IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p10510-d651078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Tianwei Geng

    (College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China
    Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Environmental Carrying Capacity, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Hai Chen

    (College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China
    Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Environmental Carrying Capacity, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Di Liu

    (College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China
    Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Environmental Carrying Capacity, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Qinqin Shi

    (College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China
    Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Environmental Carrying Capacity, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Hang Zhang

    (Institute of Land and Urban-Rural Development, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

Exploring and analyzing the common demands and behavioral responses of different stakeholders is important for revealing the mediating mechanisms of ecosystem service (ES) and realizing the management and sustainable supply of ES. This study took Mizhi County, a poverty-stricken area on the Loess Plateau in China, as an example. First, the main stakeholders, common demands, and behavioral responses in the food provision services were identified. Second, the relationship among stakeholders was analyzed. Finally, this study summarized three types of mediating mechanisms of food provision services and analyzed the influence of the different types of mediating mechanisms. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) Five main stakeholders in the study area were identified: government, farmers, enterprises, cooperatives, and middlemen. (2) Increasing farmers’ income is the common demand of most stakeholders in the study area, and this common demand has different effects on the behavioral responses of different stakeholders. (3) There are three types of mediating mechanisms in the study area: government + farmers mediating corn and mutton, government + enterprises mediating millet, and government + cooperatives mediating apples. On this basis, the effects of the different types of mediating mechanisms on variations in food yield, and trade-offs and synergies in typical townships, were analyzed.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianwei Geng & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Qinqin Shi & Hang Zhang, 2021. "Research on Mediating Mechanisms and the Impact on Food Provision Services in Poor Areas from the Perspective of Stakeholders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10510-:d:651078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10510/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10510/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ciftcioglu, Gulay Cetinkaya, 2017. "Social preference-based valuation of the links between home gardens, ecosystem services, and human well-being in Lefke Region of North Cyprus," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 227-236.
    2. Qiang Du & Yunqing Yan & Youdan Huang & Chanchan Hao & Jiao Wu, 2021. "Evolutionary Games of Low-Carbon Behaviors of Construction Stakeholders under Carbon Taxes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Hüseyin Pamukçu & Ömer Saraç & Sercan Aytuğar & Mustafa Sandıkçı, 2021. "The Effects of Local Food and Local Products with Geographical Indication on the Development of Tourism Gastronomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Tracy Irani & Beatrice Fenelon Pierre & Tyler S. Nesbit, 2021. "Agricultural Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Occupational Health and Safety in the Southeastern U.S. Coastal States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Jorge H. Amorim & Magnuz Engardt & Christer Johansson & Isabel Ribeiro & Magnus Sannebro, 2021. "Regulating and Cultural Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Infrastructure in the Nordic Countries: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Francesco Orsini & Giorgio Gianquinto, 2018. "Revisiting the Sustainability Concept of Urban Food Production from a Stakeholders’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    9. Ehara, Makoto & Hyakumura, Kimihiko & Sato, Ren'ya & Kurosawa, Kiyoshi & Araya, Kunio & Sokh, Heng & Kohsaka, Ryo, 2018. "Addressing Maladaptive Coping Strategies of Local Communities to Changes in Ecosystem Service Provisions Using the DPSIR Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 226-238.
    10. Linh Khac Bui & Huyen Hoang, 2021. "Non-farm employment, food poverty and vulnerability in rural Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7326-7357, May.
