Prohibited Grazing Policy Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction in Rural Northwest China—A Case Study in Yanchi County, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
2.3. Model Selection
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Results
3.2. Effects on PGP Satisfaction
3.3. Effects on Overall Life Satisfaction
3.4. Effects on Life Satisfaction Using the Predicted Value of PGP Satisfaction
4. Discussion
4.1. The Effects of PGP Satisfaction on Life Satisfaction
4.2. The Effects of Livelihood Strategies
4.3. The Role of Relative Income
4.4. Limitations of the Current Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fan, S.; Zhou, L.; Zhao, C. Eco-Economic Model and Institutional Choice of Desertification Control in China; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2005. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.; Ali, S.H.; Zhang, Q. Property rights and grassland degradation: A study of the Xilingol Pasture, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, G.; Han, X.; Wu, J. Restoration and management of the Inner Mongolia grassland require a sustainable strategy. Ambio 2006, 35, 269–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tong, C.; Wu, J.; Yong, S.; Yang, J.; Yong, W. A landscape-scale assessment of steppe degradation in the Xilin River Basin, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid Environ. 2004, 59, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, K.; Wu, R.; Wu, M. Economic analysis on innovative management of grassland animal husbandry and increasing income of herdsmen. Forum Sci. Technol. China 2003, 6, 44–48. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kang, L.; Han, X.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, O.J. Grassland ecosystems in China: Review of current knowledge and research advancement. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 362, 997–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, A.; Liang, C. Historical landscape dynamics of Inner Mongolia: Patterns, drivers, and impacts. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1579–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.; Zhao, M. Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China′s experience as an example. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Li, W.; Xie, G. Ecosystem services research in China: Progress and perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1389–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Brown, C.; Qiao, G.; Zhang, B. Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Yang, R. The Policy Support of Grazing Forbidden in Western Pastoral. Issues Agric. Econ. 2003, 7, 45–50. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, N.; Zhou, L.; Chen, Y.; Huang, S. Default Behaviors of Rural Households under Chinese Returning Grazing Land to Grassland Program. J. Desert Res. 2013, 33, 1217–1224. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y. The Study on the Grassland Eco-Compensation Standard Setting, Optimization and Ensuring Mechanism: The Case Study of Inner Mongolia. Ph.D. Thesis, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, China, 2018. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.; Liu, W.; Viña, A.; Luo, J.; He, G.; Ouyang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Liu, J. Performance and prospects of payments for ecosystem services programs: Evidence from China. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zheng, H.; Robinson, B.E.; Liang, Y.; Polasky, S.; Ma, D.; Wang, F.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Ouyang, Z.; Daily, G.C. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 16681–16686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, T.; Song, X.; Yan, C.; Li, S.; Xie, J. Remote Sensing Analysis on Aeolian Desertification Trends in Northern China during 1975–2010. J. Desert Res. 2011, 31, 1351–1356. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, L.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, Y. Quantitative Evaluation of the Effect of Prohibiting Grazing on Restoration of Desertified Grassland in Agro-pastoral Transitional Zone in Northern China. J. Desert Res. 2012, 32, 308–313. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L.; Shao, Q.; Liu, J.; Lu, Q. Improving ecological conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem services in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, X.; Xu, L.; Yang, Z.; Yu, B. Payments for ecosystem services in China: Policy, practice, and progress. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Liu, X. Satisfaction with grassland eco-compensation policies for herders: An empirical study on the Gansu Pastoral Area. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 5798–5806. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H. Farmers′ Evaluation and Participation to Subsidy and Incentives System of Grassland Ecology Protection: Based on Questionnaire Data Survey to Wool Sheep and Cashmere Goat Farmers. Agric. Econ. Manag. 2013, 5, 73–81. