IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i12p2118-d1290235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Artificial-Intelligence-Enhanced Study on the Optimization of the Responsibility and Compensation Mechanism for Provincial Cultivated Land Retention from a Fairness Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Haidi Zhu

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

  • Qun Wu

    (College of Public Administration, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
    Real Estate Research Center, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China)

Abstract

Research Objectives: Considering the complex challenges arising from urbanization, population growth, and the consequential strain on China’s cultivated land resources, we integrate insights from advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The primary objective is to quantitatively assess the cultivated land-holding responsibility of local governments in China from a fairness perspective. Our aim is to integrate the cultivated land responsibility ownership amount into the compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection, thereby promoting fairness, cultivated land conservation, and sustainable agricultural development across Chinese provinces while ensuring efficient agricultural product distribution. Research Methodology: Beyond a traditional literature review and model analysis, we incorporated AI technology for data analysis and model optimization. Findings: ① The findings demonstrate a surplus in both food security and ecological security within cultivated land. ② In-depth analysis via AI revealed that the provinces with the largest surplus include Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Hubei. ③ With the precision provided by AI, we delineated the minimum value of the cultivated land responsibility ownership amount for each province. Eleven provinces met this criterion, primarily located in the northeast and central regions and including Yunnan in the west. ④ From a fairness perspective, coupled with AI insights, we established a compensation mechanism for cultivated land protection that is better suited to the Chinese context. Based on this mechanism, the national average compensation standard was calculated to be 26,900 CNY per hectare. The highest standards were observed in Shanghai, Beijing, and Jiangsu, while the lowest were in Shanxi, Heilongjiang, and Gansu.

Suggested Citation

  • Haidi Zhu & Qun Wu, 2023. "Artificial-Intelligence-Enhanced Study on the Optimization of the Responsibility and Compensation Mechanism for Provincial Cultivated Land Retention from a Fairness Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:12:p:2118-:d:1290235
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2118/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2118/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elahi, Ehsan & Weijun, Cui & Zhang, Huiming & Nazeer, Majid, 2019. "Agricultural intensification and damages to human health in relation to agrochemicals: Application of artificial intelligence," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 461-474.
    2. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    3. Hongdan Li & Wenjiao Shi & Bing Wang & Tingting An & Shuang Li & Shuangyi Li & Jingkuan Wang, 2017. "Comparison of the modeled potential yield versus the actual yield of maize in Northeast China and the implications for national food security," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(1), pages 99-114, February.
    4. Xiangbin Kong, 2014. "China must protect high-quality arable land," Nature, Nature, vol. 506(7486), pages 7-7, February.
    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. Zhixin Zhang & Xiao Meng & Ehsan Elahi, 2022. "Protection of Cultivated Land Resources and Grain Supply Security in Main Grain-Producing Areas of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Robert Costanza & Shuang Liu, 2014. "Ecosystem Services and Environmental Governance: Comparing China and the U.S," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 160-170, January.
    3. Morice R. O. Odhiambo & Adnan Abbas & Xiaochan Wang & Ehsan Elahi, 2020. "Thermo-Environmental Assessment of a Heated Venlo-Type Greenhouse in the Yangtze River Delta Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-34, December.
    4. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    5. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.
    6. Schäffler, Alexis & Swilling, Mark, 2013. "Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 246-257.
    7. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    8. Danilo Đokić & Bojan Matkovski & Marija Jeremić & Ivan Đurić, 2022. "Land Productivity and Agri-Environmental Indicators: A Case Study of Western Balkans," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    10. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    11. Patricio Vladimir Méndez-Zambrano & Luis Patricio Tierra Pérez & Rogelio Estalin Ureta Valdez & Ángel Patricio Flores Orozco, 2023. "Technological Innovations for Agricultural Production from an Environmental Perspective: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Thorsøe, Martin Hvarregaard & Noe, Egon Bjørnshave & Lamandé, Mathieu & Frelih-Larsen, Ana & Kjeldsen, Chris & Zandersen, Marianne & Schjønning, Per, 2019. "Sustainable soil management - Farmers’ perspectives on subsoil compaction and the opportunities and barriers for intervention," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 427-437.
    14. Xing Liu & Zhaoyang Cai & Yan Xu & Huihui Zheng & Kaige Wang & Fengrong Zhang, 2022. "Suitability Evaluation of Cultivated Land Reserved Resources in Arid Areas Based on Regional Water Balance," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(4), pages 1463-1479, March.
    15. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    16. Zhang, Xiaoyun & Lu, Xianguo, 2010. "Multiple criteria evaluation of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau Marshes in southwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1463-1470, May.
    17. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    18. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    19. Luigi Fusco Girard & Marilena Vecco, 2021. "The “Intrinsic Value” of Cultural Heritage as Driver for Circular Human-Centered Adaptive Reuse," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-28, March.
    20. Franco, Daniel & Luiselli, Luca, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation: a case study for a concrete policy purpose," MPRA Paper 66498, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:12:y:2023:i:12:p:2118-:d:1290235. 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.