IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1737-d936303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constructing a Model of Government Purchasing of Ecological Services: Evidence from China’s Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park

Author

Listed:
  • Hongge Zhu

    (School of Economics and Management, Northeast Forest University, Heilongjiang 150040, China)

  • Yutong Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northeast Forest University, Heilongjiang 150040, China)

  • Yaru Chen

    (Development Research Center, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, China)

  • Menghan Zhao

    (School of Economics and Management, Northeast Forest University, Heilongjiang 150040, China)

  • Cao Bo

    (School of Economics and Management, Northeast Forest University, Heilongjiang 150040, China)

Abstract

The harmonious coexistence of man and nature is the primary goal of the establishment of national parks. Creating an ecological service supply model that takes into account the efficiency of ecological services, the fairness of residents’ livelihoods, and the reasonable distribution of rights and responsibilities is an important way of achieving that goal. China’s Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park (NTLNP) is a typical national park with state-owned forest land as the main body. Before the establishment of the national park, state-owned forest enterprises (SOFEs) and local government forest departments (LGFDs) were always the undertakers of ecological services. Issues such as the distribution of rights and responsibilities between the NTLNP Administration, SOFEs, and LGFDs and the livelihood of forest workers need to be resolved urgently. This study takes the NTLNP as the study area and constructs a model of government purchasing of ecological services. The main results show the following: (1) The driving factors of the government purchasing of ecological services are increasing the workload of ecological services, the need for workforce transfer, and the optimization of subsidy standards. (2) In the construction of the responsibility system, the NTLNP Administration is the purchaser, SOFEs and Protection Stations are the undertakers, and groups such as third-party institutions and the public are the Supervisors and Evaluators. (3) Setting the purchase price in 2022 at CNY 47,654.44 per person while maintaining an average annual growth rate of 6.10% will match the per capita wage income level of urban workers nationwide in 2035. Based on the research results, it is proposed that payment for ecosystem services (PES) and ecological compensation (EC) have mature research paradigms in solving the problems of efficiency and fairness, but government purchasing of ecological services is a more appropriate policy tool in terms of arranging rights and responsibilities. This study attempts to construct a model of government purchasing of ecological services in order to provide a useful reference for national parks with state-owned land as the main body.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongge Zhu & Yutong Zhang & Yaru Chen & Menghan Zhao & Cao Bo, 2022. "Constructing a Model of Government Purchasing of Ecological Services: Evidence from China’s Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-27, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1737-:d:936303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1737/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1737/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    3. Walter Musakwa & Trynos Gumbo & Gaynor Paradza & Ephraim Mpofu & Nesisa Analisa Nyathi & Ntlakala B. Selamolela, 2020. "Partnerships and Stakeholder Participation in the Management of National Parks: Experiences of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Vedeld, Paul & Jumane, Abdallah & Wapalila, Gloria & Songorwa, Alexander, 2012. "Protected areas, poverty and conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 20-31.
    6. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.
    7. 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).
    8. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    9. Sheng, Wenping & Zhen, Lin & Xie, Gaodi & Xiao, Yu, 2017. "Determining eco-compensation standards based on the ecosystem services value of the mountain ecological forests in Beijing, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 422-430.
    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. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    3. 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.
    4. Yan, Haiming & Yang, Huicai & Guo, Xiaonan & Zhao, Shuqin & Jiang, Qun'ou, 2022. "Payments for ecosystem services as an essential approach to improving ecosystem services: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    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. Dongbin Hu & Mei Lin & Yang Chen, 2022. "Can Horizontal Ecological Compensation Improve the Water Environment in Cross-Provincial Watersheds?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    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. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    9. Diswandi, Diswandi, 2017. "A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 138-145.
    10. 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.
    11. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    12. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    13. Rodrigo Muniz & Maria João Cruz, 2015. "Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    16. Huber-Stearns, Heidi R. & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Cheng, Antony S. & Toombs, Theodore P., 2015. "Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 83-93.
    17. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    18. Cooke, Benjamin & Corbo-Perkins, Gabriella, 2018. "Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-181.
    19. Xiaorui Wang & Shen Hu, 2024. "How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(3), May.
    20. 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.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1737-:d:936303. 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.