IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v114y2022ics0264837722000229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantification of the coupling relationship between ecological compensation and ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

Author

Listed:
  • Jiang, Yanan
  • Guan, Dongjie
  • He, Xiujuan
  • Yin, Boling
  • Zhou, Lilei
  • Sun, Lingli
  • Huang, Danan
  • Li, Zihui
  • Zhang, Yanjun

Abstract

With the rapid development of human society, the self-regulation ability of ecosystem services has lagged far behind the degree of human destruction. As an effective environmental incentive policy, ecological compensation plays an important role in improving the ecology of all regions in the world. This study discussed the willingness of farmers to participate in ecological compensation in the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on the results of a questionnaire, analyzed the influencing factors, established differential ecological compensation standards, and explained the coupling relationship between ecological compensation and ecosystem services. First, the contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to analyze the ratio of farmers' willingness to accept and willingness to pay and to identify the factors affecting farmers' willingness to accept ecological compensation. The minimum-data approach was used to establish different types of ecological compensation standards in various administrative regions of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Finally, the efficient guidelines for ecological compensation standards were analyzed. The results showed that the expected value ratio of farmers' willingness to accept and willingness to pay in the Yangtze River Economic Belt was 9.26 times, the actual compensation standard was generally lower than the theoretical compensation standard, and the degree of participation in seven administrative regions was less than 10%. When the compensation standard reached a certain threshold, the supply of ecosystem services would exceed the needs of regional development, leading to a “marginal effect”, so compensation standard should be no longer increased. The results of this study provide scientific advice for formulating compensation standards, perfecting the ecological compensation mechanism, and improving the efficiency of ecological compensation in the rapidly developing regions represented by the Yangtze River Economic Belt.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000229
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722000229
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.105995?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chervier, Colas & Costedoat, Sébastien, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of a Collective Payment for Environmental Services Scheme on Reducing Deforestation in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 148-159.
    2. John M. Antle & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum‐data approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    4. Saraiva Farinha, Maycon Jorge Ulisses & Mario Bernardo, Luciana Virginia & Filho, Adelsom Soares & Berezuk, André Geraldo & da Silva, Luciana Ferreira & Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini, 2019. "Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-57.
    5. 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).
    6. Huang, Lin & Shao, Quanqin & Liu, Jiyuan & Lu, Qingshui, 2018. "Improving ecological conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem services in Northeastern Tibetan Plateau, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 181-193.
    7. 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.
    8. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Mutandwa, Edward & Grala, Robert K. & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2019. "Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 75-85.
    10. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    11. Immerzeel, Walter & Stoorvogel, Jetse & Antle, John, 2008. "Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 52-63, March.
    12. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    13. John M. Antle & Bocar Diagana & Jetse J. Stoorvogel & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2010. "Minimum-data analysis of ecosystem service supply in semi-subsistence agricultural systems," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 601-617, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong & Zhang, Sanfeng, 2019. "Opportunity cost, income structure, and energy structure for landholders participating in payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from Wolong National Nature Reserve, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 230-238.
    16. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Luca Taschini & Simon Urech, 2015. "Conservation Payments under Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 36-56.
    17. Turpie, J.K. & Marais, C. & Blignaut, J.N., 2008. "The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 788-798, May.
    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. Hong Sun & Feng Dai & Wenxing Shen, 2023. "How China’s Ecological Compensation Policy Improves Farmers’ Income?—A Test of Environmental Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    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. Mingjie Song & Doudou Huang & Basanta Paudel, 2022. "A Supply-Demand Framework for Eco-Compensation Calculation and Allocation in China’s National Key Ecological Function Areas—A Case Study in the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Gao, Yuan & Yu, Lu, 2024. "Understanding the impacts of ecological compensation policies on energy poverty: insights from forest communities in Zhejiang, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    6. Junnan Xia & Mengyao Hong & Wei Wei, 2023. "Changes and Driving Forces of Urban–Agricultural–Ecological Space in the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Tang, Jianjun & Gong, Jiaowei & Ma, Wanglin & Rahut, Dil Bahadur, 2022. "Narrowing urban–rural income gap in China: The role of the targeted poverty alleviation program," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 74-90.
    9. Li, Meng & Lu, Shibao & Li, Wei, 2022. "Stakeholders′ ecological-economic compensation of river basin: A multi-stage dynamic game analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    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. Valdivia, Roberto O. & Antle, John M. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 2012. "Coupling the Tradeoff Analysis Model with a market equilibrium model to analyze economic and environmental outcomes of agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 17-29.
    2. Erqi Xu & Hongqi Zhang & Yang Yang & Ying Zhang, 2014. "Integrating a Spatially Explicit Tradeoff Analysis for Sustainable Land Use Optimal Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Shikuku, Kelvin M. & Valdivia, Roberto O. & Paul, Birthe K. & Mwongera, Caroline & Winowiecki, Leigh & Läderach, Peter & Herrero, Mario & Silvestri, Silvia, 2017. "Prioritizing climate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: A minimum data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 204-216.
    4. 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.
    5. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    8. Alireza Daneshi & Mostafa Panahi & Saber Masoomi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Hossein Azadi & Muhammad Mobeen & Pinar Gökcin Ozuyar & Vjekoslav Tanaskovik, 2021. "Assessment of non-monetary facilities in Urmia Lake basin under PES scheme: a rehabilitation solution for the dry lake in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10141-10172, July.
    9. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara & Ringhofer, Lisa, 2016. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 24-32.
    10. 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).
    11. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    12. Murshed-E-Jahan, K. & Crissman, C. & Antle, J., 2013. "Economic and social impacts of Integrated Aquaculture-Agriculture technologies in Bangladesh," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40077, April.
    13. Kanter, David R. & Musumba, Mark & Wood, Sylvia L.R. & Palm, Cheryl & Antle, John & Balvanera, Patricia & Dale, Virginia H. & Havlik, Petr & Kline, Keith L. & Scholes, R.J. & Thornton, Philip & Titton, 2018. "Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 73-88.
    14. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    15. Jingxin Gao & Changzan Duan & Jinbo Song & Xianrui Ma & Yuanping Wang, 2023. "Two-Stage and Three-Party Transboundary Watershed Management Based on Valuation Adjustment Mechanism (VAM) Agreement," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(9), pages 3343-3375, July.
    16. 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).
    17. Vassallo, P. & Paoli, C. & Buonocore, E. & Franzese, P.P. & Russo, G.F. & Povero, P., 2017. "Assessing the value of natural capital in marine protected areas: A biophysical and trophodynamic environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 355(C), pages 12-17.
    18. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    19. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722000229. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.