IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics026483772030819x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards cultivated land multifunction assessment in China: Applying the “influencing factors-functions-products-demands” integrated framework

Author

Listed:
  • Jiang, Guanghui
  • Wang, Mingzhu
  • Qu, Yanbo
  • Zhou, Dingyang
  • Ma, Wenqiu

Abstract

Cultivated land multifunction, defined as the private and public goods and services provided by the land uses, is usually developed based on the interaction between the cultivated land system and human activities, which can satisfy human demand. Additionally, functional products can be depicted as the visible and quantitative outcomes of cultivated land multifunction. This paper assessed the cultivated land multifunction by applying the "influencing factors-functions-products-demands" integrated framework. In the assessment of the cultivated land multifunction from the product perspective at the multilevel, various results have been drawn, which refer to: there are five categories of functions, i.e., production function, economic function, ecological function, social security function, and cultural landscape function. Moreover, the unbalanced development patterns of each function caused the spatial differentiation of cultivated land multifunction at the multilevel, that is, along with the more inferior and complex physical geography and economic location comes the decline trend of multifunction intensity. Normally, in the plain areas, the multifunction has been fully realized because of the high-quality and relative abundance of cultivated land resources, whereas the small-scale and fragmentation of land parcels, as well as the environmental degradation, have restricted the multifunctionality, especially for production and ecological functions. To cope with this, strategies based on cultivated land multifunction management (including functional enhancement and functional conversion) should be adopted by planners and policy-makers in these areas. The findings of our paper may contribute to appropriate policy-making for cultivated land consolidation, as well as be an effective tool to achieve land use multifunctionality and rural sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiang, Guanghui & Wang, Mingzhu & Qu, Yanbo & Zhou, Dingyang & Ma, Wenqiu, 2020. "Towards cultivated land multifunction assessment in China: Applying the “influencing factors-functions-products-demands” integrated framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s026483772030819x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772030819X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104982?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. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Rodríguez Sousa, A.A. & Parra-López, C. & Sayadi-Gmada, S. & Barandica, J.M. & Rescia, A.J., 2020. "A multifunctional assessment of integrated and ecological farming in olive agroecosystems in southwestern Spain using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Wang, Yongsheng & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "New material for transforming degraded sandy land into productive farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    5. Kui Yang & Taiyang Zhong & Yu Zhang & Qi Wen, 2020. "Total factor productivity of urban land use in China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 1784-1803, December.
    6. Kruska, R. L. & Reid, R. S. & Thornton, P. K. & Henninger, N. & Kristjanson, P. M., 2003. "Mapping livestock-oriented agricultural production systems for the developing world," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 39-63, July.
    7. Liu, Yansui, 2018. "Introduction to land use and rural sustainability in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-4.
    8. Holden, Stein & Shiferaw, Bekele & Pender, John, 2004. "Non-farm income, household welfare, and sustainable land management in a less-favoured area in the Ethiopian highlands," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 369-392, August.
    9. Léger-Bosch, Christine & Houdart, Marie & Loudiyi, Salma & Le Bel, Pierre-Mathieu, 2020. "Changes in property-use relationships on French farmland: A social innovation perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Spyra, Marcin & La Rosa, Daniele & Zasada, Ingo & Sylla, Marta & Shkaruba, Anton, 2020. "Governance of ecosystem services trade-offs in peri-urban landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Christine Léger Léger-Bosch & Marie M. Houdart & Salma Loudiyi & Pierre-Mathieu Le Bel, 2020. "Changes in property-use relationships on French farmland: A social innovation perspective [Changements dans les relations propriété-usage en France. Une lecture par l’innovation sociale]," Post-Print hal-02992182, HAL.
    12. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    13. Bostian, Moriah B. & Herlihy, Alan T., 2014. "Valuing tradeoffs between agricultural production and wetland condition in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 284-291.
