EN中文

JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES >

2026 , Vol. 41 >Issue 1: 87 - 110

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20260106

High-quality Preservation of Grassland Resources in China in the New Era

The impact of China's grassland ecological compensation policy on herders' grassland use pressure and policy implications

  • TIAN Ming-jun ,
  • GAO Bo ,
  • WU Yun-hua
Expand
  • College of Economics and Management, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010011, China

Received date: 2025-03-31

  Revised date: 2025-10-21

  Online published: 2025-12-11

Fold

Abstract

Assessing the effectiveness of subsidies, supervision, and their combined instrument is critical for optimizing grassland eco-compensation policies. However, existing studies face methodological constraints in disentangling these three instruments due to contextual limitations. Leveraging the unique identity of grassland transfer-in herders, this study constructs a quasi-natural experiment using field survey data from 885 herders in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. We employ Propensity Score Matching (PSM) to isolate the independent and synergistic effects of subsidies and supervision on grassland use pressure. Attempts are made to rigorously disentangle causal relationships of policy effects within complex social-ecological systems. Key findings reveal that: Firstly, subsidy instrument reduces grassland use pressure by 2.5299 sheep units per hm2, equivalent to a 77.13% decrease in overgrazing severity. Secondly, supervision instrument decreases grassland use pressure by 1.8866 sheep units per hm2, reducing overgrazing degree by 60.28%. Thirdly, synergistic effects lower grassland use pressure by 2.1791 sheep units per hm2, diminishing overgrazing degree by 66.44%. These results demonstrate that economic incentives outperform supervision constraints, while synergistic effects exceed supervision instrument but remain weaker than subsidy instrument. Finally, the effects of subsidies, supervision and synergy on grassland use pressure reduction are more significant in small grassland scale herders, and the effect decreases in the order of synergy, subsidies and supervision. With different livelihood strategies, subsidies, supervision and synergy are all conducive to grassland use pressure, but synergy and supervision are more effective in non-grazing employment herders, while subsidies have little difference in grassland use pressure between the two groups. Future efforts should respect the phased law of policy implementation, enhance subsidy precision, improve supervision mechanisms and tools, and foster synergistic linkage between subsidies and supervision to achieve policy synergy.

Key words： grassland ecological compensation policy; subsidy; supervision; grassland use pressure; quasi-natural experiment

Cite this article

TIAN Ming-jun , GAO Bo , WU Yun-hua . The impact of China's grassland ecological compensation policy on herders' grassland use pressure and policy implications[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2026 , 41(1) : 87 -110 . DOI: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20260106

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
HUA T, ZHAO W W, PEREIRA P. Opinionated views on grassland restoration programs on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022, 13: 861200, Doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.822268.

[2]
HAN D M, WANG G Q, XUE B L, et al. Evaluation of semiarid grassland degradation in North China from multiple perspectives. Ecological Engineering, 2018, 112: 41-50.

DOI

[3]
LIU Z Q, SUN J Y. A comprehensive study on non-governmental actors in shaping grassland ecological compensation within legal frameworks. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: 5489, Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56146-7.

PMID

[4]
ZHANG J, BROWN C, QIAO G H, et al. 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, 2019, 159: 46-53.

DOI

[5]
杨春, 朱增勇, 孙小舒. 中国草原生态保护补助奖励政策研究综述. 世界农业, 2019, (11): 4-11, 130.

[YANG C, ZHU Z Y, SUN X S. Review on the grassland ecological protection and complement policy. World Agriculture, 2019, (11): 4-11, 130.]

[6]
王海春, 高博, 祁晓慧, 等. 草原生态保护补助奖励机制对牧户减畜行为影响的实证分析: 基于内蒙古260户牧户的调查. 农业经济问题, 2017, 38(12): 73-80, 112.

[WANG H C, GAO B, QI X H, et al. Empirical analysis on the impact of the grassland ecological protection subsidies and incentives policies on herdsmen's reduced-livestock behavior: Based on the 260 herdsmen households in Inner Mongolia. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2017, 38(12): 73-80, 112.]

