IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i17p7085-d406360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological Benefit Spillover and Ecological Financial Transfer of Cultivated Land Protection in River Basins: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China

Author

Listed:
  • Junfeng Zhang

    (Department of Urban Economic Management, School of Public Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Anlu Zhang

    (Department of Land Management, School of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Min Song

    (Department of Agriculture and Forestry Economic Management, School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

Abstract

The ecological benefit of cultivated land is the non-market value or ecological service value created by cultivated land protection. Based on the trinity concept of comprehensive protection of quantity, quality, and ecology of cultivated land, this study calculates the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Through the theory of ecological supply and demand balance, the study estimated the ecological benefit spillover of cultivated land protection in the basin. The amounts and paths of ecological financial transfers for cultivated land are then examined by balancing the protection responsibilities and financial power of cultivated land. We found that overall the ecological benefits of cultivated land protection in the Yangtze River Economic Belt increased, reaching 773.224 billion RMB in 2017. Therein the upper, middle, and lower reaches compose 20.81%, 53.89%, and 25.30% of the ecological benefits. There are significant differences in the ecological benefits, respectively. There are significant differences in the ecological benefits and their variations of cultivated land within the River Basins. The ecological benefits of cultivated land in the Yangtze River Economic Belt demonstrated spatial spillovers within and between the upper, middle, and lower reaches. The middle reaches of the economic belt are the main ecological surplus areas of cultivated land. The ecological deficit areas of cultivated land are mainly distributed in the lower reaches. The spillover effect of the ecological benefits is evident between provinces. The increase of regional economy and ecological compensation policy for cultivated land can effectively stimulate the ecological benefits whereas the pressure of cultivated land protection and power spillovers are adverse to cultivated land ecological protection. The vertical and horizontal fiscal transfers in 2017 respectively amounted to 230.14 billion RMB and 27.24 billion RMB. Particularly, the upper, middle, and lower reaches received 13.07%, 58.41% and 28.52% of the ecological fiscal transfers, respectively. It is important to strengthen spatial spillovers and improve the horizontal and vertical ecological fiscal transfers for protecting ecology of cultivated land.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:17:p:7085-:d:406360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7085/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/17/7085/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    2. Bastian, Chris T. & McLeod, Donald M. & Germino, Matthew J. & Reiners, William A. & Blasko, Benedict J., 2002. "Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: a hedonic model using geographic information systems data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 337-349, March.
    3. Yi, Hoonchong & Güneralp, Burak & Filippi, Anthony M. & Kreuter, Urs P. & Güneralp, İnci, 2017. "Impacts of Land Change on Ecosystem Services in the San Antonio River Basin, Texas, from 1984 to 2010," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 125-135.
    4. 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.
    5. Hui Wang & Ran Tao & Juer Tong, 2009. "Trading Land Development Rights under a Planned Land Use System: The “Zhejiang Model”," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 17(1), pages 66-82, January.
    6. Jie Guo & Tianqi Zhu & Minghao Ou & Fengsong Pei & Xiaoyu Gan & Weixin Ou & Yu Tao, 2018. "A Framework of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Protect Cropland: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Robert Huber & Marcel Hunziker & Bernard Lehmann, 2011. "Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 93-113.
    8. Ward, Patrick S. & Bell, Andrew R. & Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Droppelmann, Klaus & Mapemba, Lawrence, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi:," IFPRI discussion papers 1440, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Drake, Lars, 1992. "The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(3), pages 351-364.
    10. Xiangping Liu & Lori Lynch, 2011. "Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Reduce Farmland Loss? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 183-201.
    11. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Newman, David H. & Bowker, J.M., 2005. "Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 757-770, August.
    12. Xue Xie & Hualin Xie & Cheng Shu & Qing Wu & Hua Lu, 2017. "Estimation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Fallow Heavy Metal-Polluted Farmland in China Based on Farmer Willingness to Accept," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Perry Burnett, 2012. "Urban Industrial Composition and the Spatial Expansion of Cities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 764-781.
    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. 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.
    2. Yanwei Zhang & Xinhai Lu & Yucheng Zou & Tiangui Lv, 2022. "Nudging Strategies for Arable Land Protection Behavior in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-20, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Xi Wu & Yajuan Wang & Hongbo Zhu, 2022. "Does Economic Growth Lead to an Increase in Cultivated Land Pressure? Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    5. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Yerushalmi, Erez, 2018. "Using Water Allocation in Israel as a Proxy for Imputing the Value of Agricultural Amenities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 12-20.
    3. Xin Yang & Xiaohe Zhou & Shuwen Cao & Anlu Zhang, 2021. "Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2011. "Valuation of environmental impacts of the Rural Development Program - A hedonic model with application of GIS," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114383, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Thomas Coisnon & Walid Oueslati & Julien Salanié, 2012. "Agri-environmental policy and urban sprawl patterns: A general equilibrium analysis," Working Papers halshs-00753221, HAL.
    6. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Ritter, Matthias & Hüttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2020. "Revisiting the relationship between land price and parcel size in agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    8. Deslatte, Aaron & Szmigiel-Rawska, Katarzyna & Tavares, António F. & Ślawska, Justyna & Karsznia, Izabela & Łukomska, Julita, 2022. "Land use institutions and social-ecological systems: A spatial analysis of local landscape changes in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Steven Stillman, 2005. "Examining Changes in the Value of Rural Land in New Zealand between 1989 and 2003," Urban/Regional 0509015, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Patrick Lehnert & Madison Dell & Uschi Backes-Gellner & Eric Bettinger, 2024. "The Effect of Postsecondary Educational Institutions on Local Economies: A Bird’s-Eye View," NBER Working Papers 32679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Corral, Leonardo R. & Schling, Maja, 2017. "The impact of shoreline stabilization on economic growth in small island developing states," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 210-228.
    12. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Yajing Shao & Xuefeng Yuan & Chaoqun Ma & Ruifang Ma & Zhaoxia Ren, 2020. "Quantifying the Spatial Association between Land Use Change and Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Xi’an, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    16. Cloé Garnache & Scott M. Swinton & Joseph A. Herriges & Frank Lupi & R. Jan Stevenson, 2016. "Solving the Phosphorus Pollution Puzzle: Synthesis and Directions for Future Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1334-1359.
    17. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    18. Juergen Bitzer & Erkan Goeren, 2018. "Foreign Aid and Subnational Development: A Grid Cell Analysis," Working Papers V-407-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2018.
    19. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    20. Krittaya Sangkasem & Nattapong Puttanapong, 2022. "Analysis of spatial inequality using DMSP‐OLS nighttime‐light satellite imageries: A case study of Thailand," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 828-849, August.

    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:17:p:7085-:d:406360. 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.