The Effects of the Sloping Land Conversion Program on Poverty Alleviation in the Wuling Mountainous Area of China

Vocational and business training to improve women’s labour market outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

“…We were able to calculate 11 additional effect sizes for the effects of PES on agricultural sources of household income, which we were unable to include in the meta-analysis due to dependencies or different outcome constructs. Thirteen of these effects are from programmes in China (Xu et al, 2010;Yao et al 2010;Zheng et al 2013;Duan et al 2015;Liang et al 2012;) while one reports on a different trial arm of an RCT in Malawi (Jack & Santos, 2017). Xu et al (2010) also report the effects of the SLCP in China on total agricultural income with subsidy, as opposed to total agricultural income without the PES subsidy included in the meta-analysis.…”

“…also report the effect of the SLCP on animal husbandry, finding a negative effect of the SLCP in China of -0.29 SMD, 95% CI (-0.49, -0.07) Uchida et al (2009). report the effects of the SLCP on other agricultural income per capita (as opposed to income from cropping included in the meta-analysis), finding a positive effect of 0.41 SMD (95% CI,[0.17, 0.66]) Duan et al (2015). report the effect of the SLCP on household income from forests, finding an insignificant effect of 0.07 (95% CI,[-0.17, 0.30]).Zhang et al 2013 report the effects of the PLDL programme in China on the % of income from agricultural sources, finding a negative effect of -0.47 SMD, (95% CI,[-0.62, -0.32]).…”

Agricultural input subsidies for improving productivity, farm income, consumer welfare and wider growth in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

“…Uchida et al (2009) report the effects of the SLCP on other agricultural income per capita (as opposed to income from cropping included in the meta-analysis), finding a positive effect of 0.41 SMD (95% CI, [0.17, 0.66]). Duan et al (2015) report the effect of the SLCP on household income from forests, finding an insignificant effect of 0.07 (95% CI, [-0.17, 0.30]). Zhang et al 2013 report the effects of the PLDL programme in China on the % of income from agricultural sources, finding a negative effect of -0.47 SMD, (95% CI, [-0.62, -0.32]).…”

Key factors that influence households’ tree planting behaviour

“…Mekonnen and Damte (2011), analysing tree planting and its intensity by household, found that the availability of resource endowments, household characteristics and institution-related factors influenced households' tree planting behaviour. Different empirical studies indicate that motivational monetary factors represent the households' utility (Poppenborg and Koellner 2013), which in turn influences households' tree planting behaviour (Bluffstone et al, 2008;Duesberg et al, 2013;Gebreegziabher and Kooten, 2013;Sikor and Baggio, 2014;Ashraf et al, 2015;Duan et al, 2015). However, some empirical studies found that financial incentives do not influence tree planting behaviour, rather that perceptional and value factors play a vital role in influencing it (Duesberg et al, 2013;Meijer et al, 2015).…”