Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Besides crops, agriculture supplies all three major categories of ecosystem services (ES). However, agriculture also supplies an array of ecosystem dis-services (EDS) that may harm other ecosystems. The flows of ES and EDS are directly dependent on the management of agricultural ecosystems. The traditional method of Chinese agriculture, which supports sustainable agriculture, has been proven to increase ES and reduce EDS. However, there is a lack of a detailed understanding of the ES and EDS associated with traditional agriculture, and also of differences between traditional and modern agriculture.

In this study, an investigation was conducted on the ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem dis-services (EDS) of traditional and modern agriculture in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Afterwards, the economic values of ES and EDS were quantified experimentally and calculated based on the market price. The results show that: the net economic value of traditional rice-fish agriculture was 3.31×104 CNY·ha−1 (6.83 CNY = 1 USD as of July, 2009) and that of rice monoculture was 1.99×104 CNY·ha−1. Significant differences existed between traditional rice-fish and rice monoculture fields for their economic values of some ES or EDS.

A benefit and cost analysis (BCA) model was used to adjust the conflict between the economic income and environmental loss from traditional and modern agriculture. The BCA model not only calculates the net income but also monetizes the EDS of the agricultural systems. The results showed that the net income of rice-fish agriculture was 1.94×104 CNY·ha−1 higher than that of rice monoculture. However, the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of rice-fish agriculture was lower than that of rice monoculture, indicating that the traditional agricultural model was not the most optimized choice for farmers. The value of the rice-fish agriculture was much higher than that of the rice monoculture. Thus, when considering the benefits that rice-fish agriculture contributes to the largescale society, these agricultural methods needs to be utilized. Furthermore, the labor opportunity costs were calculated and the comprehensive value of rice monoculture was negative. Finally, the compensation standard was calculated based on the comprehensive benefit analysis. The lowest level was 1.09×103 CNY·ha−1, and the highest level was 1.21×104 CNY·ha−1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner V, Giordano S, Horowitz A, D’Amore M. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience, 1992, 42(10): 750–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li W H. Agro-Ecological Farming Systems in China. Paris: Parthenon Publishing Group, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  3. Qualset C O, Shands H L. Safeguarding the Future of US Agriculture: The Need to Conserve Threatened Collections of Crop Diversity Worldwide. University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program, 2005

  4. Zhu Y Y, Chen H R, Fan J H, Wang Y Y, Li Y, Chen J B, Fan J X, Yang S S, Hu L P, Leung H, Mew TW, Teng P S, Wang Z H, Mundt C C. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature, 2000, 406(6797): 718–722

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leung H, Zhu Y Y, Revilla-Molina I R, Fan J X, Chen H, Pangga I, Cruz C V, Mew TW. Using genetic diversity to achieve sustainable rice diseases management. Plant Disease, 2003, 87(10): 1156–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jackson L E, Ramirez I, Yokota R, Fennimore S A, Koike S T, Henderson D M, Chaney W E, Calderó F J, Klonsky K. On-farm assessment of organic matter and tillage management on vegetable yield, soil, weeds, pests, and economics in California. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2004, 103(3): 443–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vandermeer J, Lawrence D, Symstad A, Hobbie S. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, eds. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. UK: Oxford University Press, 2002, 221–236

    Google Scholar 

  8. Altieri M A, Nicholls C I. Soil fertility management and insect pests: harmonizing soil and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil & Tillage Research, 2003, 72(2): 203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tscharntke T, Klein A M, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 2005, 8(8): 857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drinkwater L E, Wagoner P, Sarrantonio M. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature, 1998, 396: 262–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Li L, Tang C, Rengel Z, Zhang F S. Calcium, magnesium and microelement uptake as affected by phosphorus sources and interspecific root interactions between wheat and chickpea. Plant and Soil, 2004, 261: 29–37

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Li SM, Li L, Zhang F S, Tang C. Acid phosphatase role in chickpea/maize intercropping. Annals of Botany, 2004, 94(2): 297–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. FAO. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) pilot systems and sites

