The impact on rural livelihoods and ecosystem services of a major relocation and settlement program: A case in Shaanxi, China
China’s largest-ever resettlement program is underway, aiming to restore ecosystems and lift ecosystem service providers out of the poverty trap and into sustainable livelihoods. We examine the impact of the relocation and settlement program (RSP) to date, reporting on an ecosystem services (ES) assessment and a 1400-household survey. The RSP generally achieves the goals of ES increase and livelihood restore. In biophysical terms, the RSP improves water quality, sediment retention, and carbon sequestration. In social terms, resettled households so far report transformation of livelihoods activities from traditional inefficient agricultural and forest production to non-farm activities. Increased income contributes to decrease the poverty rate and improve resettled households’ living condition and standard. Meanwhile, the RSP decreases households’ dependence on ES in terms of provisioning services. Difficulty and challenge also showed up subsequently after relocation. A major current challenge is to enable poorer households to move, while providing greater follow-up support to relocated households. While the program is unique to China, it illuminates widespread opportunities for addressing environmental and poverty-related concerns in a rapidly changing world.
KeywordsAnkang prefecture Ecosystem services Human development Relocation and settlement Rural household Sustainable livelihoods
This work is part of the Natural Capital Project and was jointly supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (Grant No. 3453), the China National Natural Science Fund (71673219; 71573205), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (SK2015001, SKZD16009; SKZD16004). We are grateful to the many people interviewed for their patience and assistance.
- Cernea, M.M. 2000b. Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: A model for population displacement and resettlement. Economic and Political Weekly 35: 3659–3678.Google Scholar
- Cernea, M.M., and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2003. Biodiversity conservation versus population resettlement: Risks to nature and risks to people. In International CIFOR-Conference on ‘‘Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity’’, Bonn, Germany 19–23 May, 2003.Google Scholar
- Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Department for International Development (DFID). 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID.Google Scholar
- Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Fuggle, R., W.T. Smith, Hydrosult Canada Inc, and Androdev Canada Inc. 2000. Experience with dams in water and energy resource development in the People’s Republic of China. Cape Town: Country review paper prepared for the World Commission on Dams.Google Scholar
- Krantz, L. 2001. The sustainable livelihoods approach to poverty reduction: An introduction. Stockholm: Division for Policy and Socio-Economic Analysis, Sida.Google Scholar
- Li, C., S. Li, M.W. Feldman, G.C. Daily, and J. Li. 2012. Does out-migration reshape rural households’ livelihood capitals in the source communities? Recent evidence from Western China. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 21: 1–30.Google Scholar
- Li, C., H. Zheng, S. Li, X. Chen, J. Li, W. Zeng, Y. Liang, S. Polasky, et al. 2015. Impacts of conservation and human development policy across stakeholders and scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America 112: 7396-01.Google Scholar
- Liu, J., G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, and G. Luck. 2003. Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity [J]. Nature 421: 530–533.Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems & human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Ouyang, Z.Y., R.S. Wang, and J.Z. Zhao. 1999. Ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 10: 635–640. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
- Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72.Google Scholar
- Shi, G.Q., and R.Q. Zheng. 2010. Poverty migrants: New ideas for a poverty reduction. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute 4: 68–75. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
- Sharp R., R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Wood, A. Guerry, H. Tallis, and T. Ricketts. 2015. InVEST 3.1.2 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project. USA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Stanley, J. 2004. Development-induced Displacement and Resettlement. Retrieved 2016, from http://www.forcedmigration.org/research-resources/expert-guides/development-induced-displacement-and-resettlement/alldocuments.
- Tang, L.X., Z.B. Lin, and X.Y. Li. 2005. Who moved? An analysis of causes and characteristics of Voluntary migrants. Problem of Agricultural Economy 4: 38–43. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
- Yan, D.C., G.Q. Shi, and J. Zhou. 2011. Review of the cause of reservoir relocation poverty under the paradigm perspective. Water Resources Development Research 12: 16–20.Google Scholar
- Zheng, H., B.E. Robinson, Y.C. Liang, S. Polasky, D.C. Ma, F.C. Wang, M. Ruckelshaus, Z. Ouyang, et al. 2013. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 16681–16686.Google Scholar