IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7190-d836856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considering Farmers’ Heterogeneity to Payment Ecosystem Services Participation: A Choice Experiment and Agent-Based Model Analysis in Xin’an River Basin, China

Author

Listed:
  • Shengnan Li

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Baohang Hui

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Cai Jin

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Xuehan Liu

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

  • Fan Xu

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Chong Su

    (Institute of Agriculture Remote Sensing and Information Technology, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Tan Li

    (College of Economics and Management, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China)

Abstract

The concept of watershed ecological compensation is one payment for ecosystem services (PES) program that incentivizes stakeholders undertake environmental conservation activities that improve the provision of ecosystem services. Defining the heterogeneity of farmers’ willingness to participate in watershed ecological compensation is critically important for fully understanding stakeholders’ demands. Accordingly, we designed a choice experiment survey to analyze the heterogeneity of policy preferences and willingness to receive compensation between upstream and midstream farmers in Xin’an River basin, China. Moreover, we simulated the impact of farmers’ social capitals’ heterogeneity with an agent-based model. The results show that there are significant differences in the preferences of agricultural waste recycling rate and agricultural water quality between farmers in the upstream and midstream. The total willingness of farmers in the upstream and midstream to participate in ecological compensation are RMB 149.88 (USD 22.54)/month and RMB 57.40 yuan (USD 8.63)/month, respectively. Social network size has a negative effect on farmers’ willingness to participate the programs. Our findings suggest that the characteristics of farmers’ influence their willingness to participate in the PES program. The results of this research can be used to improve PES management policies in the future, as well as to support sustainable environmental development and rural revitalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Shengnan Li & Baohang Hui & Cai Jin & Xuehan Liu & Fan Xu & Chong Su & Tan Li, 2022. "Considering Farmers’ Heterogeneity to Payment Ecosystem Services Participation: A Choice Experiment and Agent-Based Model Analysis in Xin’an River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7190-:d:836856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Geussens, K. & Van den Broeck, G. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Verbist, B. & Maertens, M., 2019. "Farmers’ perspectives on payments for ecosystem services in Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 316-327.
    2. Pauline van den Berg & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Gamze Dane & Esther van Vliet & Hui Liu & Siao Sun & Aloys Borgers, 2022. "A Comparative Study of Urban Park Preferences in China and The Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    4. 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).
    5. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    6. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Gołębiowska, Bernadeta & Bartczak, Anna & Budziński, Wiktor, 2021. "Impact of social comparison on preferences for Demand Side Management in Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    8. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    9. Yu Lu & Fanbin Kong & Luchen Huang & Kai Xiong & Caiyao Xu & Ben Wang, 2021. "Evaluation of the Implementation Effect of the Ecological Compensation Policy in the Poyang Lake River Basin Based on Difference-in-Difference Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    12. Bing Yu & Linan Chen, 2020. "Interventional Impacts of Watershed Ecological Compensation on Regional Economic Differences: Evidence from Xin’an River, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-13, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Michael Getzner & Muhammad Shariful Islam, 2020. "Ecosystem Services of Mangrove Forests: Results of a Meta-Analysis of Economic Values," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-13, August.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Junran Dong & Desheng Wu, 2020. "An Evaluation of the Impact of Ecological Compensation on the Cross-Section Efficiency Using SFA and DEA: A Case Study of Xin’an River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    19. Kang, Moon Jeong & Siry, Jacek P. & Colson, Gregory & Ferreira, Susana, 2019. "Do forest property characteristics reveal landowners' willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services contracts in southeast Georgia, U.S.?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 144-152.
    20. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    21. Manuela Plutino & Elisa Bianchetto & Alessandra Durazzo & Massimo Lucarini & Luigi Lucini & Ilaria Negri, 2022. "Rethinking the Connections between Ecosystem Services, Pollinators, Pollution, and Health: Focus on Air Pollution and Its Impacts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-19, March.