    11. Di Liu & Xiaoying Liang & Hai Chen & Hang Zhang & Nanzhao Mao, 2018. "A Quantitative Assessment of Comprehensive Ecological Risk for a Loess Erosion Gully: A Case Study of Dujiashi Gully, Northern Shaanxi Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    12. Brittany J. Johnson & Dorota Zarnowiecki & Claire L. Hutchinson & Rebecca K. Golley, 2020. "Stakeholder Generated Ideas for Alternative School Food Provision Models in Australia Using the Nominal Group Technique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Ros Sambell & Lesley Andrew & Stephanie Godrich & Justin Wolfgang & Dieter Vandenbroeck & Katie Stubley & Nick Rose & Lenore Newman & Pierre Horwitz & Amanda Devine, 2019. "Local Challenges and Successes Associated with Transitioning to Sustainable Food System Practices for a West Australian Context: Multi-Sector Stakeholder Perceptions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Duggan, Deirdre E. & Farnsworth, Keith D. & Kraak, Sarah B.M., 2013. "Identifying functional stakeholder clusters to maximise communication for the ecosystem approach to fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 56-67.
    15. Jagtap, S. S. & Jones, J. W. & Hildebrand, P. & Letson, D. & O'Brien, J. J. & Podesta, G. & Zierden, D. & Zazueta, F., 2002. "Responding to stakeholder's demands for climate information: from research to applications in Florida," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 415-430, December.
    16. Fedele, Giacomo & Locatelli, Bruno & Djoudi, Houria, 2017. "Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 43-54.
    17. Haozhe Zhang & Qingyuan Yang & Zhongxun Zhang & Dan Lu & Huiming Zhang, 2021. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Value Determined by National Land Space Pattern Change: A Case Study of Fengdu County in The Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-24, May.
    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. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Chunyan Li & Jianmei Gao & Lanqing Ge & Weina Hu & Qi Ban, 2023. "Do Geographical Indication Products Promote the Growth of the Agricultural Economy? An Empirical Study Based on Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-21, October.
    5. James R. Mahan & Robert J. Lascano, 2016. "Irrigation Analysis Based on Long-Term Weather Data," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Junwu Wang & Yinghui Song & Wei Wang & Suikuan Wang & Feng Guo & Jiequn Lu, 2022. "Marine Construction Waste Recycling Mechanism Considering Public Participation and Carbon Trading: A Study on Dynamic Modeling and Simulation Based on Sustainability Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    8. Thomas Krikser & Ingo Zasada & Annette Piorr, 2019. "Socio-Economic Viability of Urban Agriculture—A Comparative Analysis of Success Factors in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, April.
    9. Alexandra Doernberg & Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada & Dirk Wascher & Ulrich Schmutz, 2022. "Sustainability assessment of short food supply chains (SFSC): developing and testing a rapid assessment tool in one African and three European city regions," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 885-904, September.
    10. Wafaa Majeed Mutashar Al-Hameedi & Jie Chen & Cheechouyang Faichia & Biswajit Nath & Bazel Al-Shaibah & Ali Al-Aizari, 2022. "Geospatial Analysis of Land Use/Cover Change and Land Surface Temperature for Landscape Risk Pattern Change Evaluation of Baghdad City, Iraq, Using CA–Markov and ANN Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-31, July.
    11. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. Koomson, Isaac & Orkoh, Emmanuel & Ahmad, Shabbir, 2023. "Non-farm entrepreneurship, caste, and energy poverty in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(PA).
    13. Christianson, Anne B. & Montgomery, Rebecca & Fleischman, Forrest & Nelson, Kristen C., 2022. "Exploring wildlife disservices and conservation in the context of ecosystem-based adaptation: A case study in the Mt. Elgon region, Uganda," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    14. Hongxia Zhao & Guangming Xu & Lu Liu & Changchun Shi & Huijuan Zhao, 2023. "Low-Carbon Technology Innovation Decision Making of Manufacturing Companies in the Industrial Internet Platform Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Mariana Borcoman & Daniela Sorea, 2023. "Ethnic Soups from Rupea Area (Romania) as Resources for Sustainable Local Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Mavromatis, T., 2016. "Spatial resolution effects on crop yield forecasts: An application to rainfed wheat yield in north Greece with CERES-Wheat," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 38-48.
    17. Ramazan Çakmakçı & Mehmet Ali Salık & Songül Çakmakçı, 2023. "Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    18. Antoni F. Tulla & Ana Vera, 2019. "Could Social Farming Be a Strategy to Support Food Sovereignty in Europe?," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-24, April.
    19. Willis Ndeda Ochilo & Stefan Toepfer & Privat Ndayihanzamaso & Idah Mugambi & Janny Vos & Celestin Niyongere, 2022. "Assessing the Plant Health System of Burundi: What It Is, Who Matters and Why," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Ana Moragues-Faus & Alizée Marceau, 2018. "Measuring Progress in Sustainable Food Cities: An Indicators Toolbox for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10510-:d:651078. 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.