Do environmental conservation programs contribute to sustainable livelihoods? Evidence from China's grain-for-green program in northern Shaanxi province

Several studies reported that conservation programs worldwide have profoundly reshaped participants' livelihoods and influenced other socio-economic processes. A fully understanding of how such conservation programs influence human lives is, therefore, crucial for their success. There, however, is little robust evidence of the effect of China's grain-for-green program (GGP), the largest conservation program in the world, on participants' livelihoods. That is, we do not know whether the program fulfills its goal of, at the very least, doing no harm to the lives of participants while simultaneously enhancing their environmental perception. To help fill this gap, we used a sustainable livelihood approach and structural equation modeling, based on household survey data from China's northern Shaanxi province, to compare the livelihood components of participants and non-participants in the GGP. We then characterized the interactions and pathways between their livelihood components and environmental perception. We found that the GGP indeed does no harm to participants' lives. Although participants suffer from a small reduction in natural capital due to a sharp decrease in their landholdings, they have much more off-farm income, subsidies, and financial and social assets than non-participants. Respondents commonly held positive attitudes toward the program's environmental benefits, but they had weak perceptions of the social and direct economic benefits of the GGP. Respondents' environmental perceptions of the GGP were significantly influenced by the number of available laborers, their education and health levels, off-farm income, subsidies, and the accessibility of transportation. Therefore, further resources should be dedicated to improving education as well as rural health care and infrastructure in order to create more off-farm job opportunities for GGP participants. In addition, decision makers should carefully redesign supporting policies, such as payments for ecosystem services, to help poor participants rebuild their livelihoods.