[7]
周升强, 赵凯. 草原生态补奖政策对农牧户减畜行为的影响: 基于非农牧就业调解效应的分析. 农业经济问题, 2019, 40(11): 108-121.

[ZHOU S Q, ZHAO K. How does the grassland ecological compensation policy affect farmers and herdsmen's behavior of reducing livestock: An analysis based on the regulatory effect of non-agricultural and pastoral employment. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2019, 40(11): 108-121.]

[8]
王丹, 黄季焜. 草原生态保护补助奖励政策对牧户非农就业生计的影响. 资源科学, 2018, 40(7): 1344-1353.

DOI

[WANG D, HUANG J K. Impact of grassland ecological compensation policy on household's off-farm livelihoods. Resources Science, 2018, 40(7): 1344-1353.]

DOI

[9]
张倩. 草原生态补助奖励机制的经济激励效果分析. 甘肃社会科学, 2016, (5): 234-238.

[ZHANG Q. Analysis on economic incentive effect of grassland ecological subsidy reward mechanism. Gansu Social Sciences, 2016, (5): 234-238.]

[10]
胡振通, 孔德帅, 魏同洋, 等. 草原生态补偿: 减畜和补偿的对等关系. 自然资源学报, 2015, 30(11): 1846-1859.

[HU Z T, KONG D S, WEI T Y, et al. Grassland eco-compensation: Equivalent relationship between livestock reduction and compensation. Journal of Natural Resources, 2015, 30(11): 1846-1859.]

DOI

[11]
丁文强, 侯向阳, 刘慧慧, 等. 草原补奖政策对牧民减畜意愿的影响: 以内蒙古自治区为例. 草地学报, 2019, 27(2): 336-343.

DOI

[DING W Q, HOU X Y, LIU H H, et al. The influence of grassland ecological reward policy on livestock farmers' willingness to reduce livestock: A case study of the Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2019, 27(2): 336-343.]

[12]
靳乐山, 胡振通. 谁在超载? 不同规模牧户的差异分析. 中国农村观察, 2013(2): 37-43, 94.

[JIN L S, HU Z T. Who is running overgrazing? Variation analysis of herdsmen with different scales of pastureland. China Rural Survey, 2013(2): 37-43, 94.]

[13]
周升强, 赵凯. 草原生态补奖政策对农牧民牲畜养殖规模的影响: 基于生计分化的调节效应分析. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2020, 30(4): 157-165.

[ZHOU S Q, ZHAO K. The impact of grassland ecological compensation policy on the livestock breeding scale of farmers and herders: Based on the moderating role of livelihood diversification. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2020, 30(4): 157-165.]

[14]
冯晓龙, 刘明月, 仇焕广. 草原生态补奖政策能抑制牧户超载过牧行为吗? 基于社会资本调节效应的分析. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2019, 29(7): 157-165.

[FENG X L, LIU M Y, QIU H G. Impact of grassland eco-compensation policy on herders' overgrazing behavior: The moderating role of social capital. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2019, 29(7): 157-165.]

[15]
高博, 马如意, 乔光华. 草原补奖政策: “高满意度与低执行度”悖论的形成机理研究. 农业技术经济, 2021, (2): 112-122.

[GAO B, MA R Y, QIAO G H. Grassland ecological reward policy: Research on the formation mechanism of "high satisfaction but low execution". Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2021, (2): 112-122.]

[16]
胡振通, 孔德帅, 靳乐山. 草原生态补偿: 弱监管下的博弈分析. 农业经济问题, 2016, 37(1): 95-102, 112.

[HU Z T, KONG D S, JIN L S. Grassland eco-compensation: Game analysis under weak supervision. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2016, 37(1): 95-102, 112.]

[17]
XU X Z, FENG X L. Does grassland ecological compensation policy really promote herders' collective action in community-based grassland conservation? Evidence from Northern China. Land Degradation & Development, 2025: 70083, Doi: 10.1002/ldr.70083.

[18]
黄绚, 宋玉翠, 李敏. 非牧就业、 草地流转促进牧户减畜吗? 以青海省典型牧区为例. 自然资源学报, 2024, 39(5): 1138-1159.

