Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales

Ideally, both ecosystem service and human development policies should improve human well-being through the conservation of ecosystems that provide valuable services. However, program costs and benefits to multiple stakeholders, and how they change through time, are rarely carefully analyzed. We exam...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS Vol. 112; no. 24; pp. 7396 - 7401
Main Authors Li, Cong, Hua Zheng, Shuzhuo Li, Xiaoshu Chen, Jie Li, Weihong Zeng, Yicheng Liang, Stephen Polasky, Marcus W. Feldman, Mary Ruckelshaus, Zhiyun Ouyang, Gretchen C. Daily
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States National Academy of Sciences 16.06.2015
National Acad Sciences
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Ideally, both ecosystem service and human development policies should improve human well-being through the conservation of ecosystems that provide valuable services. However, program costs and benefits to multiple stakeholders, and how they change through time, are rarely carefully analyzed. We examine one of China’s new ecosystem service protection and human development policies: the Relocation and Settlement Program of Southern Shaanxi Province (RSP), which pays households who opt voluntarily to resettle from mountainous areas. The RSP aims to reduce disaster risk, restore important ecosystem services, and improve human well-being. We use household surveys and biophysical data in an integrated economic cost–benefit analysis for multiple stakeholders. We project that the RSP will result in positive net benefits to the municipal government, and to cross-region and global beneficiaries over the long run along with environment improvement, including improved water quality, soil erosion control, and carbon sequestration. However, there are significant short-run relocation costs for local residents so that poor households may have difficulty participating because they lack the resources to pay the initial costs of relocation. Greater subsidies and subsequent supports after relocation are necessary to reduce the payback period of resettled households in the long run. Compensation from downstream beneficiaries for improved water and from carbon trades could be channeled into reducing relocation costs for the poor and sharing the burden of RSP implementation. The effectiveness of the RSP could also be greatly strengthened by early investment in developing human capital and environment-friendly jobs and establishing long-term mechanisms for securing program goals. These challenges and potential solutions pervade ecosystem service efforts globally. Significance Understanding costs and benefits to multiple stakeholders, and how they change through time, is essential to designing effective conservation and human development policies. Where, when, and to whom benefits are delivered are rarely analyzed, however. We examine one of China’s conservation–development policies—the Relocation and Settlement Program of Shaanxi Province (RSP)—drawing insights of broad relevance. Although the RSP benefits the municipal government, downstream water consumers, and global beneficiaries, the short-run costs to local households and the municipal government greatly exceed these benefits. Moreover, poor households are unable to pay the upfront costs and have difficulty participating. The RSP is well designed to reduce local ecological pressure and enhance human development, but its effectiveness could be strengthened in key ways.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406486112
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
1C.L. and H.Z. contributed equally to this work.
Author contributions: C.L., H.Z., S.L., J.L., Y.L., S.P., M.W.F., M.R., Z.O., and G.C.D. designed research; C.L., H.Z., X.C., J.L., and W.Z. performed research; C.L., H.Z., and X.C. analyzed data; and C.L., H.Z., S.P., M.W.F., and G.C.D. wrote the paper.
Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved April 6, 2015 (received for review May 12, 2014)
ISSN:0027-8424
1091-6490
1091-6490
DOI:10.1073/pnas.1406486112