IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i8p2808-d162568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Willing Are Herders to Participate in Carbon Sequestration and Mitigation? An Inner Mongolian Grassland Case

Author

Listed:
  • Yanyun Zhao

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Ecology and Resource Use of the Mongolian Plateau & Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecology, School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China
    The authors contributed equally to the study.)

  • Yongzhi Yan

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Ecology and Resource Use of the Mongolian Plateau & Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecology, School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China
    The authors contributed equally to the study.)

  • Qingfu Liu

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Ecology and Resource Use of the Mongolian Plateau & Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecology, School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China)

  • Frank Yonghong Li

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Ecology and Resource Use of the Mongolian Plateau & Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Grassland Ecology, School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China)

Abstract

Reasonable carbon sequestration and mitigation measures play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emission and realizing regional sustainable development. How willing herders are to participate in carbon sequestration and mitigation directly determines the corresponding implementation effect. Relevant studies mostly focus on forest households and peasant households, but great uncertainty remains regarding herdsman households. Based on a survey of 404 herdsman households in Inner Mongolian grasslands, this study assessed the cognitive level and participation willingness of herders on carbon sequestration and mitigation of grasslands, and investigated the factors influencing their willingness to participate in the activity. We found that the cognitive level of herders on carbon sequestration and mitigation in Inner Mongolian grasslands was relatively low, with 83% of herdsman households having low cognition and 17% in the state of medium cognition. However, herders are mostly willing to take grassland carbon sequestration and mitigation measures, with 60% of herdsman households being willing to participate, 28% moderately willing to do so, and 12% of unwillingness. This pattern was mainly influenced by the impact of carbon sequestration and mitigation on household income, the economic subsidies and the call for ecological environment protection from the government. The herders tend to be willing to participate when they think that the government calls for ecological environment protection are essential. In contrast, they tend to be unwilling to participate if they think the subsidies too low and the negative effect of sequestration measure on income is essential. We found that the family financial income of herders is a key factor limiting the improvement of participation willingness in this area. It is necessary to improve the cognition of herders for the development of carbon sequestration and mitigation projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanyun Zhao & Yongzhi Yan & Qingfu Liu & Frank Yonghong Li, 2018. "How Willing Are Herders to Participate in Carbon Sequestration and Mitigation? An Inner Mongolian Grassland Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2808-:d:162568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2808/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2808/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    3. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    4. Zhang, MunkhDalai A. & Borjigin, Elles & Zhang, Huiping, 2007. "Mongolian nomadic culture and ecological culture: On the ecological reconstruction in the agro-pastoral mosaic zone in Northern China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 19-26, April.
    5. Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie, 2013. "Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling," Nature, Nature, vol. 501(7467), pages 403-407, September.
    6. Tek B. Sapkota & Vivek Shankar & Munmun Rai & Mangi L Jat & Clare M. Stirling & Love K. Singh & Hanuman S. Jat & Mohinder S. Grewal, 2017. "Reducing Global Warming Potential through Sustainable Intensification of Basmati Rice-Wheat Systems in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Honggen Zhu & Zhengfei Guan & Xuan Wei, 2016. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Wetland Restoration: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Fanbin Kong & Kai Xiong & Ning Zhang, 2014. "Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to Pay and Its Level for Ecological Compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland, China: A Household-Level Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    10. Soderqvist, Tore, 2003. "Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 105-120, November.
    11. 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.
    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. Hengrui Zhang & Jianing Zhang & Zhuozhuo Lv & Linjie Yao & Ning Zhang & Qing Zhang, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Assessment of Landscape Ecological Risk and Associated Drivers: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin in Inner Mongolia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Lin Meng & Wentao Si, 2022. "Pro-Environmental Behavior: Examining the Role of Ecological Value Cognition, Environmental Attitude, and Place Attachment among Rural Farmers in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Caixia Hou & Mengmeng Zhang & Mengmeng Wang & Hanliang Fu & Mengjie Zhang, 2021. "Factors Influencing Grazing Behavior by Using the Consciousness-Context-Behavior Theory—A Case Study from Yanchi County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Yang Liu & Qing Zhang & Qingfu Liu & Yongzhi Yan & Wanxin Hei & Deyong Yu & Jianguo Wu, 2020. "Different Household Livelihood Strategies and Influencing Factors in the Inner Mongolian Grassland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Zimmermann, Andrea & Britz, Wolfgang, 2014. "European Farms’ Participation in Agri-environmental Measures," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183073, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. 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.
    6. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Honggen Zhu & Zhengfei Guan & Xuan Wei, 2016. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Wetland Restoration: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Wieck, Christine & Annen, Dominic N., 2012. "Participation, compliance and synergies at the farm level between the single payments scheme and farm certification labels," Discussion Papers 122123, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Doris Läpple, 2010. "Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 697-714, September.
    12. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina & Lasorella, Maria Valentina, 2018. "Exploring Agri-environmental effectiveness using counterfactual analysis," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271958, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Franzén, Frida & Dinnétz, Patrik & Hammer, Monica, 2016. "Factors affecting farmers' willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation — A case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 8-15.
    14. Vollenweider, Xavier & Di Falco, Salvatore & O’Donoghue, Cathal, 2011. "Risk preferences and voluntary agri-environmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37585, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Alló, Maria & Igleasias, Eva & Loureiro, Maria L., 2013. "Farmers’ preferences and social capital towards agri-environmental schemes for protecting birds," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150620, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. K Hervé Dakpo & Laure Latruffe & Yann Desjeux & Philippe Jeanneaux, 2022. "Modeling heterogeneous technologies in the presence of sample selection: The case of dairy farms and the adoption of agri‐environmental schemes in France," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 422-438, May.
    17. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    18. Unay Gailhard, Ilkay & Bavorova, Miroslava & Pirscher, Frauke, 2012. "The Influence of Communication Frequency with Social Network Actors on the Continuous Innovation Adoption: Organic Farmers in Germany," 131st Seminar, September 18-19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic 135786, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Alessandra La Notte & Sonia Marongiu & Mauro Masiero & Pietro Molfetta & Riccardo Molignoni & Luca Cesaro, 2015. "Livestock and Ecosystem Services: An Exploratory Approach to Assess Agri-Environment-Climate Payments of RDP in Trentino," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-23, August.
    20. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:8:p:2808-:d:162568. 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.