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Z.; Liu, D.; Jin, L. Grassland Eco-compensation: Ecological Performance, income effect and policy satisfaction. Chin. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 26, 165–176. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Wei, T.; Jin, L. Herdspeople Attitudes towards Grassland Eco-Compensation Policies in Siziwang Banner, inner Mongolia. Resour. Sci. 2014, 36, 2442–2450. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X. Analysis on Satisfaction with Grassland Eco-compensation Policies for Herdsmen and Its Influencing Factors in Xinjiang. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 205–208. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.; Zhou, L.; Sun, Y.; Chen, Y. Emergy analysis of the crop ecosystem services of Yanchi county in Ningxia. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 146–157. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wu, B.; Yao, S.; Chen, J. (Eds.) China′s Development and Harmonization: Towards a Balance with Nature, Society and the International Community; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Zhou, L. Vulnerability of desertification reversion process in yanchi county, ningxia, china. J. Desert Res. 2018, 38, 39–47. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.; Li, S.; Qu, Z.; Wang, F. Causes and Control of Land Desertification in Yanchi County of Ningxia. Soils 1997, 40, 185–188. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Xia, C.; Liao, J.; Guo, J.; Liu, H.; Gao, Y. Types and Changes of Ecological Control Policies in 1983–2017 in Yanchi, Ningxia, China: A Perspective from Policy Instruments. J. Desert Res. 2019, 39, 107–116. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hou, C.; Zhou, L.; Wen, Y.; Chen, Y. Farmers′ adaptability to the policy of ecological protection in China—A case study in Yanchi County, China. Soc. Sci. J. 2018, 55, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maridal, J.H. A Worldwide Measure of Societal Quality of Life. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 134, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Easterlin, R.A. Explaining happiness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 11176–11183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 1984, 95, 542–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frey, B.S.; Alois, S. What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research? J. Econ. Lit. 2002, 40, 402–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pei, Z. Household social capital, relative income and Subjective well-being: Evidence from western countryside in Zhejiang province. Issues Agric. Econ. 2010, 7, 22–29. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J. Social Comparison, Relative Income and Life Satisfaction. Sociol. Rev. China 2014, 3, 41–52. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, L.; Liu, Y.; Brown, G.; Searle, G. Factors affecting farmers′ satisfaction with contemporary China′s land allocation policy–The Link Policy: Based on the empirical research of Ezhou. Habitat Int. 2018, 75, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Yang, G.; Sun, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhou, L. Linking Prohibited Grazing Policy to Farmers′ Subjective Well-Being: A Case Study in Yanchi County, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Zhang, C.; Hudson, J. Housing conditions and life satisfaction in urban China. Cities 2018, 81, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rodgers, W.L. The Quality of American life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, F.M.; Withey, S.B. Social Indicators of Well-Being Americas Perception of Quality of Life; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Sirgy, M.J. The psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012; Volume 50. [Google Scholar]
- Sirgy, M.J.; Kruger, P.S.; Lee, D.J.; Yu, G.B. How Does a Travel Trip Affect Tourists′ Life Satisfaction? J. Travel Res. 2010, 50, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patt, A. Beyond the tragedy of the commons: Reframing effective climate change governance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Revitalize the world′s countryside. Nature 2017, 548, 275–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Qi, G.; Zuo, T. An Exploratory Study on the Utilization and Management of Rangeland in Farming-Pastoral Ecotone After the Grazing-ban Policy:Based on The Field Study on Planned-grazing Pilot in Ningxia. Chin. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2014, 24, 118–125. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, A.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X.; Xue, J.; Liu, Z.; Han, X.; Huang, J. China′s new rural “separating three property rights” land reform results in grassland degradation: Evidence from Inner Mongolia. Land Use Policy 2018, 71, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S. Rural Migration in China: Scenario, Challenge and Public Policy. Ilo Working Papers. 2008. Available online: http://www.networkideas:feathm/oct2006/ft29_Li_Shi.htm (accessed on 20 October 2018).
