Sustainable Effects of Small Hydropower Substituting Firewood Program in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
2.2.1. Biomass
2.2.2. Household Survey
2.2.3. Difference-in-Difference Method
3. Results
3.1. Forest Ecosystem Biomass Protection by SHSF
3.2. Impacts of SHSF on Household Livelihood
3.3. Households’ Attitudes towards SHSF
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Effects of SHSF Program on Forest Biomass
4.2. Effects of the SHSF Program on Households’ Income
4.3. Households’ Attitudes towards the SHSF Program
Supplementary Files
Supplementary File 1Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shen, Y.; Liao, X.; Yin, R. Measuring the Aggregate Socioeconomic Impacts of China’s Natural Forest Protection Program. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2006, 11, 769–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Yang, Z.; Zha, T.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, G.; Zhu, Y.; Lyv, Z. Changes in the physical properties of soil in forestlands after 22 years under the influence of the Conversion of Cropland into Farmland Project in Loess region, Western Shanxi Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 416–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, C.; Zhang, Y.; Mei, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zha, T.; Zhang, K.; Huang, C.; Xu, X.; et al. Sustainability of Forests Created by China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: A comparison among three sites in Anhui, Hubei and Shanxi. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 38, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter, S.; Roger, N.; Ainsley, J.; Benjamin, L.; Matthew, C.; Paul, J.; Sardar, M.; Penny, H. Climate change and the new world economy: Implications for the nature and timing of policy responses. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 18, 380–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, M.; Zhang, L.; Uligiati, S.; Wang, C. Ecological impacts of small hydropower in China: Insights from an emergy analysis of a case plant. Energy Policy 2015, 76, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Fend, Z. Survey of rural household energy consumption in China. Energy 1996, 21, 703–705. [Google Scholar]
- Rozelle, S. Grain for Green: Cost-Effectiveness and Sustainability of China’s Conservation Set-Aside Program. Land Econ. 2005, 81, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Song, C. Impacts of Afforestation, Deforestation, and Reforestation on Forest Cover in China from 1949 to 2003. J. For. 2006, 104, 383–387. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, J.; Benjaminsen, T.A.; Hammad, A.A.; Dick, Ø.B. The road to deforestation: An assessment of forest loss and its causes in Basho Valley, Northern Pakistan. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002, 15, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharman, N.; Tiwari, P.; Sood, Y. A comprehensive analysis of strategies, policies and development of hydropower in India: Special emphasis on small hydro power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 460–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jager, H.I.; Mcmanamay, R.A. Comment on “Cumulative biophysical impact of small and large hydropower development in Nu River, China” by Kelly M. Kibler and Desiree D. Tullos. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 758–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darmawi; Sipahutar, R.; Bernas, S.M.; Imanuddin, M.S. Renewable energy and hydropower utilization tendency worldwide. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 17, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, K.; Bi, J. China’s energy-water nexus: Spillover effects of energy and water policy. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 40, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, Y.; Kong, Z.; Liu, Z.; Wei, C.; An, G. Substituting small hydropower for fuel: The practice of China and the sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 978–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Zeng, P.; Ma, Z. Analysis of Status Quo and Prospect of Substituting Small Hydropower Station for Fuel Project in China. Water Resour. Power 2008, 6, 115–117. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, Y.; Zhang, L.; Uligiati, S.; Wang, C. Small hydropower in China: The survey and sustainable future. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Ministry of Water Resources (MWR). Planning of the Ecological Protection Project of National Small Hydropower for Fuel; MWR: Beijing, China, 2002.
- Xing, Y.; Li, R.; Zhao, H.; Ma, Z.; Qin, J. Ecological Protection and Sustainable Development of the Engineering of Small Hydropower Alternating Fuel. China Waterpower Electr. 2011, 10, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadiyala, A.; Kommalapati, R.; Huque, Z. ArticleEvaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydroelectricity Generation Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, H.K.; Sharma, J.K.; Chauhan, R.S. Mitigation of damage & O&M problems due to silt at Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Power Station—1500 MW. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Silting Problems in Hydropower Projects, New Delhi, India, 27–28 February 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, Y.; Power, G. Some environmental impacts of hydroelectric projects on fish in Canada. Impact Assess. 1996, 14, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Private Sector Hydropower Development Project. Manual for Developing and Reviewing Water Quality Monitoring Plans and Results for Hydropower Projects. Available online: http://erg.com.np/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Manual-for-Developing-and-Reviewing-Water-Quality.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2017).
