IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i10p1720-d1502694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying and Zoning Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Intensive Agricultural Areas: A Case Study in Henan Province, China

Author

Listed:
  • Ling Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Xingming Li

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Hanghang Fan

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Jie Lu

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Xiuli Wang

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

  • Tianlin Zhai

    (College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
    Henan Engineering Research Center of Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China)

Abstract

Cultivated land ecological compensation (CLEC) is an important way to solve regional development imbalance and cultivated land problems, and the scientific quantification of the ecological value of cultivated land is the key to CLEC. This study quantified the total amount and urgency of CLEC in China’s main grain-producing region using the cropland ecological footprint (EF) and ecosystem service value (ESV) methods. Furthermore, this study analyzed the comprehensive zoning of CLEC considering natural and economic development. The results showed that the spatial distribution of EFs and the ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land in Henan Province are similar, presenting the spatial characteristics of being high in the southeast and low in the northwest; the cultivated land in most of the counties and districts is in a state of ecological surplus, and the cultivated land resources are sufficient to support their own consumption needs. Henan Province as a whole is an ecologically compensated region, with a compensation amount of CNY 1.39 billion, and the total amount of compensation is in a positive value of 94.94%. The Southwest Yu and North Yu economic zone of Henan are the areas of high and low values of cultivated land compensation. The priority compensation region is the most extensive and widely distributed type in the five regions of Henan Province, accounting for 55% of the counties and districts. The degree of compensation is most urgent in the Huanghuai, Southwest Yu, and North Yu economic zones. This study’s findings provide new ideas for the development of differentiated ecological compensation policies, and provide references for the participation of multiple market participants and the diversification of compensation forms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ling Li & Xingming Li & Hanghang Fan & Jie Lu & Xiuli Wang & Tianlin Zhai, 2024. "Quantifying and Zoning Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Intensive Agricultural Areas: A Case Study in Henan Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1720-:d:1502694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1720/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1720/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. Xiaojie Chen & Jing Wang, 2021. "Quantitatively Determining the Priorities of Regional Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Different Main Functional Areas: A Case Study of Hubei Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Xu, Hongzhang & Pittock, Jamie & Daniell, Katherine, 2022. "‘Sustainability of what, for whom? A critical analysis of Chinese development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) programs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Zhenggen Fan & Ji Liu & Hu Yu & Hua Lu & Puwei Zhang, 2022. "Spatial-Temporal Pattern and Influencing Factors of Land Ecological Carrying Capacity in The National Pilot Zones for Ecological Conservation in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong & Zhang, Sanfeng, 2019. "Opportunity cost, income structure, and energy structure for landholders participating in payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from Wolong National Nature Reserve, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 230-238.
    6. 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.
    7. Niccolucci, V. & Bastianoni, S. & Tiezzi, E.B.P. & Wackernagel, M. & Marchettini, N., 2009. "How deep is the footprint? A 3D representation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(20), pages 2819-2823.
    8. Parker, Dawn Cassandra, 2007. "Revealing "space" in spatial externalities: Edge-effect externalities and spatial incentives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 84-99, July.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhigang Li & Jie Yang & Jialong Zhong & Dong Zhang, 2022. "Assessment of Urban Agglomeration Ecological Sustainability and Identification of Influencing Factors: Based on the 3DEF Model and the Random Forest," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    6. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    7. Pamela Katic, 2015. "Groundwater Spatial Dynamics and Endogenous Well Location," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(1), pages 181-196, January.
    8. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    9. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    10. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    13. Haiqian Ke & Wenyi Yang & Xiaoyang Liu & Fei Fan, 2020. "Does Innovation Efficiency Suppress the Ecological Footprint? Empirical Evidence from 280 Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    14. Dominique Prunetti & Alexandre Muzy & Eric Innocenti & Xavier Pieri, 2014. "Utility-based Multi-agent System with Spatial Interactions: The Case of Virtual Estate Development," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 271-299, March.
    15. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    16. Wanmei Hu & Zaike Gu & Kangning Xiong & Yaoru Lu & Zuju Li & Min Zhang & Liheng You & Huan Ruan, 2024. "A Review of Value Realization and Rural Revitalization of Eco-Products: Insights for Agroforestry Ecosystem in Karst Desertification Control," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, November.
    17. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    18. 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.
    19. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    20. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.

    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:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1720-:d:1502694. 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.