IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1583-d916256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on the Game Mechanism of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Standards Determination: Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

Author

Listed:
  • Mengba Liu

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

  • Anlu Zhang

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

  • Xiong Zhang

    (College of Public Administration, South-Central Minzu University, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Yanfei Xiong

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

Abstract

The ecological compensation of cultivated land could also be called paying for the ecological service of cultivated land. It means that based on comprehensive consideration of the cost of the protection of the cultivated land and the value of the ecological service, the benefited area would implement the ecological compensation to the damaged area to motivate the actors of the protection behavior to protect the cultivated land better. A fair and reasonable cultivated land ecological compensation mechanism is critical in motivating cultivated land protection subjects’ active participation in cultivated land protection. However, most of the currently measured cultivated land ecological compensation standards are only determined from the perspective of a single interest, ignoring the participation and negotiation of cultivated land protection stakeholders, resulting in insufficient pertinence, low compensation standards, and low compensation efficiency. Therefore, by introducing a market mechanism, this study constructs a non-cooperative bargaining model and solves three stages of the game equilibrium solution under the condition of comprehensive consideration of interests of farmland ecosystem service providers and consumers. In this study, the Yangtze River Economic Belt is taken as the research area to provide empirical analysis of a cultivated land ecological game compensation standard between the subject and object of cultivated land ecological compensation in the area. The study found that, under the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land determined by the bargaining game, the cultivated land ecological compensation subject and object in the area meets the “KaldorHicks” resource allocation criterion, and the standard can take into account the interests of both parties. Meanwhile, the river basin horizontal ecological compensation quota determined by the game standard will neither cause a financial dilemma in the payment area due to the excessive compensation quota, nor financial “windfall gain” in the compensated area due to ecological finance transfer of cultivated land. The cultivated land ecological compensation standard based on the game between the two parties is reasonable and accurate for the cultivated land ecological compensation object, which not only functions as an economic incentive, but maintains long-term effectiveness of policy. Therefore, it is necessary to actively promote the determination of ecological compensation standards based on negotiation means, and to establish a sustainable ecological protection compensation mechanism involving government predomination, social engagement, and market-oriented operations, to drive marketization of cultivated land ecological compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1583-:d:916256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1583/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1583/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    4. Liu, Luo & Liu, Zhenjie & Gong, Jianzhou & Wang, Lu & Hu, Yueming, 2019. "Quantifying the amount, heterogeneity, and pattern of farmland: Implications for China’s requisition-compensation balance of farmland policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 256-266.
    5. Barrett, H. R. & Browne, A. W. & Harris, P. J. C. & Cadoret, K., 2002. "Organic certification and the UK market: organic imports from developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 301-318, August.
    6. Coline Perrin & Camille Clément & Romain Melot & Brigitte Nougarèdes, 2020. "Preserving Farmland on the Urban Fringe: A Literature Review on Land Policies in Developed Countries," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    7. John C. Bergstrom & Richard C. Ready, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 21-49.
    8. Yue, Qiong & Guo, Ping, 2021. "Managing agricultural water-energy-food-environment nexus considering water footprint and carbon footprint under uncertainty," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    9. Xiaojie Chen & Jing Wang, 2021. "Quantitatively Determining the Priorities of Regional Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Different Main Functional Areas: A Case Study of Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    10. Alec Zuo & Jinxia Wang & Qiuqiong Huang, 2020. "Willingness to accept compensation for land fallowing: results from a survey of village representatives in Northern China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 845-866, July.
    11. Xie, Hualin & Wang, Wei & Zhang, Xinmin, 2018. "Evolutionary game and simulation of management strategies of fallow cultivated land: A case study in Hunan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 86-97.
    12. Xu, Hongzhang & Pittock, Jamie & Daniell, Katherine, 2022. "‘Sustainability of what, for whom? A critical analysis of Chinese development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    14. Richard L. Barrows & Bruce A. Prenguber, 1975. "Transfer of Development Rights: An Analysis of a New Land Use Policy Tool," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(4), pages 549-557.
    15. Niccolucci, V. & Bastianoni, S. & Tiezzi, E.B.P. & Wackernagel, M. & Marchettini, N., 2009. "How deep is the footprint? A 3D representation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(20), pages 2819-2823.
    16. Su, Mo & Guo, Renzhong & Hong, Wuyang, 2019. "Institutional transition and implementation path for cultivated land protection in highly urbanized regions: A case study of Shenzhen, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 493-501.
    17. 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.
    18. Zhou, Yang & Li, Xunhuan & Liu, Yansui, 2021. "Cultivated land protection and rational use in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    19. Joshua M. Duke & Lori Lynch, 2006. "Farmland Retention Techniques: Property Rights Implications and Comparative Evaluation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 189-213.
    20. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    21. 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.
    22. Jiang, Yanan & Guan, Dongjie & He, Xiujuan & Yin, Boling & Zhou, Lilei & Sun, Lingli & Huang, Danan & Li, Zihui & Zhang, Yanjun, 2022. "Quantification of the coupling relationship between ecological compensation and ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(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. Tianxin Zhang & Yuliang Yang & Xin Fan & Shengya Ou, 2023. "Corridors Construction and Development Strategies for Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Study about the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Xiaoyong Zhong & Dongyan Guo & Hongyi Li, 2023. "Quantitative Assessment of Horizontal Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land Based on an Improved Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Linling Geng & Li Zhou & Yifeng Zhang, 2023. "Analysis of Three-Way Game of Straw Return System under the Green Transformation of Agriculture," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-16, March.

    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. Corbera, Esteve & Soberanis, Carmen González & Brown, Katrina, 2009. "Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 743-761, January.
    2. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    3. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.
    4. Roumasset, James & Wada, Christopher A., 2013. "A dynamic approach to PES pricing and finance for interlinked ecosystem services: Watershed conservation and groundwater management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-33.
    5. Yanwei Zhang & Xinhai Lu & Yucheng Zou & Tiangui Lv, 2022. "Nudging Strategies for Arable Land Protection Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    7. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    8. Xi Wu & Yajuan Wang & Hongbo Zhu, 2022. "Does Economic Growth Lead to an Increase in Cultivated Land Pressure? Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Ortiz-Rosas, Fiorella & Vázquez-Cisneros, Paola Angélica, 2019. "‘Partial’ participation in Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Land enrolment and forest loss in the Mexican Lacandona Rainforest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Yonariza, & Andini, Bevi Astika & Mahdi, & Maynard, Simone, 2019. "Addressing knowledge gaps between stakeholders in payments for watershed services: Case of Koto Panjang hydropower plant catchment area, Sumatra, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    14. 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.
    15. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    16. Pascual, Unai & Muradian, Roldan & Rodríguez, Luis C. & Duraiappah, Anantha, 2010. "Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1237-1244, April.
    17. Fisher, Brendan & Kulindwa, Kassim & Mwanyoka, Iddi & Turner, R. Kerry & Burgess, Neil D., 2010. "Common pool resource management and PES: Lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1253-1261, April.
    18. Pradosh Nath & Bhagirath Behera, 2011. "A critical review of impact of and adaptation to climate change in developed and developing economies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 141-162, February.
    19. Richard T. Woodward & Amanda Stronza & Elizabeth Shapiro‐Garza & Lee A. Fitzgerald, 2014. "Market‐based conservation: Aligning static theory with dynamic systems," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(4), pages 235-247, November.
    20. Gong, Yazhen & Bull, Gary & Baylis, Kathy, 2010. "Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1292-1302, April.

    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:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1583-:d:916256. 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.