IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i20p8655-d431106.html

How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Yaofeng Yang

    (School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot 010022, China
    College of Life Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot 010022, China)

  • Yajuan Chen

    (School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot 010022, China
    College of Life Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot 010022, China
    College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Zhenrong Yu

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Pengyao Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China)

  • Xuedong Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
    School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

Abstract

Agroecosystems are complex socio-ecological systems that are managed by farmers to achieve desired outcomes, including economic income and environmental benefits contributed by ecosystem services (ES). Therefore, understanding farmers’ attitudes for ES will provide references for targeted agricultural environment management, which is critical to achieving the sustainable development of agriculture. The aim of this study is to identify the attitudes of farmers regarding ES, and to test whether and how annual household income and social demographic characteristics affect farmers’ attitudes toward ES. Using face-to-face interviews to collect data and the hypothesis of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) to provide an analytical framework, the results reveal that, in general, the perceptions of farmers’ attitudes on ES are highly complex, caused by characteristics of the farmers. Furthermore, the inflection points of the U-shaped curves, where priorities change from increasing income to paying more attention to waste assimilation and biological pest control, are identified at 17,091 and 25,071RMB, respectively. Initiatives that aim to achieve sustainable agricultural development by strengthening ES provisions should be sensitive to farmers’perceptions. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen farmers’ educational attainment, concentrate fragmented cultivation area and create reasonable incentives for preserving and restoring of ES and increasing farmers’ income together, which then can enhance the positive outcomes from income growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8655-:d:431106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8655/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8655/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Orenstein, Daniel E. & Groner, Elli, 2014. "In the eye of the stakeholder: Changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 185-196.
    3. Rode, Julian & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Krause, Torsten, 2015. "Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 270-282.
    4. Annika Tienhaara & Emmi Haltia & Eija Pouta & Kyösti Arovuori & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Antti Miettinen & Kauko Koikkalainen & Heini Ahtiainen & Janne Artell, 2020. "Demand and supply of agricultural ES: towards benefit-based policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1223-1249.
    5. Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A. & Karrasch, L. & Kleyer, M., 2017. "Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 108-115.
    6. Lai, Zhaohao & Chen, Meiqiu & Liu, Taoju, 2020. "Changes in and prospects for cultivated land use since the reform and opening up in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Gordon, Line J. & Finlayson, C. Max & Falkenmark, Malin, 2010. "Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 512-519, April.
    8. Canova, Moara Almeida & Lapola, David M. & Pinho, Patrícia & Dick, Jan & Patricio, Gleiciani B. & Priess, Joerg A., 2019. "Different ecosystem services, same (dis)satisfaction with compensation: A critical comparison between farmers’ perception in Scotland and Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 164-172.
    9. Fanbin Kong & Kai Xiong & Ning Zhang, 2014. "Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to Pay and Its Level for Ecological Compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland, China: A Household-Level Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Panayotou T., 1993. "Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development," ILO Working Papers 992927783402676, International Labour Organization.
    11. Woldegebrial Zeweld & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Girmay Tesfay & Stijn Speelman, 2020. "Smallholder farmers' behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices," 2020 Papers pze115, Job Market Papers.
    12. Wang, Ying & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Zhang, Qi & Li, Jiangfeng & Song, Conghe, 2019. "Effects of payment for ecosystem services and agricultural subsidy programs on rural household land use decisions in China: Synergy or trade-off?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 785-801.
    13. 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.
    14. John Joshua, 2017. "The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume I," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-46960-7, January.
    15. Meyer, Andrew, 2015. "Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 108-121.
    16. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    17. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    18. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    20. Giangiacomo Bravol & Beatrice Marelli, 2007. "Micro-foundations of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: an empirical analysis," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1), pages 36-62.
    21. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    22. A Omer & U Pascual & N Russell, 2003. "Agricultural Intensification and Biodiversity Loss: Is There and Agri-EKC?," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0317, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    23. Zhang, Junze & Luo, Mengting & Cao, Shixiong, 2018. "How deep is China’s environmental Kuznets curve? An analysis based on ecological restoration under the Grain for Green program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 647-653.
    24. Chase D. Mendenhall & Daniel S. Karp & Christoph F. J. Meyer & Elizabeth A. Hadly & Gretchen C. Daily, 2014. "Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 509(7499), pages 213-217, May.
    25. Andeltová, Lucie & Catacutan, Delia C. & Wünscher, Tobias & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2019. "Gender aspects in action- and outcome-based payments for ecosystem services—A tree planting field trial in Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 13-22.
    26. Fangfang Xun & Yecui Hu & Ling Lv & Jinhui Tong, 2017. "Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services and the Associated Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    27. John Joshua, 2017. "The Economics of Addictive Behaviours Volume IV," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-62536-2, January.
    28. Ross, Cody T., 2016. "Sliding-scale environmental service payments and non-financial incentives: Results of a survey of landowner interest in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 252-262.
    29. Graeme S. Cumming & Andreas Buerkert & Ellen M. Hoffmann & Eva Schlecht & Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel & Teja Tscharntke, 2014. "Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 50-57, November.
    30. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    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. Jeremiah Mkomagi & Devotha Mosha & Athman Ahmad, 2022. "Beneficiaries’ attitudes towards resources withdrawal for selected donor-funded agriculture-related projects in Tanzania," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(3), pages 206-216, April.
    2. Hu, Yuan & Kuhn, Lena & Zheng, Wenxue, 2021. "Promote or Inhibit？the Effects of Forest Carbon Sinks Projects on Agricultural Development: Evidence from Sichuan, China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315381, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Longyang Huang & Jingjing Liu & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Integrating Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Flow in Ecological Compensation: A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.

