Based on the survey on 1 454 households in 24 forestry bureaus in 3 provinces, this paper used both MEL and OLS methods to evaluate the impact of state-owned forestry reforms on the inequality of household income. The study found that inequality of households in state-owned forestry regions has further aggravated and the reforms take the main responsibility for this phenomenon.

Since 2006, China began a property reform on rural forest land, which is called "the second land reform" after the implementation of China's rural household contract responsibility system. Using a unique household survey data, we analyze the impact of grassroots democratic decision-making on investment incentives of the property right reform on forest land.

[Objective] Based on the micro survey data of key state-owned forestry area, this paper analyzed the impacts of state-owned forestry region reform on the changes in employment, which would provide a useful reference for the policy of key state-owned forestry region.

[Method] We described the changes of industries, departments and aspects of employment in state-owned forestry region by statistical methods. Furthermore, we applied an econometric model to estimate the effect of state-owned forestry reforms on the employments.

Based on the survey data of 1 454 households in 24 forestry bureaus of 3 provinces, this research used both MEL and OLS methods to evaluate the impact of the reform on household’s per-capita income in the key state-owned forest areas. The study found that the proportion of both non-forestry income and income from

Based on a household survey on farmers’Willingness To Accept (WTA) the goverment’s ecological compensation in Sichuan Province, this paper attempts to study the compensation mechanism in the context of goverment’s purchase of ecological forest by establishing the ecological forest supply curve. We find that, given the budget constraint of 500000 CNY, the appropriate purchase price is 5400 CNY/hm2, and the survey villages can supply 80% of their forest lands.

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing humanity, and we are only starting to address it. Climate change scenarios indicate that poor people in developing countries will be particularly negatively affected, e.g. by increased temperature reducing their harvests or flooding due to sea-level rise and extreme weather events. There are also expectations that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be costefficiently reduced in developing countries through for example reduced deforestation or improved stoves.

This report provides findings based on the Costa Rican experiences that are beneficial for countries around the world implementing Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. In this report, it is noted that from 2000 to 2010, over 5 million hectares of forest were lost per year globally, with the agricultural sector contributing to an estimated 80% of this loss. As forests are lost, the knock-on economic, environmental, and social benefits of ecosystem services provided by forests are lost as well (e.g.

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) typically reward landowners for managing their land to provide ecosystem services that would not otherwise be provided. REDD+—Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—is a form of PES aimed at decreasing carbon emissions from forest conversion and extraction in lower-income countries. A key challenge for REDD+ occurs when it is implemented at a group, rather than an individual landowner, level.

This study was carried to find out the impact of PES (Payment for Environmental Services) on the welfare of the communities in the Uluguru Mountains. The aim of the study is to assess the main objectives of the PES project which is to conserve the environment (forest) and reduce poverty. The assessment of the project is done by looking on the difference between the treatment group (those who participate in PES) and control group (households who do not participate).

Single objective approach is most widely used whereas consideration of multiple objectives is the rule rather than an exception in many real life decision-making circumstances. This paper, therefore, investigates whether or not single and multiple criteria/objective approaches necessarily lead to differing conclusions. The central questions are could the single objective approach be a reasonable approximation for subsistence farm settings or does the multiple objectives approach has anything to add?