IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i15p6177-d392610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Payment Criteria and Mode for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoyu Song

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Field Research Base of Land Use in Northwest China, Ministry of Natural Resources, Lanzhou 730000, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.)

  • Yuqing Liu

    (School of Urban and Planning, Yancheng Teachers University, Yancheng 224007, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.)

  • Fanglei Zhong

    (School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xiaohong Deng

    (Institute of County Economic Development, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Institute of Rural Revitalization Strategy, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yuan Qi

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Jinlong Zhang

    (Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Rong Zhang

    (School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yongnian Zhang

    (School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

Quantitative evaluation of the relationship between payment criteria and the amount of additional ecosystem services can improve the cost-effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services (PES) projects. This paper simulated additional water conservation (AWC) using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, examined appropriate payment criteria, and matched different payment modes with local herders’ preferences in Northwest China. The results showed that if all the low-coverage grass areas were to be closed through PES projects, the actual payment criteria, 37 yuan/ha, would need to be increased eight times, which would be 302 yuan/ha. Along with that, annual AWC could reach 1.69 × 10 6 m 3 . If PES projects were implemented in all the low- and medium-coverage grass areas, payment criteria would need to be increased to 365 yuan/ha, and the annual AWC would reach 2.59 × 10 6 m 3 . There were scale economy effects in this range, because a 21% increase in the payment criteria would result in a 66% increase in the total AWC. The appropriate mode for herders above 40 years old is “cash + in-kind compensation” and “cash + capacity” for those below 40, due to the preferences varying in age.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoyu Song & Yuqing Liu & Fanglei Zhong & Xiaohong Deng & Yuan Qi & Jinlong Zhang & Rong Zhang & Yongnian Zhang, 2020. "Payment Criteria and Mode for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6177-:d:392610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6177/
    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. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    3. John M. Antle & Roberto O. Valdivia, 2006. "Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum‐data approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah, 2015. "Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 172-181.
    5. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    6. John M. Antle & Jetse J. Stoorvogel, 2006. "Predicting the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1174-1180.
    7. 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. 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.

    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. 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).
    2. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    3. Ajayi, Oluyede C. & Jack, B. Kelsey & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Auction Design for the Private Provision of Public Goods in Developing Countries: Lessons from Payments for Environmental Services in Malawi and Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1213-1223.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    7. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    8. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    9. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    10. Skidmore, Samuel & Santos, Paulo & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Seeing REDD: A Microeconomic Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in Indonesia," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126688, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    12. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    14. Juan Miguel Benito-Ostolaza & Nuria Osés-Eraso, 2013. "Incentives to give up resource extraction and avoid the tragedy of the commons," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1305, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    15. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    17. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    18. Dario Belluomini, 2016. "Environmental safeguard and Sustainable Development: An Insight into Payments for Ecosystema Services," CEsA Working Papers 140, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    19. Valdivia, Roberto O. & Antle, John M. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 2012. "Coupling the Tradeoff Analysis Model with a market equilibrium model to analyze economic and environmental outcomes of agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 17-29.
    20. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, 2015. "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, September.

    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:12:y:2020:i:15:p:6177-:d:392610. 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.