    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. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Cheng, Jiali & Richter, Andries & Cong, Wen-Feng & Xu, Zhan & Liang, Zhengyuan & Zhang, Chaochun & Zhang, Fusuo & van der Werf, Wopke & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2025. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    3. Clifton, Julian & Mánez, Kathleen Schwerdtner, 2025. "A framework based on payments for ecosystem services to support the delivery of high integrity carbon and biodiversity credits," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    4. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    5. Ana Carolina Oliveira Fiorini & Marilyn Swisher & Francis E. Putz, 2020. "Payment for Environment Services to Promote Compliance with Brazil’s Forest Code: The Case of “Produtores de Água e Floresta”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-51, October.
    6. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Nardy, Júlia Ramos & Duden, Anna & Martensen, Alexandre Camargo & Henkens, Kène & Verweij, Pita & Verburg, René, 2025. "The role of farmer’s resources, capabilities and perceptions on reforestation and forest cover in the Atlantic Forest," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Wang, Xiaoqi & Zhao, Xueyan, 2023. "Farmers' perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    9. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    12. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    13. Authelet, Manon & Subervie, Julie & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Asquith, Nigel & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2021. "Economic, pro-social and pro-environmental factors influencing participation in an incentive-based conservation program in Bolivia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Buyannemekh Puntsagdorj & Dulamragchaa Orosoo & Xuexi Huo & Xianli Xia, 2021. "Farmer’s Perception, Agricultural Subsidies, and Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Case from Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    15. Cuni-Sanchez, Aida & Ngute, Alain Senghor K. & Sonké, Bonaventure & Sainge, Moses Nsanyi & Burgess, Neil D. & Klein, Julia A. & Marchant, Rob, 2019. "The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. Íñigo Bidegain & César A. López-Santiago & José A. González & Rodrigo Martínez-Sastre & Federica Ravera & Claudia Cerda, 2020. "Social Valuation of Mediterranean Cultural Landscapes: Exploring Landscape Preferences and Ecosystem Services Perceptions through a Visual Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-22, October.
    17. de santis, roberta, 2012. "Trade, FDI, growth and biodiversity: an empirical analysis for the main OECD countries," MPRA Paper 37730, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Roberta DE SANTIS, 2012. "The Impact Of Growth On Biodiversity: An Empirical Assessment," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 7(3(21)/ Fa), pages 283-290.
    19. Yanyun Zhao & Yongzhi Yan & Qingfu Liu & Frank Yonghong Li, 2018. "How Willing Are Herders to Participate in Carbon Sequestration and Mitigation? An Inner Mongolian Grassland Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-10, August.
    20. Alotaibi, Bader Alhafi & Kassem, Hazem S. & AL-Zaidi, Abdullah & Alyafrsi, Mohamad A., 2020. "Farmers’ awareness of agri-environmental legislation in Saudi Arabia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8655-:d:431106. 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.