IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i5p4618-d1088535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Assessment of Horizontal Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land Based on an Improved Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyong Zhong

    (Chinese Academy of Natural Resources Economics, Beijing 101149, China)

  • Dongyan Guo

    (Chinese Academy of Natural Resources Economics, Beijing 101149, China)

  • Hongyi Li

    (School of Tourism and Urban Management, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330000, China)

Abstract

Cultivated land horizontal ecological compensation is an essential means of reconciling agricultural ecosystem protection and regional economic development. It is important to design a horizontal ecological compensation standard for cultivated land. Unfortunately, there are some defects in the existing quantitative assessments of horizontal cultivated land ecological compensation. In order to raise the accuracy of ecological compensation amounts, this study established an improved ecological footprint model based on the ecosystem service function, focused on estimating the value of ecosystem service function, ecological footprint, ecological carrying capacity, ecological balance index and ecological compensation values of cultivated land in all cities of Jiangxi province. It then analyzed the rationality of ecological compensation amounts in Jiangxi province, which is one of the 13 provinces of major grain-producing areas in China. The results show the following: (1) The total value of soil conservation service function, carbon sequestration and oxygen release service function and ecosystem service function in Jiangxi province showed a spatial distribution trend of “gradually increasing around Poyang Lake Basin”. (2) The cultivated land ecological deficit areas in Jiangxi province are Nanchang City, Jiujiang City and Pingxiang City; ecological surplus areas are Yichun City, Ji’an City and eight other cities; and there is an obvious “Spatial Agglomeration” phenomenon in ecological deficit and ecological surplus areas where ecological deficit areas are mainly concentrated in the northwest region of Jiangxi. (3) The amount needed to attain fair ecological compensation for cultivated land is 5.2 times the payment amount for cultivated land; this indicated there is larger arable land, a favorable condition for agricultural cultivation, and better supply capacity of ecosystem services in most of the cities of Jiangxi. (4) The compensation amount for cultivated land ecological surplus areas in Jiangxi province is generally higher than the cost of ecological protection, and its proportion in GDP, fiscal revenue and agriculture-related expenditure is significantly higher than that in ecological deficit areas; this indicated that the compensation value of cultivated land could play the driving role in the protective behavior for cultivated land. The results provide a theoretical and methodological reference for the construction of horizontal ecological compensation standards for cultivated land.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4618-:d:1088535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4618/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/5/4618/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    2. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-561, May.
    3. van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Boekestijn, J., 2017. "Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 58-69.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    5. 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).
    6. Grosjean, Pauline & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "How Sustainable are Sustainable Development Programs? The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 268-285, January.
    7. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    8. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
    11. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    12. Junfeng Zhang & Anlu Zhang & Min Song, 2020. "Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, 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. Lu Wang & Bonoua Faye & Quanfeng Li & Yunkai Li, 2023. "A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of the Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Northeast China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-20, December.

    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. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Cheng Chen & Hannes J. König & Bettina Matzdorf & Lin Zhen, 2015. "The Institutional Challenges of Payment for Ecosystem Service Program in China: A Review of the Effectiveness and Implementation of Sloping Land Conversion Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-28, May.
    4. Bennett, Michael T. & Mehta, Aashish & Xu, Jintao, 2011. "Incomplete property rights, exposure to markets and the provision of environmental services in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 485-498.
    5. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Meyer, Claas & König, Hannes & Zhen, Lin, 2018. "How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental PES: China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," SocArXiv jzvqh, Center for Open Science.
    6. Hao Li & Xiaohui Yang & Xiao Zhang & Yuyan Liu & Kebin Zhang, 2018. "Estimation of Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Two PES Programs and Their Service Valuation in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    7. Yuan Yuan & Yanxu Liu & Yi’na Hu & Xin Chen & Jian Peng, 2017. "Identification of Non-economic Influencing Factors Affecting Farmer’s Participation in the Paddy Landto-Dry Land Program in Chicheng County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-17, March.
    8. repec:gat:wpaper:1509 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Mullan, Katrina & Grosjean, Pauline & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2011. "Land Tenure Arrangements and Rural-Urban Migration in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 123-133, January.
    10. Martin Persson, U. & Alpízar, Francisco, 2013. "Conditional Cash Transfers and Payments for Environmental Services—A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Judging Differences in Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 124-137.
    11. Korhonen, Jouni & Snakin, Juha-Pekka, 2005. "Analysing the evolution of industrial ecosystems: concepts and application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 169-186, January.
    12. Xueying Yu, 2016. "Central–local conflicts in China’s environmental policy implementation: the case of the sloping land conversion program," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(1), pages 77-96, November.
    13. Wu, Zhilong & Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Hou, Ying, 2021. "Livelihood consequences of the Grain for Green Programme across regional and household scales: A case study in the Loess Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. Tian Tian & Stijn Speelman, 2021. "Pursuing Development behind Heterogeneous Ideologies: Review of Six Evolving Themes and Narratives of Rural Planning in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Jouni Korhonen & Thomas P. Seager, 2008. "Beyond eco‐efficiency: a resilience perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(7), pages 411-419, November.
    18. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    19. Démurger, Sylvie & Pelletier, Adeline, 2015. "Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households' participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 25-33.
    20. 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.
    21. Jouni Korhonen, 2008. "Reconsidering the Economics Logic of Ecological Modernization," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(6), pages 1331-1346, June.

    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:20:y:2023:i:5:p:4618-:d:1088535. 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.