DOI

[HUANG X, SONG Y C, LI M. Do non-pastoral employment and grassland transfer promote livestock reduction? Take typical pastoral areas of Qinghai province as an example. Journal of Natural Resources, 2024, 39(5): 1138-1159.]

DOI

[19]
白晓航, 赵文武, 尹彩春. 稳态转换视角下生态系统服务变化过程与作用机制. 生态学报, 2022, 42(15): 6054-6065.

[BAI X H, ZHAO W W, YIN C C. Change process and interaction mechanism of ecosystem services from the perspective of regime shift. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2022, 42(15): 6054-6065.]

[20]
HOBBS R J, HIGGS E, HARRIS J A. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2009, 24(11): 599-605.

DOI

[21]
MAY R M. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature, 1977, 269(5628): 471-477.

DOI

[22]
FOLKE C, CARPENTER S, WALKER B, et al. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2004, 35: 557-581.

DOI

[23]
WUNDER S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 2015, 117: 234-243.

DOI

[24]
张倩, 范明明. 生态补偿能否保护草场生态? 基于阿拉善左旗的案例研究. 中国农业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2020, 37(3): 36-46.

[ZHANG Q, FAN M M. Whether payment for ecosystem services can protect grassland ecology? Case study of rangeland ecological policy in Alxa Left Banner. Journal of China Agricultural University: Social Sciences, 2020, 37(3): 36-46.]

[25]
叶晗. 内蒙古牧区草原生态补偿机制研究. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2014.

[YE H. Study on grassland ecological compensation mechanism in Inner Mongolia pastoral areas. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2014.]

[26]
HURWICZ L. Inventing new institutions: The design perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1987, 69(2): 395-402.

DOI

[27]
MCAFEE R P, MCMILLAN J. Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design. Journal of Economic Theory, 1988, 46(2): 335-354.

DOI

[28]
LI P, BENNETT J, ZHANG B. Ranking policies to achieve sustainable stocking rates in Inner Mongolia. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2020, 9(4): 421-429.

DOI

[29]
HOU L L, XIA F, CHEN Q H, et al. Grassland ecological compensation policy in China improves grassland quality and increases herders' income. Nature Communications, 2021, 12: 4683, Doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24942-8.

PMID

[30]
张嘉琪, 周黎, 张瑛. 草原补奖政策可以实现激励相容吗? 对减畜与收入增长的实证研究. 中国草地学报, 2024, 46(11): 91-100.

[ZHANG J Q, ZHOU L, ZHANG Y. Can the grassland subsidy and reward policy achieve incentive compatibility? An empirical analysis for livestock reduction and income growth. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2024, 46(11): 91-100.]

[31]
GAO L P, KINNUCAN H W, ZHANG Y Q, et al. The effects of a subsidy for grassland protection on livestock numbers, grazing intensity, and herders' income in Inner Mongolia. Land Use Policy, 2016, 54: 302-312.

DOI

[32]
侯向阳, 尹燕亭, 运向军, 等. 北方草原牧户心理载畜率与草畜平衡模式转移研究. 中国草地学报, 2013, 35(1): 1-11.

[HOU X Y, YIN Y T, YUN X J, et al. Herders' stocking rates and shift of grass-animal balance model in northern grassland of China. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2013, 35(1): 1-11.]

[33]
董海宾, 刘思博, 蒋奇伸, 等. 外购干草是否缓解了天然草原的生态压力? 来自内蒙古的回顾性调查. 草地学报, 2022, 30(4): 771-777.

DOI

[DONG H B, LIU S B, JIANG Q S, et al. Has purchased hay alleviated the ecological pressure of grassland? Retrospective survey from Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2022, 30(4): 771-777.]

[34]
HOU X Y, YIN Y, MICHALK D, et al. Herders' opinions about desirable stocking rates and overstocking in the rangelands of Northern China. The Rangeland Journal, 2014, 36(6): 601-610.

DOI

[35]
萨茹拉, 丁勇, 侯向阳. 北方草原区气候变化影响与适应. 中国草地学报, 2018, 40(2): 109-115.

