IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i11p1159-d668531.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Yang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Xiaohe Zhou

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Shuwen Cao

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Anlu Zhang

    (College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

Abstract

Successful farmland eco-compensation projects need to reflect the heterogeneous preferences both from suppliers and beneficiaries. This paper tries to answer this question by investigating both citizen and farmer preferences for different farmland eco-compensation methods in Wuhan, China, and explore some of the socio-demographic characteristics that contribute to their preferences. Based on the data of 288 citizens and 331 farmers, the multinomial logit model was employed to analyze their preferences for the four farmland eco-compensation methods (monetary compensation, in-kind compensation, technology compensation and policy compensation), respectively. The results show that: (1) Monetary compensation is the most welcomed farmland eco-compensation method among both citizens and farmers. (2) Despite farmers and citizens both putting a high value on monetary compensation methods, citizens are more likely to provide compensation methods that can help farmers improve their living standards in a sustainable method (in-kind compensation, technology compensation and policy compensation). Farmers are less likely to choose the in-kind compensation method. (3) The preference for farmland eco-compensation systems of farmers and citizens are influenced by different socio-demographic characteristics. The results can help the government to design more aimed farmland eco-compensation methods for farmers with different socio-demographic characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Yang & Xiaohe Zhou & Shuwen Cao & Anlu Zhang, 2021. "Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1159-:d:668531
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1159/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1159/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    2. Reed, Mark S. & Moxey, Andrew & Prager, Katrin & Hanley, Nick & Skates, James & Bonn, Aletta & Evans, Chris D. & Glenk, Klaus & Thomson, Ken, 2014. "Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 44-53.
    3. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Franz Hackl & Gerald Pruckner, 1997. "Towards More Efficient Compensation Programmes for Tourists' Benefits From Agriculture in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 189-205, September.
    5. Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode, 2016. "Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 232-245.
    6. Yunxiao Bai & Moucheng Liu & Lun Yang, 2021. "Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Arable Land Based on the Value Flow of Support Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    7. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Robert Huber & Marcel Hunziker & Bernard Lehmann, 2011. "Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 93-113.
    9. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    10. Xavier Garcia, 2014. "The value of rehabilitating urban rivers: the Yarqon River (Israel)," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 323-339, November.
    11. L. Harrison‐Mayfield & J. Dwyer & G. Brookes, 1998. "The Socio‐Economic Effects of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 157-170, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Briz, T. & Ward, R.W., 2009. "Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: An application of multinominal logit models," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 295-304, June.
    14. Allen, Stuart D & Bray, Jeremy & Seaks, Terry G, 1997. "A Multinomial Logit Analysis of the Influence of Policy Variables and Board Experience on FOMC Voting Behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 27-39, July.
    15. Kurttila, Mikko & Hamalainen, Kari & Kajanus, Miika & Pesonen, Mauno, 2001. "Non-industrial private forest owners' attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry -- a multinominal logit model analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 13-28, April.
    16. Hellerstein, Daniel M., 2017. "The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 601-610.
    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. 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.
    2. Weidong Xiao & Liquan Qu & Kai Li & Chuanxu Guo & Jie Li, 2022. "An Assessment of the Rational Range of Eco-Compensation Standards: A Case Study in the Nujiang Prefecture, Southwestern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Min Song & Yuxin Ji & Mingdi Zhu & Junji Yue & Luping Yi, 2022. "Routes Determine Results? Comparing the Performance of Differentiated Farmland Conservation Policies in China Based on Farmers’ Perceptions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Yunyun Qi & Tianye Zhang & Jing Cao & Cai Jin & Tianyu Chen & Yue Su & Chong Su & Srikanta Sannigrahi & Arabinda Maiti & Shiqi Tao & Qi Zhang & Tan Li, 2022. "Heterogeneity Impacts of Farmers’ Participation in Payment for Ecosystem Services Based on the Collective Action Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.
    5. Jie Pang & Leshan Jin & Yujie Yang & Heng Li & Zongling Chu & Fei Ding, 2022. "Policy Cognition, Household Income and Farmers’ Satisfaction: Evidence from a Wetland Ecological Compensation Project in the Poyang Lake Area at the Micro Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, September.

    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. Xin Yang & Anlu Zhang & Fan Zhang, 2019. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for Farmland Non-Market Goods and Services on the Basis of a Mixed Logit Model—A Case Study of Wuhan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    4. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Wenge & Han, Xiao, 2020. "China’s PES-like horizontal eco-compensation program: Combining market-oriented mechanisms and government interventions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Mengba Liu & Anlu Zhang & Xiong Zhang & Yanfei Xiong, 2022. "Research on the Game Mechanism of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Standards Determination: Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    6. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    7. 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.
    8. Drechsler, Martin, 2023. "Ecological and economic trade-offs between amount and spatial aggregation of conservation and the cost-effective design of coordination incentives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    9. Lava Prakash Yadav & Stephen O’Neill & Tom van Rensburg, 2013. "Economic Crisis and the Restructuring of Wage Setting Mechanisms for Vulnerable Workers in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 44(2), pages 221-245.
    10. Junfeng Zhang & Anlu Zhang & Min Song, 2020. "Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Allott, Timothy E.H. & Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije, 2014. "Valuing water quality improvements from peatland restoration: Evidence and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 34-43.
    12. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2018. "Design of tropical forest conservation contracts considering risk of deforestation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 451-462.
    13. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    14. Long, Kaisheng & Omrani, Hichem & Pijanowski, Bryan C., 2020. "Impact of local payments for ecosystem services on land use in a developed area of China: A qualitative analysis based on an integrated conceptual framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Mitani, Yohei & Shimada, Hideki, 2021. "Self-selection bias in estimating the determinants of landowners' Re-enrollment decisions in forest incentive programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Cent, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2016. "Application of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy—A systematic empirical analysis of national level policy documents in Poland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 169-176.
    18. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    19. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    20. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.

    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:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1159-:d:668531. 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.