    22. Etchart, Nicolle & Freire, José Luis & Holland, Margaret B. & Jones, Kelly W. & Naughton-Treves, Lisa, 2020. "What happens when the money runs out? Forest outcomes and equity concerns following Ecuador’s suspension of conservation payments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    23. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Marek Giergiczny, 2012. "The influence of cheap talk on willingness-to-pay ranges: some empirical evidence from a contingent valuation study," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(6), pages 753-763, September.
    24. Lyu, Rongfang & Clarke, Keith C. & Zhang, Jianming & Feng, Junli & Jia, Xuehui & Li, Jijun, 2021. "Dynamics of spatial relationships among ecosystem services and their determinants: Implications for land use system reform in Northwestern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    25. Bisung, Elijah & Elliott, Susan J. & Schuster-Wallace, Corinne J. & Karanja, Diana M. & Bernard, Abudho, 2014. "Social capital, collective action and access to water in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 147-154.
    26. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    27. Xin Gao & Juqin Shen & Weijun He & Fuhua Sun & Zhaofang Zhang & Xin Zhang & Liang Yuan & Min An, 2019. "Multilevel Governments’ Decision-Making Process and Its Influencing Factors in Watershed Ecological Compensation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-28, April.
    28. Kotu, Bekele Hundie & Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard & Nurudeen, Abdul Rahman & Kizito, Fred & Boyubie, Benedict, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ preferences for sustainable intensification attributes in maize production: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    29. Bocci, Corinne & Sohngen, Brent & Lupi, Frank & Milian, Bayron, 2020. "Timber or carbon? Evaluating forest conservation strategies through a discrete choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    30. Jule Thober & Birgit Müller & Jürgen Groeneveld & Volker Grimm, 2017. "Agent-Based Modelling of Social-Ecological Systems: Achievements, Challenges, and a Way Forward," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(2), pages 1-8.
    31. Osiolo, Helen Hoka, 2017. "Willingness to pay for improved energy: Evidence from Kenya," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 104-112.
    32. Grimm, Volker & Berger, Uta & DeAngelis, Donald L. & Polhill, J. Gary & Giske, Jarl & Railsback, Steven F., 2010. "The ODD protocol: A review and first update," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(23), pages 2760-2768.
    33. Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, 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. Huang, Dayan & Liu, Chengyi & Yan, Zehao & Kou, Aiju, 2023. "Payments for Watershed Services and corporate green innovation," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 541-556.
    2. Huang, Dayan & Kou, Aiju & Liu, Chengyi & Liu, Shanmin, 2023. "The effect of PWS arrangements on M&A activities," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Yunyun Qi & Tianye Zhang & Jing Cao & Cai Jin & Tianyu Chen & Yue Su & Chong Su & Srikanta Sannigrahi & Arabinda Maiti & Shiqi Tao & Qi Zhang & Tan Li, 2022. "Heterogeneity Impacts of Farmers’ Participation in Payment for Ecosystem Services Based on the Collective Action Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, November.

    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. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    2. Tadesse, Tewodros & Teklay, Gebreegziabher & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen & Meresa, Tigabu Molla & Woldelibanos, Dawit, 2022. "Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    6. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Carrilho, Cauê D. & Demarchi, Gabriela & Duchelle, Amy E. & Wunder, Sven & Morsello, Carla, 2022. "Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Bourceret, Amélie & Accatino, Francesco & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "A modeling framework of a territorial socio-ecosystem to study the trajectories of change in agricultural phytosanitary practices," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 494(C).
    12. Lima, Letícia Santos de & Ramos Barón, Pablo Andres & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Krueger, Tobias, 2019. "Will PES Schemes Survive in the Long-term Without Evidence of Their Effectiveness? Exploring Four Water-related Cases in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 211-223.
    13. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    14. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.
    15. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    16. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    18. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    19. George Van Voorn & Geerten Hengeveld & Jan Verhagen, 2020. "An agent based model representation to assess resilience and efficiency of food supply chains," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, November.
    20. Noeldeke, Beatrice & Winter, Etti & Ntawuhiganayo, Elisée Bahati, 2022. "Representing human decision-making in agent-based simulation models: Agroforestry adoption in rural Rwanda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7190-:d:836856. 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.