[SA R L, DING Y, HOU X Y. Impact of climate change and adaptation in northern grassland of China. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2018, 40(2): 109-115.]

[36]
ANDERSSON K P, COOK N J, GRILLOS T, et al. Experimental evidence on payments for forest commons conservation. Nature Sustainability, 2018, 1(3): 128-135.

DOI

[37]
KERN F, ROGGE K S, HOWLETT M. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 2019, 48(10): 103832, Doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832.

[38]
DANZ D, VESTERLUND L, WILSON A J. Belief elicitation and behavioral incentive compatibility. American Economic Review, 2022, 112(9): 2851-2883.

DOI

[39]
LI Z D, LIU M C. Herder households' livelihood strategies as a response to payments for grassland ecosystem services in China. Land Degradation & Development, 2023, 34(5): 1375-1389.

DOI

[40]
ZHUANG M F, GENG Y, PAN H Y, et al. Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of payments for ecosystem services: A Chinese garlic farm case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 285: 124866, Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124866.

[41]
ZHAI T L, ZHANG D, ZHAO C C. How to optimize ecological compensation to alleviate environmental injustice in different cities in the Yellow River Basin? A case of integrating ecosystem service supply, demand and flow. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 75: 103341, Doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103341.

[42]
ALSTON J M, HURD B H. Some neglected social costs of government spending in farm programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1990, 72(1): 149-156.

DOI

[43]
张宝, 马梅, 乔光华. 草原生态补奖政策的“三位一体”机制构建及实现对策研究. 青海社会科学, 2024, (3): 53-61.

[ZHANG B, MA M, QIAO G H. Research on the mechanism construction of grassland ecological compensation policy. Qinghai Social Sciences, 2024, (3): 53-61.]

[44]
JIMOH S O, FENG X, LI P, et al. Risk-overgrazing relationship model: An empirical analysis of grassland farms in Northern China. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 2020, 73(4): 463-472.

DOI

[45]
和萍, 付梦雪, 吴本健. 降低贫困脆弱性更有效的政策: 直接补贴还是保险? 以宁夏回族自治区Y县为例. 中央民族大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 2020, 47(1): 89-98.

[HE P, FU M X, WU B J. Seeking more effective policies to reduce the vulnerability of poverty: Direct subsidies or insurance? A case study on Y county in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Journal of Minzu University of China: Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition, 2020, 47(1): 89-98.]

[46]
武俊伟. 政策初始设计如何影响政策执行? 基于草原禁牧休牧政策执行的案例研究. 中国行政管理, 2024, (2): 112-122.

[WU J W. How does initial policy design influence policy implementation: An based on the implementation of the policy of banning grazing and resting grazing on grassland. Chinese Public Administration, 2024, (2): 112-122.]

[47]
SUN Y, DU H Y, LIU B Y, et al. Evolutionary game analysis for grassland degradation management, considering the livelihood differentiation of herders. Land, 2022, 11(10): 1776, Doi: 10.3390/land11101776.

[48]
韩凤芹, 李丹. 基于政府行为视角的中央财政草原生态保护补助奖励政策效果研究. 中央财经大学学报, 2021, (1): 12-20.

[HAN F Q, LI D. The performance analysis of state grassland ecological rewards policy from government action perspective. Journal of Central University of Finance & Economics, 2021, (1): 12-20.]

[49]
史雨星, 秦国庆, 赵敏娟, 等. 邻里效应对牧户载畜率决策的影响: 北方牧区的经验证据. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2022, 32(1): 155-167.

[SHI Y X, QIN G Q, ZHAO M J, et al. Impact of neighborhood effect on herders' stocking rate decision: Evidence from pastoral areas in Northern China. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2022, 32(1): 155-167.]

[50]
佟彤, 韩英夫. 草原生态补奖政策的法治化审视与物权式优化. 干旱区资源与环境, 2024, 38(3): 15-21.

[TONG T, HAN Y F. On the legalization and real right optimization in grassland ecological subsidy policy. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2024, 38(3): 15-21.]