- Luttmer, E.F.P. Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. Q. J. Econ. 2005, 120, 963–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. Income and well-being: An empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. J. Public Econ. 2005, 89, 997–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oshio, T.; Nozaki, K.; Kobayashi, M. Relative Income and Happiness in Asia: Evidence from Nationwide Surveys in China, Japan, and Korea. Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 104, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otis, N. Subjective Well-Being in China: Associations with Absolute, Relative, and Perceived Economic Circumstances. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 132, 885–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z.; Chen, L. Income and Well-Being: Relative Income and Absolute Income Weaken Negative Emotion, but Only Relative Income Improves Positive Emotion. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blanchflower, D.G.; Oswald, A.J. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J. Public Econ. 2004, 88, 1359–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bruni, L.; Porta, P.L. Economics and Happiness: Framing the Analysis; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, A.E.; Oswald, A.J. Satisfaction and comparison income. J. Public Econ. 1996, 61, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du, H.; King, R.B.; Chi, P. Income inequality is detrimental to long-term well-being: A large-scale longitudinal investigation in China. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 232, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, P. Institutions in Transition Land Ownership, Property Rights, and Social Conflict in China; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations, UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: www.un:sustainabledevelopment/poverty/ (accessed on 15 October 2018).
- Yang, H.; Yang, W.; Zhang, J.; Connor, T.; Liu, J. Revealing pathways from payments for ecosystem services to socioeconomic outcomes. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaao6652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Influencing Factors | Variables | Variable Assignment | Mean (SD) |
---|---|---|---|
Subjective well-being | Life satisfaction | 1 = “Extremely dissatisfied” to 10 = “very satisfied” | 7.70 (2.02) |
PGP satisfaction | 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied” | 4.07 (0.92) | |
Personal characteristics | Age | 1 = 44 years old and below, 2 = 45–59 years old, 3 = 60 years old and above | 2.32 (0.70) |
Male | 1 = male, 0 = female | 0.54 (0.50) | |
Married | 1 = married, 0 = not married and other | 0.91 (0.29) | |
Education level | 1 = uneducated, 2 = primary school, 3 = middle school, 4 = senior high, 5 = college and above | 2.06 (0.95) | |
Family economy | Log monthly household income | 3.44 (0.45) | |
Income level in your village | 1 = “very low” to 5 = “very high” | 2.57 (0.84) | |
Raising sheep | 1 = raise sheep, 0 = does not raise sheep | 0.34 (0.48) | |
Non-agricultural monthly income | 1 = less than 2000 CNY, 2 = 2000–5999 CNY, 3 = 6000 CNY and above | 1.41 (0.60) | |
Income and expenses | 1 = “have debt” to 4 = “save money” | 2.76 (0.91) | |
Policy perception | Influence of PGP on income | 1 = “strongly worsen” to 5 = “strongly improve” | 2.72 (0.87) |
Subsidy level | 1 = “very low” to 3 = “reasonable and high” | 2.44 (0.76) | |
Influence of PGP on environment | 1 = “strongly worsen” to 5 = “strongly improve” | 4.84 (0.46) | |
Environmental perception | Satisfaction with environment | 1 = “very dissatisfied” to 5 = “very satisfied” | 4.22 (0.70) |
