Do Differences in Modes of Production Affect the Ability of Ecological Restoration Projects to Improve Local Livelihoods?

Large ecological restoration projects have been widely implemented across the world since the 20th century, yielding complex ecological, economic, and social results. Today, balancing ecological restoration with local people’s livelihoods is a key issue. Based on the existing literature, this study...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Land (Basel) 2024-10, Vol.13 (10), p.1563
Main Authors: Xiao, Bei, Zhang, Dongying, Li, Renjun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adaptability
Adaptation
agricultural and pastoral areas
China
Costs
Ecological restoration
ecological restoration projects in China
Ecosystems
Employment
Environmental economics
Environmental restoration
Farmers
Forests
Heterogeneity
Indicators (Biology)
Local communities
Machine learning
mode of production
Natural resources
Pastoralism
Poverty
Researchers
Restoration
rural livelihood improvements
Rural populations
Three-North Shelter Forest Program
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Large ecological restoration projects have been widely implemented across the world since the 20th century, yielding complex ecological, economic, and social results. Today, balancing ecological restoration with local people’s livelihoods is a key issue. Based on the existing literature, this study proposes a “shock adaptation” mechanism to describe the response of rural residents’ livelihoods to the impact of ecological restoration projects. We hypothesize that adaptability varies across the modes of production. To verify our hypothesis, we used the machine-learning-based local projection (LP) method to analyze China’s Three-North Shelter Forest Program (TNSFP), with data for 596 counties from 2001 to 2020. After the TNSFP started, rural residents’ income dropped, rose, and then exceeded the starting point over 8 years. Moreover, significant heterogeneity exists between agricultural and pastoral areas. Agricultural areas recover faster and improve livelihoods, while pastoral areas take longer to bounce back. The results confirmed the “shock adaptation” mechanism and suggested the importance of the mode of production. Policymakers should add more social–ecological indicators to their evaluation systems, allow local communities more self-management, and offer extra help to those struggling to recover from shocks.
ISSN:2073-445X
2073-445X
DOI:10.3390/land13101563