Special Column:Celebration of the 70th Anniversary of IGSNRR, CAS

Agricultural Land’s Ecological Compensation Criteria Based on the Producers’ Willingness to Accept: A Case Study of Farmer Households in Wuhan

  • College of Land Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

Received date: 2010-07-14

  Revised date: 2010-09-19

  Online published: 2011-02-20


Agricultural land plays a multi-dimensional function and role. It provides not only food and fiber, which is the important safeguard to food security of our country, but also serves as various non-market commodities with characteristics of externalities or public goods. As an ecological barrier in protecting environment, it also brings into playing more and more important ecological and landscape functions in land use planning. So agri-environmental policies (AEPs) have become one of the effective methods to protect the rural landscape and agricultural land in western developed countries. It promotes the farmers to engage in ecological agriculture or organic agriculture, circumventing the shortage of agricultural eco-environmental supply. Ecological compensation system involves suppliers, demanders, other market players, the ecosystem services and products, it is similar to the standard elements of the market. According to Provider Gets Principle (PGP), this research estimates agricultural land’s ecological compensation criteria based on the farmer households’ willingness to supply and accept, and the results have some reference for reducing the negative externalities of agriculture. Based on the empirical survey on farmer households in Wuhan area, the current research studied the farmers willingness to accept if they will be given certain compensations for reducing the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. Firstly, most farmers recognize the negative impacts of fertilizers and pesticides on the agricultural land’s eco-environment. However, they stick to current practice due to the easy use and quick effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Secondly, if we take the application of fertilizer and pesticide under different limits, it is a significant negative relationship between producers’ willingness to supply and application restrictions of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. About 69.32%-85.25% farmers have willingness to provide ecological services as the limitation standards were settled, namely, reducing chemical fertilizers and pesticides applications by 50% or 100%. When the chemical fertilizers and pesticides utilization reduced 50% or 100%, the amount of compensation that the farmers would accept is 3928.88-8367.00 yuan per hectare per year. Based on the simulation of the agricultural products market, about 54.29%-82.12% of the farmers have willinness to produce agricultural products according to the limit standards of utilization of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And, farmers are willing to produce environment-friendly agricultural products when the rice’s price is higher than common agriculture products at 1.65-2.66 yuan per kilogram, which increases 42.52%-68.45%.

Cite this article

CAI Yin-ying, ZHANG An-lu . Agricultural Land’s Ecological Compensation Criteria Based on the Producers’ Willingness to Accept: A Case Study of Farmer Households in Wuhan[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2011 , 26(2) : 177 -189 . DOI: 10.11849/zrzyxb.2011.02.001


[1] Pain D J, Pienkowski M W. Farming and Birds in Europe: The Common Agricultural Policy and Its Implications for Bird Conservation [M]. London: Academic Press, 1997. [2] 中华人民共和国国土资源部. 全国土地利用总体规划纲要(2006—2020). http: //www. mlr. gov. cn/xwdt/jrxw/200810/t20081024_111040. htm. [3] 董正举, 李远, 严岩, 等. 如何确定生态功能区和资源开发区生态补偿标准[J]. 环境保护, 2009, 17: 33-35. [4] Pagiola S, Platais G. Payments for environmental services: From theory to practice . Washington D C: World Bank, 2007. [5] Ozanne A, Hogan T, Colman D. Moral hazard, risk aversion and compliance monitoring in agri-environmental policy [J]. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 2001, 28(3): 329-347. [6] Robinson R A, Sutherland W J. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain [J]. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2002, 39(1): 157-176 [7] Biesmeijer J C, Roberts S P M, Reemer M, et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands [J]. Science, 2006, 313(5785): 351-354. [8] Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, et al. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland [J]. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2010, 11(2): 97-105. [9] Bills N, Gross D. Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: Comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK) [J]. Land Use Policy, 2005, 22(4): 313-321. [10] Baylisa K, Peplowb S, Rausserc G, et al. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 65(4): 753-764. [11] Scherr S J, Bennett M T, Loughney M, et al. Developing future ecosystem service payments in China: Lessons learned from international experience . A Report Prepared for the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) Taskforce on Ecocompensation. 2006. [12] 李怀恩, 尚小英, 王媛. 流域生态补偿标准计算方法研究进展[J]. 西北大学学报: 自然科学版, 2009, 39(4): 667-672. [13] Moran D, McVittie A, Allcroft J, et al. Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods [J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 63(1): 42-53. [14] 李晓光, 苗鸿, 郑华, 等. 生态补偿标准确定的主要方法及其应用[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(8): 4431-4440. [15] 沈根祥, 黄丽华, 钱晓雍, 等. 环境友好农业生产方式生态补偿标准探讨——以崇明岛东滩绿色农业示范项目为例[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2009, 28(5): 1079-1084. [16] Verhoef E T. Externalities //Bergh J V D. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Edward Elgar, 1999. [17] 联合国粮农组织. 2007年粮食及农业状况: 57. http://www.fao.org/catalog/inter-e.htm.