- Zhang, L.; Pang, M.; Wang, C.; Uligiati, S. Environmental sustainability of small hydropower schemes in Tibet: An emergy-based comparative analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, B. The Study of Sustainable Development for Small Hydropower Replacing Firewood Unit Based on Eco-Economic Model; Xi’an University of Technology: Xi’an, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- He, Z.; Huang, D.; Wang, B. Evaluation research on poverty alleviation performance in poor areas promoted by small hydropower stations for fuel projects: A case study of Majiang County in Guizhou province. China Rural Water Hydropower 2015, 9, 178–182. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, X.; Zhu, J.; Hou, Z.; Zhang, Z. Forest Biomass Estimation Methods and Their Prospects. Sci. Silvae Sicicae 2009, 45, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
- Bondlamberty, B.; Wang, C.; Gower, S.T. Aboveground and belowground biomass and sapwood area allometric equations for six boreal tree species of northern Manitoba. Can. J. For. Res. 2002, 38, 1441–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Fölster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia 2005, 145, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vieilledent, G.; Vaudry, R.; Andriamanohisoa, S.F.D.; Rakotonarivo, O.S.; Randrianasolo, H.Z.; Razafindrabe, H.N.; Rasamoelina, M. A universal approach to estimate biomass and carbon stock in tropical forests using generic allometric models. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 572–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, T. A Study on Individual Arbor Biomass Models of Pinus Massoniana Platation of Jiangle Fujian; Beijing Forestry University: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, P.; Zhong, Z.; Li, X. A study on the biomass of alder and cypress artificial mixed forest in Sichuan. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 1996, 20, 524–533. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, W.; Jiang, B.; Ge, Y.; Zhu, J.; Shen, A. Study on Biomass Model of Key Ecological Forest in Zhejiang Province. J. Zhejiang For. Sci. Technol. 2009, 29, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, M.; Wang, G. Application of Double Difference Method in the Evaluation of Effects of Ecological Immigration—Case of Ningxia. J. Agrotech. Econ. 2010, 8, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
- Bertrand, M.; Duflo, E.; Mullainathan, S. How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? Q. J. Econ. 2004, 119, 249–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z. Analysis of the Continuation of the Grain for Green Project—An Empirical Study Based on Mei County in Shanxi Province; Zhejiang University: Hangzhou, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L. The Empirical Analysis for the Influence of the Policy of “Home Appliances Going to the Countryside” on Rural Household’ Consumption; Tsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Hao, X.; Jin, L. Study on rural household energy consumption in China based on household investigation from typical counties. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2014, 30, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Su, B. Assessing China’s rural household energy sustainable development using improved grouped principal component method. Energy 2016, 113, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Wei, C.; Qin, P.; Guo, J.; Yu, Y.; Song, F.; Chen, Z. Characteristics of residential energy consumption in China: Findings from a household survey. Energy Policy 2014, 75, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, M.; Zhang, Z. Natural Resources of China; Higher Education Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, G.; Chen, B. Resource analysis of the Chinese society 1980–2002 based on exergy—Part 2: Renewable energy sources and forest. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2038–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Xu, L. Simple Analysis of Energy Utilization and Sustainable Development in China. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 13, 873–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.; Zou, T. Practice of precision -based poverty reduction in mountainous areas: Take small hydropower replacing wood fuel construction as a case. China Water Resour. 