IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3378-d348435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China

Author

Listed:
  • Manman Han

    (Department of Land Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 430000, China)

  • Min Song

    (School of Business Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China)

Abstract

Rural–urban land conversion has led to the degradation of agricultural system ecological services, and therefore human ecological well-being. There is a need to transform the non-marketed value of ecosystem services provision into a monetary loss of ecological well-being in rural–urban land conversion, which could serve as a basis for ecological compensation. In this paper, a choice experiment method is adopted to investigate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of rural and urban residents in six cities of three provinces selected from different regions in China. The results reveal that the attributes reflecting the ecological well-being of rural and urban residents are experiencing different degrees of decline. Two attributes, health and security, show the most obvious decline among all ecological well-being attributes for urban residents. In view of stakeholders, rural residents are facing a greater decline in ecological well-being than urban residents, which is mainly driven by their different linkages and interactions with the agro-ecosystem. In terms of regional comparisons, residents in the central region (Hubei Province) of China are subject to the sharpest decline in ecological well-being, followed by those living in the western region (Guizhou Province) and the eastern region (Guangdong Province). These differences are basically determined by their land resource conditions and socioeconomic circumstances. This paper argues that it is pressing to establish an ecological compensation mechanism to regulate rural–urban land conversion and maintain human ecological well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Manman Han & Min Song, 2020. "Quantifying Ecological Well-Being Loss under Rural–Urban Land Conversion: A Study from Choice Experiments in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3378-:d:348435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3378/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3378/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lienhoop, Nele & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2018. "Involving multiple actors in ecosystem service governance: Exploring the role of stated preference valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 181-188.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Barrena, José & Nahuelhual, Laura & Báez, Andrea & Schiappacasse, Ignacio & Cerda, Claudia, 2014. "Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 66-75.
    4. Wang, Pu & Poe, Gregory L. & Wolf, Steven A., 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 63-68.
    5. Yang, Lun & Liu, Moucheng & Lun, Fei & Min, Qingwen & Li, Wenhua, 2019. "The impacts of farmers’ livelihood capitals on planting decisions: A case study of Zhagana Agriculture-Forestry-Animal Husbandry Composite System," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 208-217.
    6. Wang, Xuechao & Dong, Xiaobin & Liu, Huiming & Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Lu, Nachuan & Xu, Zihan & Ren, Jiahui & Xing, Kaixiong, 2017. "Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 113-123.
    7. 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.
    8. Tan, Rong & Qu, Futian & Heerink, Nico & Mettepenningen, Evy, 2011. "Rural to urban land conversion in China — How large is the over-conversion and what are its welfare implications?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 474-484.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    11. Merlet, Pierre & Van Hecken, Gert & Rodriguez-Fabilena, René, 2018. "Playing before paying? A PES simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 218-227.
    12. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    13. Min Song & Lynn Huntsinger & Manman Han, 2018. "How does the Ecological Well-Being of Urban and Rural Residents Change with Rural-Urban Land Conversion? The Case of Hubei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    14. Narducci, Jenna & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & Castro, Antonio & Som-Castellano, Rebecca & Brandt, Jodi S., 2019. "Implications of urban growth and farmland loss for ecosystem services in the western United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    16. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    17. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    18. Izac, A-M. N. & Swift, M. J., 1994. "On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 105-125, November.
    19. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    20. Tian, Qing & Lemos, Maria Carmen, 2018. "Household Livelihood Differentiation and Vulnerability to Climate Hazards in Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 321-331.
    21. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    22. Ma, Shan & Swinton, Scott M., 2011. "Valuation of ecosystem services from rural landscapes using agricultural land prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1649-1659, 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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.
    3. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    4. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    5. Pascal da Costa & Daniel Hernandez, 2019. "The Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation: A Discrete Choice Experiment at the Taravo River Basin in Corsica," Working Papers hal-01971681, HAL.
    6. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    8. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    9. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton, 2012. "Hedonic Valuation of Farmland Using Sale Prices versus Appraised Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 1-15.
    10. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Using Economic Valuation Techniques to Inform Water Resources Management in the Southern European, Mediterranean and Developing Countries: A Survey and Critical Appraisal of Available Techniques," DEOS Working Papers 0806, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    11. Min Song & Lynn Huntsinger & Manman Han, 2018. "How does the Ecological Well-Being of Urban and Rural Residents Change with Rural-Urban Land Conversion? The Case of Hubei, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    12. GAO Tianming & Anna Ivolga & Vasilii Erokhin, 2018. "Sustainable Rural Development in Northern China: Caught in a Vice between Poverty, Urban Attractions, and Migration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    17. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    18. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:8:p:3378-:d:348435. 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.