Perceived environmental quality | 1 = “very poor” to 5 = “very good” | 4.31 (0.63) |
Parameters | Distribution (Percentage) | PGP Satisfaction | Life Satisfaction |
---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
PGP satisfaction | |||
Unsatisfied or neutral | 45 (17.8%) | - | - |
Relatively satisfied | 122 (48.2%) | - | - |
Very satisfied | 86 (40.0%) | - | - |
Gender | |||
Male | 136 (54%) | 4.07 (0.98) | 7.81 (1.96) |
Female | 117 (46%) | 4.06 (0.85) | 7.58 (2.09) |
Age | |||
< 45 | 35 (14%) | 4.00 (0.94) | 7.40 (1.88) |
45–59 | 102 (40%) | 3.95 (0.88) | 7.60 (2.07) |
> 59 | 116 (46%) | 4.19 (0.94) | 7.89 (2.01) |
Education | |||
Lower than primary education | 83 (33%) | 4.16 (1.01) | 7.49 (2.03) |
Primary education | 94 (37%) | 3.96 (0.88) | 7.81 (2.09) |
Middle school | 59 (23%) | 4.17 (0.72) | 7.83 (2.04) |
Senior high | 13 (5%) | 3.92 (1.12) | 7.46 (1.27) |
Higher education | 4 (2%) | 3.75 (1.89) | 8.50 (1.92) |
Household income (CNY/Month) | |||
< 2000 | 90 (36%) | 4.17 (0.88) | 7.68 (2.18) |
2000–5999 | 99 (39%) | 3.92 (0.98) | 7.62 (1.94) |
> 5999 | 64 (25%) | 4.16 (0.88) | 7.87 (1.92) |
Livelihood strategies | |||
Raising sheep | 87 (34%) | 3.89 (1.06) | 7.72 (1.87) |
Not raising sheep | 166 (66%) | 4.16 (0.83) | 7.69 (2.10) |
t (df = 251) | 2.296 | −0.117 | |
p (two-tail) | p < 0.05 | p > 0.1 |
Variables | Total Sample | Robustness Checks | By Groups | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Drop Independent Variable | Binary Dependent Variable (0–1) | Raise Sheep | Do Not Raise Sheep | |
Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | |
Age | −0.061 (−0.46) | −0.026 (−0.21) | −0.193 (−0.94) | −0.073 (−0.53) | −0.032 (−0.20) |
Male | 0.088 (0.56) | 0.101 (0.64) | 0.001 (0.00) | 0.288 (1.00) | −0.031 (−0.15) |
Married | −0.000 (−0.00) | −0.026 (−0.10) | 0.307 (0.77) | −0.078 (−0.15) | −0.026 (−0.08) |
Education | −0.029 (−0.30) | −0.054 (−0.56) | 0.010 (0.06) | −0.040 (−0.24) | 0.007 (0.05) |
Log monthly household income | −0.176 (−0.73) | - | −0.505 (−1.39) | −0.559 (−1.20) | −0.008 (−0.03) |
Non-agricultural income | 0.150 (0.96) | 0.118 (0.91) | 0.440 (1.70) | 0.383 (1.58) | −0.032 (−0.15) |
Raising sheep | −0.452 ** (−2.56) | −0.482 *** (−3.02) | −0.379 (−1.43) | - | - |
Income level in your village | 0.026 (0.25) | 0.047 (0.48) | −0.166 (−1.02) | 0.114 (0.52) | 0.018 (0.16) |
Income and expenditure | 0.067 (0.76) | 0.040 (0.46) | 0.136 (1.04) | 0.146 (1.00) | 0.035 (0.30) |
Influence of PGP on income | 0.303 *** (3.33) | 0.279 *** (3.10) | 0.308 ** (2.34) | 0.438 *** (2.68) | 0.255 ** (1.84) |
Subsidy level | 0.175 * (1.69) | 0.205 ** (2.00) | 0.194 (1.30) | 0.200 (0.97) | 0.115 (0.90) |
Influence of PGP on environment | 0.540 *** (3.20) | 0.534 *** (3.18) | 1.062 *** (4.36) | 0.731 ** (2.07) | 0.477 ** (2.34) |
Satisfaction with environment | 0.543 *** (3.36) | 0.763 *** (6.28) | 0.628 *** (2.76) | 0.629 ** (2.34) | 0.582 ** (2.43) |
Perceived environmental quality | 0.360 ** (2.04) | - | −0.029 (−0.12) | 0.293 (1.19) | 0.395 (1.45) |
_cons | −6.329 (−3.88) | ||||
Log likelihood | −239.538 | −241.914 | −80.594 | −89.986 | −145.880 |
LR chi2 | 123.38 | 118.62 | 75.69 | 44.31 | 79.85 |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.205 | 0.197 | 0.320 | 0.198 | 0.215 |
PGP Satisfaction | Order Probit (Marginal Effects) |
---|---|
Very dissatisfied | 0.022 ** (2.23) |
Dissatisfied | 0.020 ** (2.09) |
Neutral | 0.038 ** (2.36) |
Satisfied | 0.050 ** (2.44) |
Very satisfied | −0.129 *** (−2.62) |
Other variables | Yes |
Variables | Total Sample | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Including PGP Satisfaction | Robustness Checks | ||
Drop Independent Variable | Binary Dependent Variable (0–1) | |||
Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | |
PGP satisfaction | - | 0.195 ** (2.18) | - | - |
Age band | 0.044 (0.38) | 0.058 (0.49) | 0.048 (0.43) | 0.139 (0.94) |
Male | 0.128 (0.88) | 0.120 (0.83) | 0.123 (0.85) | 0.113 (0.62) |
Married | 0.533 ** (2.32) | 0.524 ** (2.27) | 0.536 ** (2.33) | 0.445 ** (1.50) |
Education | 0.007 (0.07) | 0.013 (0.15) | 0.010 (0.11) | 0.061 (0.53) |
Log monthly household income | −0.035 (−0.16) | 0.011 (−0.05) | - | 0.047 (0.17) |
Non-agricultural income | 0.019 (0.13) | 0.003 (0.03) | −0.002 (−0.02) | −0.024 (−0.14) |
Raising sheep | −0.025 (−0.16) | 0.037 (0.23) | −0.043 (−0.30) | −0.014 (−0.07) |
Income level in your village | 0.216 ** (2.37) | 0.211 ** (2.32) | 0.208 ** (2.30) | 0.136 (1.18) |
Income and expenditure | 0.244 *** (2.97) | 0.241 *** (2.93) | 0.248 *** (3.04) | 0.263 ** (2.50) |
Influence of PGP on income | 0.233 *** (2.80) | 0.197 ** (2.33) | 0.235 *** (2.86) | 0.281 *** (2.61) |
Subsidy level | −0.108 (−1.12) | −0.134 (−1.37) | −0.116 (−1.22) | −0.107 (−0.87) |
Influence of PGP on environment | 0.143 (0.91) | 0.037 (0.22) | 0.139 (0.89) | 0.433 (1.92) |
Satisfaction with environment | 0.436 *** (2.79) | 0.372 ** (2.40) | 0.356 *** (3.22) | 0.411 ** (2.01) |
Perceived environmental quality | −0.111 (−0.68) | −0.137 (−0.83) | - | −0.161 (−0.75) |
_cons | −5.632 (−3.97) | |||
Log likelihood | −437.858 | −435.486 | −438.098 | −150.833 |
LR chi2 | 62.28 | 67.02 | 61.80 | 46.97 |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.066 | 0.072 | 0.066 | 0.135 |
Variables | Total Sample | |
---|---|---|
Regression Using the Predicted Value of PGP Satisfaction | Original Regression Including PGP Satisfaction | |
Coefficient | Coefficient (Table 5) | |
PGP satisfaction | 0.337 * (1.80) | 0.195 ** (2.18) |
Age band | 0.048 (0.41) | 0.058 (0.49) |
Male | 0.109 (0.75) | 0.120 (0.83) |
Married | 0.613 *** (2.61) | 0.524 ** (2.27) |
Education | 0.014 (0.16) | 0.013 (0.15) |
Log monthly household income | −0.010 (−0.05) | 0.011 (−0.05) |
Non-agricultural income | 0.002 (0.01) | 0.003 (0.03) |
Raising sheep | 0.145 (0.78) | 0.037 (0.23) |
Income level in your village | 0.197 ** (2.15) | 0.211 ** (2.32) |
Income and expenditure | 0.236 *** (2.87) | 0.241 *** (2.93) |
Influence of PGP on income | 0.125 (1.22) | 0.197 ** (2.33) |
Subsidy level | −0.197 * (−1.82) | −0.134 (−1.37) |
Influence of PGP on environment | 0.213 (1.31) | 0.037 (0.22) |
Satisfaction with environment | 0.130 (0.58) | 0.372 ** (2.40) |
Perceived environmental quality | −0.176 (−1.05) | −0.137 (−0.83) |
_cons | ||
Log likelihood | −436.233 | −435.486 |
LR chi2 | 63.53 | 67.02 |
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.070 | 0.072 |
© 2019 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
Wang, W.; Zhou, L.; Yang, G.; Sun, Y.; Chen, Y. Prohibited Grazing Policy Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction in Rural Northwest China—A Case Study in Yanchi County, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224374
Wang W, Zhou L, Yang G, Sun Y, Chen Y. Prohibited Grazing Policy Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction in Rural Northwest China—A Case Study in Yanchi County, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(22):4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224374
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Weiwei, Lihua Zhou, Guojing Yang, Yan Sun, and Yong Chen. 2019. "Prohibited Grazing Policy Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction in Rural Northwest China—A Case Study in Yanchi County, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 22: 4374. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224374