2015, 23, 25–27. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.; Yang, M.; Cao, Z.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y. Effect of different human-caused disturbances on above-ground biomass and productivity of Pinus massoniana forests. Acta Bot. Boreal-Occident Sin. 2004, 24, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y.; Mo, J.; Sandra, B.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, Q.; Li, D. Storage and distribution of soil organic carbon in Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2004, 24, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y; Wang, Q.; Yu, G.; Zhu, X.; Zhan, X.; Guo, Q.; Yang, H.; Li, S.; Hu, Z. Ecosystems carbon storage and carbon sequestration potential of two main tree species for the Grain for Green Project on China’s hilly Loess Plateau. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 4277–4286. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X. The Environment Effects of the Replace Rural Fuel by the Small Hydropower and the Reasonable Structure and Proportion of the Rain-for-Green in the Experimental; Unit of Pu’an County Guizhou Province; Nanjing Forestry University: Nanjing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.; Fei, J.; Sun, T. An assessment on the ecological benefit of small hydropower substituting firewood program. China Rural Water Hydropower 2004, 10, 111–113. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, T.; Zhu, Z.; Li, X. A study on the ecological benefit of small hydropower substituting firewood. Small Hydropower 2005, 2, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
- Xing, Y.; Li, R.; Xu, J. Guidelines of Calculating Ecological Benefit on the Project of Small Hydropower Substituting for Fuel; China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Keeling, H.C.; Phillips, O.L. The global relationship between forest productivity and biomass. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 618–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.; Wang, J. Under the New Normal “Precise Poverty Alleviation” Inclusive Innovation Mechanism Research. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2015, 25, 170–173. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, S. Poverty Reduction Strategies—Lessons from the Asianand Pacific Region on Inclusive Development. Asian Dev. Rev. 2015, 22, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Mu, R. Public environmental concern in China: Determinants and variations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 37, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tree Type | Component | Allometric Equation | R2 |
---|---|---|---|
Masson pine | Trunk | W1 = 0.0395 (D2 H)0.9330 | 0.9762 |
Branch | W2 = 1.32 D3.6006 | 0.9047 | |
Leaf | W3 = 5.07 D3.4892 | 0.7987 | |
Root | W4 = 4.44 (D2 H)0.9392 | 0.9772 | |
Weeping cypress | Trunk | W1 = 0.0754 (D2 H)0.7934 | 0.9450 |
Branch | W2 = 0.0350 (D2 H)0.7119 | 0.9550 | |
Leaf | W3 = 0.0685 (D2 H)0.6583 | 0.9590 | |
Root | W4 = 0.0415 (D2 H)0.6765 | 0.9690 |
Biomass Types | Stand Types | Mean | Std. Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arbor biomass | PM | 61.70a | 1.98 | 59.77 | 63.73 |
UM | 50.78b | 2.60 | 48.15 | 53.34 | |
PW | 15.89c | 0.20 | 15.68 | 16.08 | |
UW | 9.48d | 1.25 | 8.24 | 10.73 | |
Shrub biomass | PM | 1.18b | 0.09 | 1.08 | 1.24 |
UM | 0.98b | 0.05 | 0.92 | 1.02 | |
PW | 1.73a | 0.09 | 1.67 | 1.83 | |
UW | 0.99b | 0.03 | 0.96 | 1.01 | |
Litter biomass | PM | 0.23a | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.28 |
UM | 0.21a | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.34 | |
PW | —— | —— | —— | —— | |
UW | —— | —— | —— | —— |
Mean | Std. Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education (E) | YY | 6.96 | 3.35 | 0.00 | 16.00 |
YN | 7.28 | 2.63 | 0.00 | 12.00 | |
NN | 7.75 | 2.68 | 0.00 | 12.00 | |
Cropland area (mu) | YY | 4.77 | 5.20 | 0.00 | 34.00 |
YN | 9.03 | 11.00 | 0.00 | 60.00 | |
NN | 6.28 | 4.96 | 0.00 | 27.50 | |
Off-farm income (yuan) | YY | 29,267.05 | 24,392.03 | 2500.00 | 122,500.00 |
YN | 18,442.86 | 15,644.27 | 0.00 | 70,000.00 | |
NN | 20,448.57 | 12,125.20 | 0.00 | 50,000.00 | |
Agricultural income (yuan) | YY | 2991.88 | 5608.59 | 0.00 | 38,700.00 |
YN | 12,815.57 | 19,234.81 | 0.00 | 92,000.00 | |
NN | 5166.75 | 8365.13 | 0.00 | 55,000.00 | |
