IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5787-d278113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Satisfaction and its Influencing Factors in the Policy of Economic Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: A Case Study in Chengdu, China

Author

Listed:
  • Dongyang Xiao

    (School of Surveying and Land Information Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China)

  • Haipeng Niu

    (School of Surveying and Land Information Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China
    The Research Centre of Land Economy and Urban-rural Development, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China)

  • Liangxin Fan

    (School of Surveying and Land Information Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China
    The Research Centre of Land Economy and Urban-rural Development, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China)

  • Suxia Zhao

    (School of Surveying and Land Information Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China
    The Research Centre of Land Economy and Urban-rural Development, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China)

  • Hongxuan Yan

    (School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

Abstract

With the rapid progress of urbanization, the loss of cultivated land has attracted great attention worldwide, and economic compensation is one of the incentives commonly used by the governments to enhance farmers’ enthusiasm in protecting cultivated land. In recent years, although various economic compensation modes have been implemented by the Chinese government, such modes are still experimental and exploratory. Thus, designing and implementing a national economic compensation mode is urgent to effectively protect the quantity and quality of cultivated land. This study focuses on the mode of cultivated land protection fund (CLPF) in Chengdu, which is the earliest mode of the implementation of economic compensation in China in 2008. First, we analyzed the farmers’ satisfaction with the CLPF through a face-to-face interview with 296 farmers in Chengdu. Then, we used the path analysis method to identify the influencing factors of farmers’ satisfaction from the characteristics of farmers and the policy. Results show that the CLPF was generally supported by farmers. Nevertheless, room for improvement still exists. Particularly, farmers’ satisfaction was low in the design of the government’s supervision management of the CLPF. Farmers’ satisfaction with compensation standard, funding use requirement, and the government’s supervision management were remarkably affected by factors, including farmers’ educational level, cultivated land area, total annual agricultural income, farmers’ knowledge of the CLPF, farmers’ recognition of the value of the CLPF, and farmers’ perception of the changes in household economics. Particularly, the direct influence of farmers’ perception of the changes in household economics was the most important. Finally, we proposed the recommendations for constructing a national economic compensation mode for cultivated land protection. Our results have certain guiding significance for promoting the sustainable development of cultivated land protection policies by means of economic incentives in China and other countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Dongyang Xiao & Haipeng Niu & Liangxin Fan & Suxia Zhao & Hongxuan Yan, 2019. "Farmers’ Satisfaction and its Influencing Factors in the Policy of Economic Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: A Case Study in Chengdu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5787-:d:278113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5787/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5787/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Subervie, Julie, 2018. "Do European Agri-environment Measures Help Reduce Herbicide Use? Evidence From Viticulture in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 202-211.
    3. Jack Peerlings & Nico Polman, 2009. "Farm choice between agri-environmental contracts in the European Union," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 593-612.
    4. Kaifang Shi & Yun Chen & Bailang Yu & Tingbao Xu & Linyi Li & Chang Huang & Rui Liu & Zuoqi Chen & Jianping Wu, 2016. "Urban Expansion and Agricultural Land Loss in China: A Multiscale Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Konyar, Kazim & Osborn, C. Tim, 1990. "A National-Level Economic Analysis of Conservation Reserve Program Participation: A Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 42(2), pages 1-8.
    6. Raffaele Cortignani & Federica Gobattoni & Raffaele Pelorosso & Maria Nicolina Ripa, 2018. "Green Payment and Perceived Rural Landscape Quality: A Cost-Benefit Analysis in Central Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    7. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    8. Sulemana, Iddisah & James, Harvey S., 2014. "Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 49-61.
    9. Yan Tong & Haipeng Niu & Liangxin Fan, 2016. "Willingness of Farmers to Transform Vacant Rural Residential Land into Cultivated Land in a Major Grain-Producing Area of Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Zhu, Lanlan & Zhang, Chunman & Cai, Yinying, 2018. "Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 505-517.
    11. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    12. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    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. Jayasree Krishnankutty & Michael Blakeney & Rajesh K. Raju & Kadambot H. M. Siddique, 2021. "Sustainability of Traditional Rice Cultivation in Kerala, India—A Socio-Economic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Min Song & Yuxin Ji & Mingdi Zhu & Junji Yue & Luping Yi, 2022. "Routes Determine Results? Comparing the Performance of Differentiated Farmland Conservation Policies in China Based on Farmers’ Perceptions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Biao Zhang & Sang Fu, 2023. "Can Farmers’ Satisfaction with Green Production Policies Be Explained by Policy Structure and Policy Implementation? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Daizhong Tang & Baorui Li & Yuan Qiu & Linlin Zhao, 2020. "Research on Urban and Rural Coordination Development and Its Driving Force Based on the Space-time Evolvement Taking Guangdong Province as an Example," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Rouzaneh, Davoud & Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Jahromi, Arman Bakhshi, 2021. "Evaluating micro-irrigation system performance through assessment of farmers' satisfaction: implications for adoption, longevity, and water use efficiency," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Lei Zhu & Chenyujing Yang & Yuanyuan Zhang & Yongji Xue, 2022. "Using Marginal Land Resources to Solve the Shortage of Rural Entrepreneurial Land in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Xiuling Ding & Qian Lu & Lipeng Li & Apurbo Sarkar & Hua Li, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Institutional Performance and Government Trust on Farmers’ Subjective Well-Being: A Case of Urban–Rural Welfare Gap Perception and Family Economic Status in Shaanxi, Sichuan a," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Silvia Ștefania Maican & Andreea Cipriana Muntean & Carmen Adina Paștiu & Sebastian Stępień & Jan Polcyn & Iulian Bogdan Dobra & Mălina Dârja & Claudia Olimpia Moisă, 2021. "Motivational Factors, Job Satisfaction, and Economic Performance in Romanian Small Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, May.

    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. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    2. Bertoni, Danilo & Curzi, Daniele & Aletti, Giacomo & Olper, Alessandro, 2020. "Estimating the effects of agri-environmental measures using difference-in-difference coarsened exact matching," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Jelena Vapa Tankosić & Radivoj Prodanović & Vladimir Medović, 2023. "Analysis of Agri-Environmental Management Practices and Their Implementation in the Agricultural Policies of the Republic of Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-24, August.
    4. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    5. Canessa, Carolin & Ait-Sidhoum, Amer & Wunder, Sven & Sauer, Johannes, 2024. "What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    6. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Pérez-Sánchez, Cristina & Pierri-Daunt, Ana Beatriz & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio, 2024. "Unraveling spatial agglomeration patterns in agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from the improvement of steppe habitats in the Natura 2000 network in Catalonia (Spain)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    8. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Wieck, Christine & Annen, Dominic N., 2012. "Participation, compliance and synergies at the farm level between the single payments scheme and farm certification labels," Discussion Papers 122123, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    14. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    15. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    16. Doris Läpple, 2010. "Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 697-714, September.
    17. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    18. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2014. "Environmental Management in Agriculture – Case of Bulgaria," MPRA Paper 59054, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    20. Cisilino, Federica & Bodini, Antonella & Zanoli, Agostina & Lasorella, Maria Valentina, 2018. "Exploring Agri-environmental effectiveness using counterfactual analysis," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271958, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5787-:d:278113. 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.