    187

    857

    F3(energy)

    0814

    1501

    1416

    0715

    11103

    7773

    780

    Note:wi,weightedimpact;w

    ,weightassignedtoeach

    function;i,averageimpactforeach

    function;

    d,sustainabilitydimension

    (economic,social,environm

    ental);f,function(n=9).R

    esultsof

    theforest

    scenario

    assessment(F13)

    areadaptedfrom

    Knig

    (2010)

    with

    perm

    ission.

    SLCP LAND CONVERSION IMPACTS ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, CHINAwith other FFs. Wood production was expected to be low astree growth will be slow as a result of high elevations andchronic water shortages. Instead, participants stated thatalternative sources related to income from non-woodproducts (80), for example, fruit production, play a moreimportant role. Income from forest services and processingindustry (77) referring to maintenance activities and forestmanagement were assessed to be of higher importance.The social FFs including the provision of forest labour(67) was considered to be of relatively low importance be-cause of little working opportunities in the forest sector ingeneral as the programme mainly aims to establish ecologicalforests (restricted use). Health (73), in this case related toclean (dust-free) air, was considered to be of high importancebecause frequently occurring dust storms harm the health oflocal people. Access to forests (70) was also perceivedimportant for collecting fuel wood.

    Land Use Functions and Forest Functions Addressed in theLiterature

    Analysis of the literature revealed differences in topics ofavailable impact studies (n = 40). As shown in Table III,most studies have focused on economic and socialimpacts of the SLCP and were mainly related to agriculture(land-based production, n = 26; income, n= 16; and work,n= 13). With regard to forest management, fewer studieswere available and were looking at economic wood produc-tion (n= 8) and forest industry and services (n= 8), whereasnon-wood production (i.e. fruit production) were only partlyaddressed (n = 6). Only few studies were addressing socialissues related to the forest labour sector (n = 4), health(n= 4) and the role of land rights (n = 4). Environmentalstudies have mainly addressed soil and water conservationissues (n = 13) and issues related to ecosystem processes(n= 15). Infrastructure (n = 3) and biodiversity (n = 4) wereusually only mentioned but not part of the analysis.Topics that were less often addressed in the literature

    although of relatively high importance to the regional groupand to the forest group included biodiversity and non-woodproduction, respectively.

    Assessment of the Economic Dimension

    Land-based production and wood production (ECO1)The regional group assessed the conversion of croplandinto forest towards 2020 to increase the overall economicproduction from land in Guyuan (S2, S3) compared withthe reference situation of continued crop production (S1)(Table IV). The forest group assessed the potential economicbenets from wood production to be positive under economicforests (F1), but to perform negatively under ecologicalforests (F2) and limited with energy forests (F3) (Table IV).The quite different perception in the regional group thatafforestation would contribute to economic developmentCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • H. J. KNIG ET AL.was based on the assumption that planting forests wouldgenerally maximize the economic use of marginal land.Wood production does not play a considerable role in

    Guyuan as unfavourable environmental conditions (waterscarcity, high elevations) limit commercial forestry in thisregion (Cao et al., 2009). Economic returns from energyforests (F3) were assessed to provide some benets, but thistype of forest management has not been established inGuyuan yet and might therefore only be realized at smallscale. In this regard, Tang et al. (2010) mentioned thepotential of growing shrubs for energy production on lessproductive sites.

    Non-land-based production and non-wood production(ECO2)The regional group expected the SLCP to stimulate non-land-based development (expansion of build-up areas) (S2,S3) (Table IV) based on the assumption that the SLCP willcontribute to rural economic development through structuralchanges. However, this aspect might be difcult to beattributed directly to the programme because high economicdevelopment at national level has pushed construction activi-ties in China (Zhen et al., 2010).With regard to non-wood production, the two main limit-

    ing factors to plant economically attractive trees (mainlyfruit trees) are water scarcity and lack of management skills.Although about 20 per cent of the afforested land in Guyuanis dedicated to economic forests (F1), a major concernmentioned by the workshop participants was that farmersmight not have sufcient knowledge for actually managingforests and lack technical equipment for maintenanceand harvesting. The issue of insufciently skilled labourforces in the growing forest sector is also addressed byWeyerhaeuser et al. (2005). Several studies found thatfarmers would favour to convert land into economic forests(e.g., Weyerhaeuser et al., 2005; Yang, 2004; Ye et al.,2003), but the decision of tree selection (and provision) isusually taken by the local governments (Bennett et al., 2011).