    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. Dang, Yuxuan & Zhao, Zhenting & Kong, Xiangbin & Lei, Ming & Liao, Yubo & Xie, Zhen & Song, Wei, 2023. "Discerning the process of cultivated land governance transition in China since the reform and opening-up-- Based on the multiple streams framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Li, Xiaoliang & Wu, Kening & Yang, Qijun & Hao, Shiheng & Feng, Zhe & Ma, Jinliang, 2023. "Quantitative assessment of cultivated land use intensity in Heilongjiang Province, China, 2001–2015," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Jia Gao & Yaohui Zhu & Rongrong Zhao & Hongjun Sui, 2022. "The Use of Cultivated Land for Multiple Functions in Major Grain-Producing Areas in Northeast China: Spatial-Temporal Pattern and Driving Forces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Rui Zhao & Kening Wu & Xiaoliang Li & Nan Gao & Mingming Yu, 2021. "Discussion on the Unified Survey and Evaluation of Cultivated Land Quality at County Scale for China’s 3rd National Land Survey: A Case Study of Wen County, Henan Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, February.
    5. Heyang Gong & Zhibo Zhao & Lei Chang & Guanghui Li & Ying Li & Yuefen Li, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Patterns in and Key Influences on Cultivated-Land Multi-Functionality in Northeast China’s Black-Soil Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Chengxiu Li & Xiuli Wang & Zhengxin Ji & Ling Li & Xiaoke Guan, 2022. "Optimizing the Use of Cultivated Land in China’s Main Grain-Producing Areas from the Dual Perspective of Ecological Security and Leading-Function Zoning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Ziyan Yin & Yu Liu & Yuchun Pan, 2021. "Evaluation and Classification of Rural Multifunction at a Grid Scale: A Case Study of Miyun District, Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Jun Luo & Xuebing Zhang & Peiji Shi, 2022. "Land Use Multi-Functionality and Zoning Governance Strategy of Densely Populated Areas in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou–Xining Region, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Xinhai Lu & Yanwei Zhang & Handong Tang, 2021. "Modeling and Simulation of Dissemination of Cultivated Land Protection Policies in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Xiaoying Wang & Hangang Hu & Aifeng Ning & Guan Li & Xueqi Wang, 2022. "The Impact of Farmers’ Perception on Their Cultivated Land Quality Protection Behavior: A Case Study of Ningbo, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    11. Yibin, Wang & Jian, Wang & Fei, Li & Xiaolin, Liu & Dan, Zhao, 2024. "Can the transition of multiple cropping systems affect the cropland change?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    12. Fang Tang & Yangbing Li & Xiuming Liu & Juan Huang & Yiyi Zhang & Qian Xu, 2023. "Understanding the Relationships between Landscape Eco-Security and Multifunctionality in Cropland: Implications for Supporting Cropland Management Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-26, January.
    13. Baoshu Wu & Meifang Liu & Yufei Wan & Zhenjiang Song, 2023. "Evolution and Coordination of Cultivated Land Multifunctionality in Poyang Lake Ecological Economic Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Yue Su & Chong Su & Yan Xie & Tan Li & Yongjun Li & Yuanyuan Sun, 2022. "Controlling Non-Grain Production Based on Cultivated Land Multifunction Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Weiguo Fan & Wei Yao & Kehan Chen, 2023. "Integrating Energy Systems Language and Emergy Approach to Simulate and Analyze the Energy Flow Process of Land Transfer," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, May.
    17. Quanfeng Li & Wenhao Guo & Xiaobing Sun & Aizheng Yang & Shijin Qu & Wenfeng Chi, 2021. "The Differentiation in Cultivated Land Quality between Modern Agricultural Areas and Traditional Agricultural Areas: Evidence from Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Yaohan Cheng & Chengxiu Li & Shuting He & Ling Li & Liangyun Dong & Xiuli Wang, 2023. "Coordinated Development Path of Cultivated Land Utilization in Henan Section of the Yellow River Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-24, July.

    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. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    3. Sandra Notaro & Alessandro Paletto, 2008. "Natural disturbances and natural hazards in mountain forests: a framework for the economic valuation," Department of Economics Working Papers 0808, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    4. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    7. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    8. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    9. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    10. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    11. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    12. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    13. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    14. Richardson, Robert B., 2011. "Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 98782, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    16. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    17. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    18. Anca Ionascu & Costel Negrei & Marian Tudor, 2015. "Benefits of the ecosystems restoration in the Danube Delta – theoretical approach," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 4, pages 107-114.
    19. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    20. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.

    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:99:y:2020:i:c:s026483772030819x. 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.