IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i9p961-d633122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Value Changes and Spatial Differences in Land Use Based on an Empirical Survey in the Manas River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Yan

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yuejian Wang

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Na Liao

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Hailiang Xu

    (Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China)

  • Zili Fan

    (Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China)

Abstract

Land integration is an important means of increasing the multifunctional value of arable land. The scientific measurement of the integrative value of arable land before and after land consolidation can improve farmers’ overall understanding of the value of arable land, increase their awareness of arable land protection, and encourage them to implement arable land protection policies. Additionally, it can provide a theoretical basis for the formulation of reasonable compensation standards for arable land in various areas of the Manas River Basin and effectively promote the use of the “Shawan model”. In this paper, the sample used for the survey was made up of 380 farmers from 10 villages in three different regions of Shawan City (county-level city). The participatory farmer assessment (PRA) method was used to conduct a detailed investigation of the integration of farmers’ cultivated land, while the landscape pattern index method was used to analyze the intensity of the cultivated land integration pattern. By constructing a measurement system for the integrative value of cultivated land and adding up the economic, pro-ecological, and social values before and after the integration of the cultivated land, estimated using the income reduction method, the equivalent factor method, and the shadow engineering method, we found that the cultivated land in each region of Shawan City (county-level city) was more effectively integrated, the scale of the field expanded, the shape of the patches tended to be more regular, and the field surface more flat. However, the degree of integration varied from region to region, with the degree of integration from the largest to the smallest as follows: oasis agricultural zone > oasis/desert ecological zone > hilly zone. We found that the integration of cultivated land has a significant effect on the integrated value of cultivated land, and the value of cultivated land in different regions showed different degrees of improvement after integration. The cultivated land of villages located in the oasis/desert ecotone showed a significant overall improvement after integration, followed by cultivated land in the oasis agricultural area. The value of cultivated land increased significantly, while the value of cultivated land in the hilly area showed less improvement after integration. The value of cultivated land integration in different regions is related to the intensity of the cultivated land integration, the per capita cultivated land area, the ecosystem biomass, and the crop planting area. The purpose of this paper is to effectively diagnose and promote the “Shawan Model” (land integration), formulate reasonable compensation standards for cultivated land in different regions of the Manas River Basin, and implement cultivated land protection policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Yan & Yuejian Wang & Na Liao & Hailiang Xu & Zili Fan, 2021. "Assessment of Value Changes and Spatial Differences in Land Use Based on an Empirical Survey in the Manas River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:961-:d:633122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/961/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/961/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    2. Na Liao & Xinchen Gu & Yuejian Wang & Hailiang Xu & Zili Fan, 2021. "Analysis of Ecological and Economic Benefits of Rural Land Integration in the Manas River Basin Oasis," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Wang, Yahui & Li, Xiubin & He, Huiyan & Xin, Liangjie & Tan, Minghong, 2020. "How reliable are cultivated land assets as social security for Chinese farmers?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Bastian, Chris T. & McLeod, Donald M. & Germino, Matthew J. & Reiners, William A. & Blasko, Benedict J., 2002. "Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 337-349, March.
    5. Na Liao & Xinchen Gu & Yuejian Wang & Hailiang Xu & Zili Fan, 2020. "Analyzing Macro-Level Ecological Change and Micro-Level Farmer Behavior in Manas River Basin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Wei Liu & Jie Xu & Jie Li, 2018. "The Influence of Poverty Alleviation Resettlement on Rural Household Livelihood Vulnerability in the Western Mountainous Areas, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Wen, Lanjiao & Chatalova, Lioudmila & Butsic, Van & Hu, Fox ZhiYong & Zhang, Anlu, 2020. "Capitalization of land development rights in rural China: A choice experiment on individuals’ preferences in peri-urban Shanghai," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    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. Xinhai Lu & Bin Jiang & Mingqing Liu & Yuying Li & Danling Chen, 2022. "A Study on the Gains and Losses of the Ecosystem Service Value of the Land Consolidation Projects of Different Properties in Hubei Province: An Empirical Comparison Based on Plains, Mountains and Hill," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Kangchuan Su & Jiang Wu & Yan Yan & Zhongxun Zhang & Qingyuan Yang, 2022. "The Functional Value Evolution of Rural Homesteads in Different Types of Villages: Evidence from a Chinese Traditional Agricultural Village and Homestay Village," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.

    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. Zhaoxia Guo & Qinqin Guo & Yujie Cai & Ge Wang, 2021. "Unraveling Risk Networks of Cultivated Land Protection: An Exploratory Stakeholder-Oriented Case Study in Xiliuhe Town, Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Ritter, Matthias & Hüttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2020. "Revisiting the relationship between land price and parcel size in agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Steven Stillman, 2005. "Examining Changes in the Value of Rural Land in New Zealand between 1989 and 2003," Urban/Regional 0509015, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Valbuena, Diego & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Duncan, Alan & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Swain, Braja & Mekonnen, Kindu & Germaine, Ibro & Gérard, Bruno, 2015. "Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 107-118.
    6. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    7. Jinzhao Song & Qing Feng & Xiaoping Wang & Hanliang Fu & Wei Jiang & Baiyu Chen, 2018. "Spatial Association and Effect Evaluation of CO 2 Emission in the Chengdu-Chongqing Urban Agglomeration: Quantitative Evidence from Social Network Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    9. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    10. Rocío Silva-Pérez & Gema González-Romero, 2022. "GIAHS as an Instrument to Articulate the Landscape and Territorialized Agrifood Systems—The Example of La Axarquía (Malaga Province, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Chengqiang Li & Junxiao Wang & Liang Ge & Yujie Zhou & Shenglu Zhou, 2022. "Optimization of Sample Construction Based on NDVI for Cultivated Land Quality Prediction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Ritter, Matthias & Huttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2019. "Revisiting The Relationship Between Land Price And Parcel Size," 2019 Conference (63rd), February 12-15, 2019, Melbourne, Australia 285062, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES).
    13. Letort, Élodie & Temesgen, Chalachew, 2014. "Influence of environmental policies on farmland prices in the Bretagne region of France," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 95(1).
    14. Nils Droste & Bartosz Bartkowski, 2018. "Ecosystem Service Valuation for National Accounting: A Reply to Obst, Hein and Edens (2016)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 205-215, September.
    15. Laura Calvet-Mir & Hug March & Daniel Corbacho-Monné & Erik Gómez-Baggethun & Victoria Reyes-García, 2016. "Home Garden Ecosystem Services Valuation through a Gender Lens: A Case Study in the Catalan Pyrenees," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Tao, Jieyi & Lu, Yuqi & Ge, Dazhuan & Dong, Ping & Gong, Xiao & Ma, Xiaobin, 2022. "The spatial pattern of agricultural ecosystem services from the production-living-ecology perspective: A case study of the Huaihai Economic Zone, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    17. Pascual, Unai & Narloch, Ulf & Nordhagen, Stella & Drucker, Adam G., 2011. "The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    18. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    21. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.

    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:9:p:961-:d:633122. 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.