    Infrastructure and (forest) industry and services (ECO3)Similar to the results of non-land-based production (ECO2)infrastructure (ECO3) development was assessed to benetunder the SLCP (S2, S3) (Table IV), assuming that theprogramme will lead to higher investments into road con-struction projects in Guyuan. However, there is no evidenceto prove this result although some other SLCP studiesaddressed the negative impact of roads on soils (compaction,erosion) in general (Chen et al., 2009; Stokes et al., 2010)but without explicit link to the SLCP.In the forest group, both, economic and energy forests

    (F1, F3) were assessed to develop (forest) industry andservice sector, including the processing of fruits (packing,selling) and the provision and installation of energy systemsCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.(e.g., small energy plants, stoves). Besides some cultivatedfruit trees (e.g., nuts, apricot, apple), cultivation andprocessing of wolfberry (Lycium chinense) is considereda major economic fruit-shrub in Guyuan a region whichis well suited to it (Mi et al., 2011). Most afforestation sitesare restricted to grow economically valuable fruit trees atlarger scales and thus limit the establishment of the fruitprocessing industry. Since forest work is usually done bymanpower, forest services will likely be required to manageand maintain forest land (e.g., planting, thinning, pruning,harvesting).

    Assessment of the Social Dimension

    Provision of work and forest labour (SOC1)The most negative impact of the SLCP in Guyuan assessedby the regional and the forest groups, respectively, referredto a reduction of work (S2, S3, F2) (Table IV), worsenedby the limited exibility to leave the farm (lack of mobilityand low education). During eld interviews, local farmersreported that the older generation of farmers, in particular,had difculties in adapting to such changes relying ongovernmental support more than younger generations (seealso Uchida et al., 2009). The potential contribution of affor-ested land to provide rural work will be limited in the futurebecause economic forests (F1) play a minor role in Guyuan.Chen et al. (2009) argues that releasing labour forces fromagriculture could stimulate a shift towards off-farm work.However, a regional study of Uchida (2007) conducted inNingxia (the province to which Guyuan belongs) found littleevidence for participating farm households shifting labour toalternative off-farm activities due to mobility constraints andactually preferring to stay on the farm.

    Quality of life (income) and health (SOC2)Changes in rural income towards 2020 were assessed toincrease under the implementation of the SLCP (S2, S3;Table IV) as a result of increasing income generated fromfruits harvested from planted trees and contributing to shiftagricultural activities towards the off-farm sector. Theincreasing importance of the off-farm sector for generatingrural income has also been found by several other impactstudies (e.g., Ediger and Chen, 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Yaoet al., 2010). Following the major goal to combat soilerosion, all forest management scenarios (F13, Table IV)revealed that wind erosion and dust pollution will likelybe reduced, an important health aspect for rural peoplein Guyuan. Several studies reported on the success ofrevegetating hillslopes reducing soil erosion (e.g., Chenand Cai, 2006; Stokes et al., 2010; Zheng, 2006); otherauthors questioned this aspect with particular reference tosemi-arid regions of the Loess Plateau, referring to high treemortality rates, and thus failure to establish permanent soilcover (Cao et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007c).LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • not be affected at national level, local impacts could be

    SLCP LAND CONVERSION IMPACTS ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, CHINAsupply in the future.The right to access forests to collect fuel wood was

    assessed positively by the forest group for all scenarios(F13). Comparable studies explicitly addressing this issuedo not exist however; it is known that land per se does notbelong to the farmer himself.

