IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2576-d1361113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construction and Influencing Factors of Voluntary Compensation Subjects for Herders—From the Perspective of Sustainable Utilization of Grassland Resources

Author

Listed:
  • Yuchen Liu

    (School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

  • Xinling Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

  • Hankun Deng

    (School of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China)

Abstract

The grassland ecological compensation mechanism is a basic guarantee for promoting the sustainable utilization of grassland resources, and the reasonable determination of the compensation subject is the basic premise for the effective operation of the grassland ecological compensation mechanism. At present, grassland ecological compensation is mainly based on government compensation, and the compensation method generally adopted is financial transfer payment with a single source of compensation funds. Therefore, establishing diversified compensation entities is of great significance in expanding the sources of compensation funds. As important users of grassland resources, herders should become the main representatives of grassland ecological compensation according to the principle of “whoever uses, pays”. In this study, based on survey data with respect to pastoral areas in Inner Mongolia, we used a multivariate ordered logistic regression model to empirically analyze the factors influencing the establishment of a voluntary compensation entity for herders. The results of this study showed that (1) the resource endowment factors of the respondents, including livestock inventory, grazing area, and cutting grassland area, have a significant positive impact on the willingness of herdsmen to voluntarily serve as the main representatives of grassland ecological compensation. When each influencing factor increased by one unit, the probability of voluntarily becoming a compensation subject increased by 3.5%, 1.91%, and 1.41%, respectively. (2) The factor of prohibited pasture area in the endowment of herders had a significant negative effect on their willingness to become compensation subjects, which indicates that the larger the prohibited pasture area owned by herders, the lower their grassland utilization rate and the lower their willingness to voluntarily become compensation subjects. (3) Among the cognitive factors of the respondents, “whether they will continue to support the implementation of the grassland compensation policy” had a positive promoting effect on herdsmen voluntarily becoming compensation subjects, showing that the higher the support of herdsmen for the ecological compensation system, the more willing they were to become compensation subjects. This article is based on the perspective of the sustainable utilization of grassland resources and empirically analyzes the influencing factors of herders’ willingness to reduce their number of livestock. Through the voluntary reduction of livestock by herders, a voluntary compensation entity for herders is constructed. Based on the research conclusions, relevant countermeasures and suggestions are proposed, providing a reference for improving grassland ecological compensation policies and promoting the sustainable utilization of grassland resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuchen Liu & Xinling Zhang & Hankun Deng, 2024. "Construction and Influencing Factors of Voluntary Compensation Subjects for Herders—From the Perspective of Sustainable Utilization of Grassland Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2576-:d:1361113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2576/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2576/
    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. LIU, Tianping & MIAO, Yanjun & SUN, Qianlu, 2016. "Core Issues in Design of Tibetan Grassland Ecological Compensation Mechanism," Asian Agricultural Research, USA-China Science and Culture Media Corporation, vol. 8(12), pages 1-4, December.
    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. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    5. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.
    6. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    7. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    11. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    12. Xiaorui Wang & Shen Hu, 2024. "How do organizations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 42(3), May.
    13. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    15. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    16. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Liping Cao & Fenqi Zhou & Yuan Zhu, 2021. "Performance-Influencing Factors and Improvement Paths of Third-Party Governance Service Regarding Environmental Pollution—An Empirical Study of the SEM Based on Shanghai Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    20. 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.

    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:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2576-:d:1361113. 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.