Total income (yuan) | YY | 32,258.92 | 24,659.05 | 3900.00 | 125,770.00 |
YN | 31,258.43 | 20,880.67 | 2000.00 | 92,000.00 | |
NN | 25,615.32 | 11,318.93 | 10,700.00 | 55,000.00 | |
Total expenditure (yuan) | YY | 23,788.18 | 16,756.68 | 5300.00 | 88,000.00 |
YN | 22,808.88 | 14,010.33 | 4200 | 60,000.00 | |
NN | 22,932.41 | 8593.46 | 3000 | 40,000.00 | |
Electricity cost (yuan) | YY | 860.68 | 376.98 | 0.00 | 2000.00 |
YN | 1054.71 | 527.50 | 0.00 | 3600.00 | |
NN | 1274.55 | 682.16 | 0.00 | 3600.00 |
Per Capita Net Income | Crop Farming | Stock Farming | Off-Farm Employment | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
Net effect of SHSF | −106.92 | 228.97 | 771.53 * | 912.68 * |
(−0.94) | (1.42) | (2.17) | (2.59) |
Items | Site | Mean | Std. Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratio of agricultural income to total household income (Ra) ** | YY | 0.093 | 0.242 | 0.000 | 0.901 |
YN | 0.410 | 0.353 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
NN | 0.202 | 0.211 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
Ratio of off-farm income to total household income (Ro) ** | YY | 0.907 | 0.242 | 0.099 | 1.000 |
YN | 0.590 | 0.353 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
NN | 0.798 | 0.211 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
Ratio of electricity cost to total household income (Re) ** | YY | 0.027 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.060 |
YN | 0.034 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.240 | |
NN | 0.050 | 0.044 | 0.000 | 0.277 | |
Ratio of electricity cost to agricultural income (R1) * | YY | 0.288 | 1.096 | 0.000 | 20.000 |
YN | 0.082 | 0.526 | 0.010 | 3.600 | |
NN | 0.247 | 0.408 | 0.000 | 8.250 | |
Ratio of electricity cost to off-farm income (R2) ** | YY | 0.029 | 0.065 | 0.000 | 0.384 |
YN | 0.057 | 0.064 | 0.007 | 0.333 | |
NN | 0.062 | 0.056 | 0.000 | 0.360 | |
Ratio of electricity cost to total expenditure (Rp) ** | YY | 0.036 | 0.022 | 0.000 | 0.094 |
YN | 0.046 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.211 | |
NN | 0.056 | 0.060 | 0.000 | 0.360 |
Variables | Comparison Approach | Site (I) | Site (J) | Mean Difference (I-J) | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratio of agricultural income to total household income (Ra) | Games-Howell | YY | YN | −0.205 | 0.000 |
NN | 0.034 | 0.596 | |||
YN | YY | 0.205 | 0.000 | ||
NN | 0.171 | 0.002 | |||
Ratio of off-farm income to total household income (Ro) | Games-Howell | YY | YN | 0.205 | 0.000 |
NN | 0.034 | 0.596 | |||
YN | YY | −0.205 | 0.000 | ||
NN | −0.171 | 0.002 | |||
Ratio of electricity cost to total household income (Re) | Games-Howell | YY | YN | −0.024 | 0.000 |
NN | −0.027 | 0.000 | |||
YN | YY | 0.024 | 0.000 | ||
NN | −0.003 | 0.914 | |||
Ratio of electricity cost to agricultural income (R1) | Games-Howell | YY | YN | 0.918 | 0.085 |
NN | 0.280 | 0.806 | |||
YN | YY | −0.918 | 0.805 | ||
NN | −0.638 | 0.001 | |||
Ratio of electricity cost to off-farm income (R2) | LSD | YY | YN | −0.037 | 0.000 |
NN | −0.021 | 0.029 | |||
YN | YY | 0.037 | 0.000 | ||
NN | 0.016 | 0.146 | |||
Ratio of electricity cost to total expenditure (Rp) | Games-Howell | YY | YN | −0.026 | 0.000 |
NN | −0.031 | 0.000 | |||
YN | YY | 0.026 | 0.000 | ||
NN | −0.005 | 0.828 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, X.; Zha, T.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, J.; Lyv, Z.; Ma, Z.; Yu, H.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, G.; Tettenborn, F.; et al. Sustainable Effects of Small Hydropower Substituting Firewood Program in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060988
Zhang X, Zha T, Zhao Y, Qin J, Lyv Z, Ma Z, Yu H, Zhu Y, Wang G, Tettenborn F, et al. Sustainable Effects of Small Hydropower Substituting Firewood Program in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Sustainability. 2017; 9(6):988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060988
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xiaoxia, Tonggang Zha, Yun Zhao, Jing Qin, Zhiyuan Lyv, Zhijie Ma, Haiyan Yu, Yushen Zhu, Gaomin Wang, Felix Tettenborn, and et al. 2017. "Sustainable Effects of Small Hydropower Substituting Firewood Program in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China" Sustainability 9, no. 6: 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9060988