    Assessment of the environmental dimensionEnvironmental functions were not differentiated in bothgroups.

    Provision of abiotic resources (ENV1)All SLCP scenarios (S2, S3, F13; Table IV) were assessedto improve the soil quality in Guyuan through afforestationby the regional group and the forest group. The commonassumption was that revegetating eroded land with trees willreduce soil erosion. It is widely accepted that vegetationcover is a means to control soil erosion (Zheng, 2006).Cao et al. (2008), however, pointed at the risk that large-scale afforestation that might lead to higher soil erosionproblems in the long run as a result of using fast growingtree species (e.g., Pine, Locust, Poplar), instead of usingnatural vegetation (e.g., native shrubs, Birch, Oak) leadingto water stress and tree mortality, while Yang et al. (2010)stressed the challenge of the low resilience in semi-aridregions of the Loess Plateau and supported the need to planttrees and establish grassland for a timely recovery ofdegraded soils. The debate included aspects of whethernative species should be considered.signicant. However, a recent study by Zhen et al.(2009a) found that increasing meat consumption ofpeople in Guyuan indicates changes in the diets of ruralpeople that might lead to increasing demands on grainFood security and access to forests (SOC3)Food security has long been a concern in rural China,and particular attention was paid under the circumstancesthat cropland will be converted into forests and grass-land. However, the regional group was optimistic by pos-itively assessing the SLCP to contribute to an improvedsituation of food availability in Guyuan (Table IV), onthe basis of the assumption that only marginal land willbe taken out of production. Studies by Yang (2004) andDai (2010), however, found that some of the farmersenrolled in the programme were able to increase produc-tion on the remaining land. Several other studies explic-itly analyzed the programmes effects on food security(e.g., Feng et al., 2005; Peng et al., 2007; Xu et al.,2006; Zhen et al., 2009a). Feng et al. (2005) indicatedthat food security in Western China might be moreimportant than in other regions in China as a result ofsupply constraints; and that, although food security mightCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Provision of biotic resources (ENV2)Afforestation and forest management were both assessed toimprove the quality of habitats and increase biodiversity ofregional ora and fauna. Having in mind that Guyuan isdominated by agriculture, forests will contribute to higherlandscape diversity. Although this seems generally plausible,Cao et al. (2009) pointed at the risk that the programme-induced introduction of non-native species might harm theexistence of native species. An empirical study explicitlyaddressing the impact of the SLCP on habitat quality andbiodiversity has not been conducted yet.

    Maintenance of ecosystem processes (ENV3)Apart from economic forests (F1), the SLCP scenarios (S2,S3) and forest management scenarios F2 and F3 (Table IV)were assessed to enhance key ecosystem processes inGuyuan. However, both groups might have overestimatedthe positive effect of ecological forests. Among the maintree species established in Guyuan, pine forests (Pinus sp.)were found to contribute to the highest water losses due tohigh surface runoff (assuming that ground vegetation ismissing) followed by cropland, grassland and shrubland(Chen et al., 2007a). In the long run, tree mortality problemsdue to water stress might also occur for two other treespecies used for afforestation purposes, including Locust(Robinia sp.) and Poplar (Populus sp.) (Fischer, 2010). Inthis regard, Sun et al. (2006) pointed at the potentialreduction in water yields caused by planted trees in thesemi-arid north of China where, naturally, grassland, shrubsand small trees grow (Cao et al., 2011). Instead, Cao (2011)put forward the need to orient at close-to-nature species(native and regionally well adapted species), which couldimprove and sustain forest quality in the longer term.

