IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v71y2018icp505-517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Lanlan
  • Zhang, Chunman
  • Cai, Yinying

Abstract

Agri-environmental schemes have become an effective policy measure to prompt farmers to protect rural farmland and landscapes. In recent years, 17 provincial governments including Sichuan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Guangxi and Guangdong have shown increasing interest in promoting local experimentation with agri-environmental schemes. Based on two waves of farmer survey data in Eastern, Middle and Western China conducted in 2012 and 2015, this paper conducts a comparative study of three agricultural environmental policy models: the farmland protection fund model in Chengdu city (the Chengdu model), the farmland eco-compensation model in Suzhou city (the Suzhou model), and the conventional farmland protection model in Wuhan (the Wuhan model). Our quantitative analyses show that: agri-environmental schemes in China have significantly enhanced farmer enthusiasm toward farmland protection and lifted their policy satisfaction. Yet, the improvement in farmer knowledge of farmland ecological functions is limited; different agri-environmental models have diverse policy effects. Overall, the Chengdu model characterized by a combination of pension insurance and agricultural insurance benefits works better than the Suzhou model. Farmer participation in rural farmland and landscape protection is affected by multiple factors, among which education is the most significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Lanlan & Zhang, Chunman & Cai, Yinying, 2018. "Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 505-517.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:505-517
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304659
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    2. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    3. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    4. Hounsome, Barry & Edwards, Rhiannon T. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2006. "A note on the effect of farmer mental health on adoption: The case of agri-environment schemes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 229-241, December.
    5. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser & Iain Fraser, 2011. "Farmer Compensation and its Consequences for Environmental Benefit Provision in the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 330-339, June.
    6. Bulte, Erwin H. & Lipper, Leslie & Stringer, Randy & Zilberman, David, 2008. "Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 245-254, June.
    7. Alexander Gocht & Wolfgang Britz & Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2013. "Farm Type Effects of an EU-wide Direct Payment Harmonisation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(1), pages 1-32, February.
    8. Jeffrey Kline & Dennis Wichelns, 1994. "Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 223-233.
    9. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46, pages 273-282.
    10. Rodrigo A. Arriagada, & Paul J. Ferraro & Erin O. Sills & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Silvia Cordero-Sancho, 2012. "Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 382-399.
    11. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    12. Geoff A Wilson & Kaley Hart, 2000. "Financial Imperative or Conservation Concern? EU Farmers' Motivations for Participation in Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2161-2185, December.
    13. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    14. Zbinden, Simon & Lee, David R., 2005. "Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 255-272, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Song, Bingjie & Robinson, Guy M. & Bardsley, Douglas K. & Xue, Yanlong & Wang, Bing, 2023. "Multifunctional agriculture in a peri-urban fringe: Chinese farmers’ responses to shifts in policy and changing socio-economic conditions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Cheng, Xiu & Wu, Fan & Long, Ruyin & Li, Wenbo, 2021. "Uncovering the effects of learning capacity and social interaction on the experienced utility of low-carbon lifestyle guiding policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Kunpeng Wang & Wenjun Wu & Awais Jabbar & Zinabu Wolde & Minghao Ou, 2021. "Dynamic Evolution and Spatial Convergence of the Virtual Cultivated Land Flow Intensity in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Hao Li & Tiantian Li & Wei-Yew Chang, 2023. "Family Identity, Place Identity, and Chinese Farmers’ Environment-Friendly Production Behavior," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Yuan Yuan & Hongbo Li & Xiaolin Zhang & Xiaoliang Hu & Yahua Wang, 2019. "Emerging Location-Based Service Data on Perceiving and Measuring Multifunctionality of Rural Space: A Study of Suzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Zhidong Li & Boru Su & Moucheng Liu, 2022. "Research Progress on the Theory and Practice of Grassland Eco-Compensation in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Cao, Rui-fen & Zhang, An-lu & Cai, Yin-ying & Xie, Xiang-xiang, 2020. "How imbalanced land development affects local fiscal condition? A case study of Hubei Province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Dongyang Xiao & Haipeng Niu & Liangxin Fan & Suxia Zhao & Hongxuan Yan, 2019. "Farmers’ Satisfaction and its Influencing Factors in the Policy of Economic Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: A Case Study in Chengdu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2020. "Valuing Rural Residents' Attitude Regarding agri-environmental Policy in China: A Best-worst Scaling Analysis," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-01, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    2. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    3. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    5. Hansen, Kristiana & Duke, Esther & Bond, Craig & Purcell, Melanie & Paige, Ginger, 2018. "Rancher Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Southwestern Wyoming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 240-249.
    6. Murphy, Geraldine & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne, 2014. "Modelling the Participation Decision in Agri-Environmental Schemes," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183069, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    8. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    9. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    10. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    11. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Polard, Audrey & Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo, 2015. "The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU Common Agricultural Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 24-38.
    12. Clot, Sophie & Stanton, Charlotte Y., 2014. "Present bias predicts participation in payments for environmental services: Evidence from a behavioral experiment in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 162-170.
    13. Hegde, Ravi & Bull, Gary Q., 2011. "Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 122-130.
    14. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    15. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2016. "Sustainable participation behaviour in agri-environmental measures," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 47-58.
    16. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Linjing Ren & Jie Li & Cong Li & Shuzhuo Li & Gretchen C. Daily, 2018. "Does Poverty Matter in Payment for Ecosystem Services Program? Participation in the New Stage Sloping Land Conversion Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, June.
    18. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    19. Galbraith, Sara M. & Hall, Troy E. & Tavárez, Héctor S. & Kooistra, Chad M. & Ordoñez, Jenny C. & Bosque-Pérez, Nilsa A., 2017. "Local ecological knowledge reveals effects of policy-driven land use and cover change on beekeepers in Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 112-122.
    20. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong & Zhang, Sanfeng, 2019. "Opportunity cost, income structure, and energy structure for landholders participating in payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from Wolong National Nature Reserve, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 230-238.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:505-517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.