[51]
武俊伟. 中国草原制度变迁逻辑: 制度成本调节与牧民行为博弈: 以内蒙古B嘎查为例. 内蒙古社会科学, 2023, 44(6): 50-57.

[WU J W. The logic of institutional change in Chinese grassland: Institutional cost adjustment and herdsmen behavior game: Take B gacha, Inner Mongolia as an example. Inner Mongolia Social Sciences, 2023, 44(6): 50-57.]

[52]
崔晶. 基层治理中的政策“适应性执行”: 基于Y区和H镇的案例分析. 公共管理学报, 2022, 19(1): 52-62, 168.

[CUI J. The adaptive implementation of policy in local governance: Case studies on Y district and H town. Journal of Public Management, 2022, 19(1): 52-62, 168.]

[53]
FENG X L, ZHAO Q R, LI J, et al. The impact of political status and social capital on herders' overgrazing behaviors in the pastoral areas of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 327: 116861, Doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116861.

[54]
LEI S, QIAO Q, GAO X T, et al. Ecological awareness, policy perception, and green production behaviors of farmers living in or near protected areas. Forests, 2023, 14(7): 1339, Doi: 10.3390/f14071339.

[55]
吉思融, 李敏, 陈霏璐. 资源禀赋对牧户草地保护意愿与行为悖离的影响研究: 基于生态认知的调节效应. 草地学报, 2025, 33(3): 948-959.

DOI

[JI S R, LI M, CHEN F L. Influence of resource endowment on the deviation between herdsmen's protection willingness and behavior: Based on the moderating effect of ecological cognition. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2025, 33(3): 948-959.]

DOI

[56]
吴非. 取向一致还是合成谬误: 数字化绿色化政策协同对企业新质生产力的影响研究. 西北工业大学学报: 社会科学版, 2025, 45(3): 119-128.

[WU F. Coherence or synthesis fallacy: The impact of digital-green policy synergies on the new quality productivity of enterprises. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University: Social Sciences, 2025, 45(3): 119-128.]

[57]
王天雁, 马晓青. 生态保护与牧民生计: 牧区草原生态保护补助奖励政策实施状况调查. 青海民族大学学报: 社会科学版, 2022, 48(2): 57-69.

[WANG T Y, MA X Q. Ecological protection and herdsmen's livelihood: A survey on the implementation of subsidy and reward policy for grassland ecological protection in pastoral areas. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University: Social Sciences, 2022, 48(2): 57-69.]

[58]
柴智慧, 田铭君, 姚凤桐. 数字技术、 草地流转与放牧强度: 基于内蒙古纯牧户的实证. 草地学报, 2023, 31(6): 1842-1852.

DOI

[CHAI Z H, TIAN M J, YAO F T. Digital technology, grassland transfer and grazing intensity: An empirical analysis based on pure herdsmen in Inner Mongolia. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2023, 31(6): 1842-1852.]

[59]
马如意, 肖海峰, 高博, 等. 草地流转“差序格局”与牧户超载过牧: 来自内蒙古牧区的微观证据. 农业技术经济, 2025, (4): 71-85.

[MA R Y, XIAO H F, GAO B, et al. Grassland transfer "orderly-diversity pattern" and herdsman overgrazing: Micro evidence from pastoral areas in Inner Mongolia. Journal of Agrotechnical Economics, 2025, (4): 71-85.]

[60]
侯学博, 余国新, 李先东. 风险规避、 非牧用途使用与牧户草原流转行为. 自然资源学报, 2022, 37(1): 233-249.

DOI

[HOU X B, YU G X, LI X D. Risk aversion, grassland used for non-animal-husbandry purpose and herdsmen's grassland transfer behavior. Journal of Natural Resources, 2022, 37(1): 233-249.]

DOI

[61]
ROSENBAUM P R, RUBIN D B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 1983, 70(1): 41-55.

DOI

[62]
陈强. 高级计量经济学及Stata应用. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2014: 542-549.

[CHEN Q. Advanced Econometrics and Stata Application. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2014: 542-549.]

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