    Assessment of regional SLCP impacts: an integrated viewAggregation of impacts (Table IV) allows for a weightedinterpretation of SLCP scenario impacts at regional context.If rst looking at the implementation scenarios of the SLCPin Guyuan (S2, S3), the main trade-offs occur betweenprovision of work (SOC1) and the conservation of environ-mental functions (ENV13). Without the SLCP (S1), partic-ularly the environmental (ENV1-3) and partly also the socialdimension (SCO1 and 3) were assessed to face a continuingnegative development in Guyuan, while the main positiveimpacts of the SLCP are clearly on the environmentaldimension, which was also of high priority as reected inthe weights assigned to the LUFs (Table IV). The resultssuggest that an expansion of the SLCP (S3) wouldcontribute most to sustainable development in Guyuantowards 2020.Regarding the regional forest management, trade-offs

    vary among scenarios (F13) (Table IV). The economicforest scenario economic forest (F1), for example, hasLAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • be a promising alternative to contribute to farm income and

    term failures of afforestation might occur as a result of

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    H. J. KNIG ET AL.environmental conservation at the same time (small scale).Secondly, an integration of ecological and economic forests(F1, F3) at large scale could potentially lower the mentionedtrade-offs but would require adequate long-term forestmanagement strategies, e.g., by promoting selective cuttingof trees instead of clear cuts.

    Reection on the assessment approachThe participatory impact assessment approach used has thepotential to reveal possible trade-offs between economic,social and environmental sustainability dimensions thatmight occur as a result of the SLCP. In reection to otherstudies where the FoPIA was used (e.g., in Indonesia, Kniget al., 2010; in Tunisia, Knig et al., in press), we found thata exible but well-structured framework to study causal rela-tionships between policies, land use changes and sustain-ability while also integrating local knowledge and differentdisciplines. Participating experts (scientists) and stake-holders (regional decision makers) reported that the FoPIAis relatively easy to understand and appreciated that thisapproach provides quick results. However, the quality ofthe results largely depends on the scenarios developed, theindicators selected and the stakeholders considered. Forexample, during the expert-based impact assessment, theregional group appeared to be very optimistic about possibleSLCP impacts, whereas the forest group was more criticalabout programme effects. Although the regional groupmight have been biased of being in favour of the SLCP, theirparticipation and knowledge contributed to an enhancedunderstanding of the regional problem issues and theimplementation of the SLCP in Guyuan.

    CONCLUSIONS

    A clear winwin scenario leading to positive developmentsfor all LUFs or FFs, respectively, could not be identied.Both workshop groups assessments (the regional groupand the forest group) expected the SLCP programme toachieve the major goal of environmental rehabilitation butat the cost of reducing rural working opportunities becauseecological forests alone provide only few employment andincome opportunities beyond the projects lifetime. Overall,the highest positive impact on all economic functions(ECO13) and some social functions (SOC1 and 3) but anegative impact on the regional water balance (ENV3).The ecological forest scenario (F2) contributes to thehighest benet of all environmental functions (ENV13)but was assessed negatively for wood production (ECO1)and provision of work (SOC1). The energy forest scenario(F3) was assessed to have little, but overall positive impacton all nine FFs. The results suggest, rstly, considering thepossibility of establishing energy forests (F3), which mightCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.This study could be realized with nancial and logistical supportof the Chinese-German Centre for Impact Assessment (www.cgcia.org), Robert Bosch Foundation and the National KeyProject for Basic Research of China (No. 2009CB421106).The authors wish to thank the numerous workshop participantsfor taking the time to participate in the FoPIA workshops andsharing their experiences and knowledge with us. We also thankYunjie Wei, Li Fen, Long Xin, Lou Wei and Dirk Pohle fortheir support during the FoPIA workshops.

    REFERENCES

    Bennett MT. 2008. Chinas sloping land conversion program: Institutionalinnovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics 65: 699711.

    Bennett MT, Mehta A, Xu J. 2011. Incomplete property rights, exposure tomarkets and the provision of environmental services in China. ChinaEconomic Review 22: 485498.

    Cao S. 2008. Why large-scale afforestation efforts in China have failed tosolve the desertication problem. Environmental Science & Technology42: 18261831.

    Cao S. 2011. Impact of Chinas large-scale ecological restoration programon the environment and society in arid and semiarid areas of China:Achievements, problems, synthesis, and applications. Critical Reviewsin Environmental Science & Technology 41: 317335.

