IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v14y2024i7p1166-d1436807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Willingness to Pay for Farmland Eco-Compensation and Allocation to Farmers: An Empirical Study from Northeast China

Author

Listed:
  • Baoqi Liu

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China)

  • Lishan Xu

    (Faculty of Economic and Management, Mudanjiang Normal University, Mudanjiang 157011, China)

  • Yulin Long

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China)

  • Yuehua Wei

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China)

  • Changlin Ao

    (Department of Management Science and Engineering, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
    Zhujiang College, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510900, China)

Abstract

Farmland eco-compensation, as a typical payment for ecosystem services scheme, aims to address trade-offs between environmental and developmental objectives. As indispensable eco-compensation supporters, the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for farmland eco-compensation and the allocation to farmers directly affect ecological safety and sustainable development for farmland. Therefore, this study links the public’s WTP for the farmland eco-compensation to the financial subsidies received by farmers and presents a theoretical framework and research approach that connects stakeholders, applying improved choice experiments for empirical study in the black soil region of northeastern China. The results showed that the public has a positive WTP for the farmland eco-compensation program that improves the area, soil thickness, and organic content expeditiously. The public’s WTP allocation for eco-compensation varies considerably, with the share allocated to farmers in their WTP averaging 46.96%, showing a benchmark for compensation standards. The results revealed the influential relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of the public with WTP allocation and the preferences for farmland eco-compensation, such as the positive correlation between age with WTP allocation and females’ greater preference for eco-compensation. These findings can provide new perspectives and approaches to exploring sustainable pathways for farmland eco-compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • Baoqi Liu & Lishan Xu & Yulin Long & Yuehua Wei & Changlin Ao, 2024. "Public Willingness to Pay for Farmland Eco-Compensation and Allocation to Farmers: An Empirical Study from Northeast China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1166-:d:1436807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1166/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/14/7/1166/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    3. Yuan Yuan & Kevin J. Boyle & Wen You, 2015. "Sample Selection, Individual Heterogeneity, and Regional Heterogeneity in Valuing Farmland Conservation Easements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(4), pages 627-649.
    4. Chen, Zhu & Zhang, Anlu & Zhou, Kehao & Huang, Lingxiang, 2021. "Can payment tools substitute for regulatory ones? Estimating the policy preference for agricultural land preservation, Tianjin, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & John C. Bergstrom, 2011. "Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 639-660.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    8. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    9. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    10. Mengmeng Liu & Wanqing Wu & Hua Li, 2023. "The Influence of Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on Grassland Quality: Evidence from the Perspective of Grassland Ecosystem Vulnerability," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    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.
    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    3. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    4. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    5. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    10. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    11. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    12. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    13. Natali, F. & Cacchiarelli, L. & Branca, G., 2022. "There are plenty more (sustainable) fish in the sea: A discrete choice experiment on discarded species in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    14. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    15. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    16. Na-na Wang & Liang-guo Luo & Ya-ru Pan & Xue-mei Ni, 2019. "Use of discrete choice experiments to facilitate design of effective environmentally friendly agricultural policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1543-1559, August.
    17. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    20. Ntuli, Herbert & Muchapondwa, Edwin & Okumu, Boscow, 2020. "Can local communities afford full control over wildlife conservation? The case of Zimbabwe," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).

    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:jagris:v:14:y:2024:i:7:p:1166-:d:1436807. 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.