IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2484-d341692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoping Li

    (School of Public Administration and Law, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China)

  • Yan Yan

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A & F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Liuyang Yao

    (International Business School, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China)

Abstract

Ecological compensation is an important means for controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and compensation methods comprise an essential part of the compensation policy for mitigating this form of pollution. Farmers’ choice of compensation methods affects their response to compensation policies as well as the effects of pollution control and ecological compensation efficiency. This study divides ecological compensation methods into two distinct philosophies—the “get a fish” method (GFM) and “get a fishing skill” method (GFSM)—based on policy objectives, to determine farmers’ choice between the two methods and the factors influencing this choice. Furthermore, by analyzing survey data of 632 farmers in the Ankang and Hanzhong cities in China and using the multivariate probit model, the study determines farmers’ preferred option among four specific compensation modes of GFM and GFSM. The three main results are as follows. (1) The probability of farmers choosing GFM is 82%, while that of choosing GFSM is 51%. Therefore, GFM should receive more attention in compensation policies relating to agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. (2) Of the four compensation modes, the study finds a substitution effect between farmers’ choice of capital and technology compensations, capital and project compensations, material and project compensations, while there is a complementary relationship between the choice of material and technology compensations. Therefore, when constructing the compensation policy basket, attention should be given to achieving an organic combination of different compensation methods. (3) Highly educated, young, and male farmers with lower part-time employment, large cultivated land, and a high level of eco-friendly technology adoption and policy understanding are more likely to choose GFSM. Hence, the government should prioritize promoting GFSM for farmers with these characteristics, thereby creating a demonstration effect to encourage transition from GFM to GFSM.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoping Li & Yan Yan & Liuyang Yao, 2020. "‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2484-:d:341692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2484/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2484/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohsen Tahmasebi Nasab & Kendall Grimm & Mohammad Hadi Bazrkar & Lan Zeng & Afshin Shabani & Xiaodong Zhang & Xuefeng Chu, 2018. "SWAT Modeling of Non-Point Source Pollution in Depression-Dominated Basins under Varying Hydroclimatic Conditions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Alan D. Steinman & Michael Hassett & Maggie Oudsema, 2018. "Effectiveness of Best Management Practices to Reduce Phosphorus Loading to a Highly Eutrophic Lake," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Yazhen Gong & Kathy Baylis & Robert Kozak & Gary Bull, 2016. "Farmers’ risk preferences and pesticide use decisions: evidence from field experiments in China," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 411-421, July.
    4. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    5. Gudbrand Lien & Ola Flaten & Anne Moxnes Jervell & Martha Ebbesvik & Matthias Koesling & Paul Steinar Valle, 2006. "Management and Risk Characteristics of Part-Time and Full-Time Farmers in Norway," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 111-131.
    6. Gudbrand Lien & Ola Flaten & Anne Moxnes Jervell & Martha Ebbesvik & Matthias Koesling & Paul Steinar Valle, 2006. "Management and Risk Characteristics of Part-Time and Full-Time Farmers in Norway," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 111-131.
    7. Baltas, George, 2004. "A model for multiple brand choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 144-149, April.
    8. Yu Shuai & Chuan-min Shuai & Wen-jing Li & Fu-bin Huang, 2019. "Role of women’s empowerment in improving farmer’s livelihood: empirical evidence from China," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 621-639, March.
    9. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    10. Li-Chi Chiang & Indrajeet Chaubey & Chetan Maringanti & Tao Huang, 2014. "Comparing the Selection and Placement of Best Management Practices in Improving Water Quality Using a Multiobjective Optimization and Targeting Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Juan Miguel Benito-Ostolaza & Nuria Osés-Eraso, 2013. "Incentives to give up resource extraction and avoid the tragedy of the commons," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1305, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    3. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    4. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, 2015. "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    8. Laura Villalobos & Juan Robalino & Catalina Sandoval & Francisco Alpízar, 2023. "Local Effects of Payments for Ecosystem Services on Rural Poverty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 753-774, March.
    9. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    10. Ioanna G. Gkiza & Stefanos A. Nastis, 2017. "Health and Women’s Role in Agricultural Production Efficiency," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 428-440.
    11. Lien, Gudbrand D. & Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 2008. "Determinants Of Part-Time Farming And Its Effect On Farm Productivity And Efficiency," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6701, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    13. Astrid Zabel & Karen Pittel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2011. "Comparing Conventional and New Policy Approaches for Carnivore Conservation: Theoretical Results and Application to Tiger Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 287-301, February.
    14. Blackman, Allen & Woodward, Richard T., 2010. "User financing in a national payments for environmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1626-1638, June.
    15. Bojnec, Stefan & Ferto, Imre, 2011. "Impact of Off-farm Income on Farm Efficiency in Slovenia," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114258, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Maria L. Loureiro, 2009. "Farmers' health and agricultural productivity," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 381-388, July.
    17. Spiegel, Alisa & Slijper, Thomas & de Mey, Yann & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Poortvliet, P. Marijn & Rommel, Jens & Hansson, Helena & Vigani, Mauro & Soriano, Bárbara & Wauters, Erwin & Appel, Franzisk, 2021. "Resilience capacities as perceived by European farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Sanga, G.J. & Mungatana, E.D., 2016. "Integrating ecology and economics in understanding responses in securing land-use externalities internalization in water catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 28-39.
    19. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    20. Strand, Jon, 2018. "Forest Preservation Under REDD+ Schemes With Incentives Distortions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 343-348.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2484-:d:341692. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.