    Cao S, Chen L, Xu C, Liu Z. 2007. Impact of three soil types on affores-tation in Chinas Loess Plateau: Growth and survival of six tree speciesand their effects on soil properties. Landscape & Urban Planning83: 208217.water stress and the use of water demanding tree species.Forest managers, therefore, might reconsider the choiceof planting more shrubs or native tree species for thesecond implementation phase of the SLCP. Finally, weconclude that the here proposed assessment approachusing both qualitative knowledge and quantitative informa-tion, could enhance the understanding of regional causallinkages between the SLCP land conversion programmeand possible impacts on economic, social and environmen-tal sustainability dimensions.with the assigned priorities to the FFs and LUFs, acontinuation of the SLCP afforestation appeared to bemost benecial of all scenarios for rural sustainability inGuyuan. The economic forest scenario was assessed to serveprimarily the economic and social sustainability dimensions,while environmental impacts were also tolerable. Energyforest is potentially beneting all three sustainability dimen-sions (economic, social, environmental) but might only berealized at small scale because this type of forest manage-ment is not well established in Guyuan yet. A scenario witha sole focus on ecological forests had disproportionatepositive impacts on environmental functions and little oradverse impact on the other two sustainability dimensions.Considering that Guyuan is a drought-prone region, long-LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • SLCP LAND CONVERSION IMPACTS ON RURAL SUSTAINABILITY IN GUYUAN, CHINACao S, Chen L, Yu X. 2009. Impact of Chinas Grain for Green Project onthe landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: acase study in northern Shaanxi Province. Journal of Applied Ecology46: 536543.

    Cao S, Sun G, Zhang Z, Chen L, Feng Q, Fu B, McNulty S, Shankman D,Tang J, Wang Y, Wei X. 2011. Greening China naturally. Ambio40: 828831.

    Chen H, Cai Q. 2006. Impact of hillslope vegetation restoration on gullyerosion induced sediment yield. Science in China, Series D: EarthSciences 49: 176192.

    Chen L, Gong J, Fu B, Huang Z, Huang Y, Gui L. 2007b. Effect ofland use conversion on soil organic carbon sequestration in theloess hilly area, Loess Plateau of China. Ecological Research22: 641648.

    Chen LD, Huang ZL, Gong J, Fu BJ, Huang YL. 2007a. The effect of landcover/vegetation on soil water dynamic in the hilly area of the LoessPlateau, China. Catena 70: 200208.

    Chen X, Lupi F, He G, Ouyang Z, Liu J. 2009. Factors affecting landreconversion plans following a payment for ecosystem service program.Biological Conservation 142: 17401747.

    Chen LD, Wang J, Fu BJ, Qiu Y. 2001. Land-use change in a smallcatchment of northern Loess Plateau, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 86: 163172.

    Chen L, Wei W, Fu B, Lu Y. 2007c. Soil and water conservation on theLoess Plateau in China: review and perspective. Progress in PhysicalGeography 31: 389403.

    Ediger L, Chen H. 2006. Upland China in transitionThe impacts ofafforestation on landscape patterns and livelihoods. Mountain Research& Development 26: 220226.

    Feng ZM, Yang YZ, Zhang YQ, Zhang PT, Li YQ. 2005. Grain-for-greenpolicy and its impacts on grain supply in West China. Land Use Policy22: 301312.

    Fischer A. 2010. Forest restoration in the Loess Plateau in central China:Principles from the perspective of vegetation ecology. Forst und Holz65: 2327.

    Gates JB, Scanlon BR, Mu XM, Zhang L. 2011. Impacts of soil conserva-tion on groundwater recharge in the semi-arid Loess Plateau, China.Hydrogeology Journal 19: 865875.

    Grosjean P, Kontoleon A. 2009. How sustainable are sustainable develop-ment programs? The case of the sloping land conversion program inChina. World Development 37: 268285.

    Helming K, Diehl K, Bach H, Dilly O, Konig B, Kuhlman T, Perez-SobaM, Sieber S, Tabbush P, Tscherning K, Wascher D, Wiggering H.2011. Ex ante impact assessment of policies affecting land use, Part A:Analytical Framework. Ecology & Society 16: 27.

    Huang T, Pang Z. 2011. Estimating groundwater recharge following land-use change using chloride mass balance of soil proles: A case study atGuyuan and Xifeng in the Loess Plateau of China. Hydrogeology Journal19: 177186.

    Knig HJ. 2010. Multifunctional forest management in Guyuan: Poten-tials, challenges and trade-offs. Journal of Resources & Ecology1: 300310.

    Knig HJ, Schuler J, Suarma U, McNeill D, Imbernon J, Damayanti F,Dalimunthe SA, Uthes S, Sartohadi J, Helming K, Morris J. 2010.Assessing the impact of land use policy on urbanrural sustainabilityusing the FoPIA approach in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Sustainability2: 19912009.

    Knig HJ, Sghaier M, Schuler J, Abdeladhim M, Helming K, Tonneau J-P,Ounalli N, Imbernon J, Morris J, Wiggering H. in press. ParticipatoryImpact Assessment of Soil and Water Conservation Scenarios in OumZessar Watershed, Tunisia. Environmental Management.

    Liu C, Lu JZ, Yin RS. 2010. An estimation of the effects of Chinas priorityforestry programs on farmers income. Environmental Management45: 526540.

    Mi W, Liu K, Zhao Y, Zheng C, Shi Z, Hao J, LuKun. 2011.Initial selection of plant species for ecological restoration in sali-nized soil in Datong Basin. Journal of Beijing Forestry University33: 4954.

    Morris J, Tassone V, De Groot R, Camilleri M, Moncada S. 2011. AFramework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA): InvolvingCopyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.stakeholders in European policy-making, a case study of land usechange in Malta. Ecology & Society 16: 12.

    Peng H, Cheng G, Xu Z, Yin Y, Xu W. 2007. Social, economic, andecological impacts of the Grain for Green project in China: A preliminarycase in Zhangye, Northwest China. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment 85: 774784.

    Prez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L,Contini C, Helming K, Farrington JH, Mossello MT, Wascher D,Kienast F, Groot R. 2008. Land use functionsA multifunctionalityapproach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustain-ability. In Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes,Helming K, Prez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds). Springer: Berlin-Heidelberg;375404.

    Reed MS, Dougill AJ, Taylor MJ. 2007. Integrating local and scien-tic knowledge for adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari range-land management options. Land Degradation & Development 18:249268.

    Reidsma P, Knig H, Feng S, Bezlepkina I, Nesheim I, Bonin M, SghaierM, Purushothaman S, Sieber S, van Ittersum MK, Brouwer F. 2011.Methods and tools for integrated assessment of land use policies onsustainable development in developing countries. Land Use Policy 28:604617.

    Schwilch G, Bestelmeyer B, Bunning S, Critchley W, Herrick J, Kellner K,Liniger HP, Nachtergaele F, Ritsema CJ, Schuster B, Tabo R, vanLynden G, Winslow M. 2011. Experiences in monitoring and assessmentof sustainable land management. Land Degradation & Development22: 214225.

    Sieber S, Mller K, Verweij P, Haraldsson H, Fricke K, Pacini C,Tscherning K, Helming K, Jansson T. 2008. Transfer into decisionsupport: The Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). InSustainability impact assessment of land use changes, Helming K,Perez-Soba M, Tabbusch P (eds). Springer: Berlin-Heidelberg;107128.

    Stokes A, Sotir R, Chen W, Chestem M. 2010. Soil bio- and eco-engineeringin China: Past experience and future priorities Preface.Ecological Engineer-ing 36: 247257.

    Stringer LC, Reed MS. 2007. Land degradation assessment in southernAfrica: Integrating local and scientic knowledge bases. Land Degradation& Development 18: 99116.

    Sun G, Zhou GY, Zhang ZQ, Wei XH, McNulty SG, Vose JM. 2006.Potential water yield reduction due to forestation across China. Journalof Hydrology 328: 548558.

    Tang Y, Xie JS, Geng S. 2010. Marginal land-based biomass energyproduction in China. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 52:112121.

    Uchida E, Rozelle S, Xu J. 2009. Conservation payments, liquidityconstraints, and off-farm labor: impact of the grain-for-green programon rural households in China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics91: 7086.

    Uchida E, Xu JT, Rozelle S. 2005. Grain for green: Cost-effectiveness andsustainability of Chinas conservation set-aside program. Land Economics81: 247264.

    Uchida E, Xu JT, Xu ZG, Rozelle S. 2007. Are the poor beneting fromChinas land conservation program? Environment & DevelopmentEconomics 12: 593620.

    Uthes S, Fricke K, Knig H, Zander P, van IttersumM, Sieber S, Helming K,Piorr A, Mller K. 2010. Policy relevance of three integrated assessmenttools - A comparison with specic reference to agricultural policies.Ecological Modelling 221: 21362152.

    Vogt JV, Safriel U, Von Maltitz G, Sokona Y, Zougmore R, Bastin G, Hill J.2011. Monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertication:Towards new conceptual and integrated approaches. Land Degradation& Development 22: 150165.

    Weyerhaeuser H, Wilkes A, Kahrl F. 2005. Local impacts andresponses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programsin Chinas northwest Yunnan province. Agricultural Systems 85:234253.

    Xu ZG, Bennett MT, Tao R, Xu JT. 2004. Chinas sloping land conversionprogramme four years on: Current situation and pending issues. Interna-tional Forestry Review 6: 317326.LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

  • Xu ZG, Xu JT, Deng XZ, Huang JK, Uchida E, Rozelle S. 2006. Grain forgreen versus grain: Conict between food security and conservation set-aside in China. World Development 34: 130148.

    Yang H. 2004. Land conservation campaign in China: Integrated man-agement, local participation and food supply option. Geoforum 35:507518.

    Yang X, Jia Z, Ci L. 2010. Assessing effects of afforestation projects inChina. Nature 466: 315.

    Yao SB, Guo YJ, Huo XX. 2010. An empirical analysis of the effects ofChinas land conversion program on farmers income growth and labortransfer. Environmental Management 45: 502512.

    Ye YQ, Chen GJ, Hong F. 2003. Impacts of the Grain for Green projecton rural communities in the Upper Min River Basin, Sichuan, China.Mountain Research & Development 23: 345352.

    Yin RS, Yin GP. 2010. Chinas primary programs of terrestrial ecosystemrestoration: Initiation, implementation, and challenges. EnvironmentalManagement 45: 429441.

    Zhang K, Dang H, Tan S, Cheng X, Zhang Q. 2010. Change in soil organiccarbon following the grain-for-green programme in China. LandDegradation & Development 21: 1323.

    Zhen L, Cao S, Cheng S, Xie G, Wei Y, Liu X, Li F. 2009a. Arableland requirements based on food consumption patterns: Case studyin rural Guyuan District, Western China. Ecological Economics 69:14431453.

    Zhen L, Cao S, Wei Y, Dilly O, Liu X, Li F, Koenig H, Tscherning K,Helming K. 2009b. Comparison of sustainability issues in two sensitiveareas of China. Environmental Science & Policy 12: 11531167.

    Zhen L, Wei Y, Xie G, Helming K, Cao S, Yang L, Pan Y, Knig H. 2010.Regional analysis of dynamic land use functions in china. ShengtaiXuebao/Acta Ecologica Sinica 30: 67496761.

    Zheng F-L. 2006. Effect of vegetation changes on soil erosion on the LoessPlateau. Pedosphere 16: 420427.

    Zhu FS, Rochin RI, Chiao YS. 1986. Farming and optimal resource utiliza-tion in Guyuan, China. Food Policy 11: 133142.

    H. J. KNIG ET AL.Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT (2012)

Recommended

View more >