  14. http://www.fao.org/nr/giahs/pilot-systems/en/, 2009-5-27

  15. Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R V, Paruelo J, Raskin R G, Sutton P, van den Belt M. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997, 387: 253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Daily G C, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich P R, Folke C, Jansson A, Jansson B O, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler K G, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D, Walker B. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 2000, 289: 395–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. He H, Pan Y Z, Zhu W Q, Liu X L, Zhang Q, Zhu X F. Measurement of terrestrial ecosystem service value in China. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005, 16(6): 1122–1127 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hougner C, Colding J, Söderqvist T. Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics, 2006, 59(3): 364–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brander L, van Beukering P, Cesar H S J. The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 2007, 63(1): 209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Costanza R, Fisher B, Mulder K, Liu S, Christopher T. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production. Ecological Economics, 2007, 61(2–3): 478–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sattout E J, Talhouk S N, Caligari P D S. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: an application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecological Economics, 2007, 61(2–3): 315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sandhu H S, Wratten S D, Cullen R, Case B. The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics, 2008, 64(4): 835–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Swinton S M, Lupi F, Robertson G P, Hamilton S K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64(2): 245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fleming C M, Cook A. The recreational value of Lake Mckenzie, Fraser Island: an application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 2008, 29(6): 1197–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang W, Ricketts T H, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton S M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64(2): 253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Assessment M E. Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: a Framework for Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  27. Way M J, Heong K L. The role of biodiversity in the dynamics and management of insect pests of tropical irrigated rice-a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 1994, 84(04): 567–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Berg H. Pesticide use in rice and rice-fish farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey), 2001, 20(10): 897–905

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu B Y, Wang R S, Zhang R W. Relationship between population’s diversity and its micro-environments in farmland ecosystemevaluation for diversity of several farm-lands ecosystems. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2001, 20(2): 5–7 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zheng Z X, Min Q W. Organic agriculture: a new opportunity for rice-fish agriculture development. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2006, 22: 299–302 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  31. de Groot R S, Wilson M, Boumans R M J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 2002, 41(3): 393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Antle J M, Pingali P L. Pesticides, productivity, and farmer health: a Philippines case study. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1994, 76(3): 418–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilson M, Troy M, Costanza R. The economic geography of ecosystem goods and services: revealing the monetary value of landscapes through transfer methods and geographic informantion systems. In: Dieterich M, van der Straaten J, eds. Cultural Landscapes and Land Use: The Nature Conservation-Society Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, 69–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao Y. Study on the ecosystem services by the rice paddies in China and their monetary values. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, 2005 (in Chinese)

  35. Ball B C, Scott A, Parker J P. Field N2O, CO2 and CH4 fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and soil quality in Scotland. Soil & Tillage Research, 1999, 53(1): 29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liou R M, Huang S N, Lin C W. Methane emission from fields with differences in nitrogen fertilizers and rice varieties in Taiwan paddy soils. Chemosphere, 2003, 50(2): 237–246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zou J W, Huang Y, Zong L G, Zheng X H. A field study on CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions from rice paddy and impact factors. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2003, 23(6): 758–764 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang S S, Chang H L. Effect of environmental conditions on methane production and emission from paddy soil. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 1998, 69(1): 69–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu X Y, Huang H, Yang Z P, Yu J B, Dai Z Y, Wang D J, Tan S Q. Methane emission from rice-duck-fish complex ecosystem. Ecology & Environment, 2006, 15(2): 265–269 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ren W L, Cao C G, Wang J P. Economic valuation of gas regulation as a service by rice-duck-fish complex ecosystem. Ecological Economy, 2008, (4): 266–272

  41. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of US. Office of Atmospheric Programs. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2000, 2002, EPA 430-R-02-003

  42. Houghton J T, Meira Filho L G, Callander B A, Harris N. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  43. Björklund J, Limburg K E, Rydberg T. Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden. Ecological Economics, 1999, 29(2): 269–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ghosh S, Majumdar D, Jain M C. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from an irrigated rice of North India. Chemosphere, 2003, 51(3): 181–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. MFC (Ministry of Forestry of China). Yearbook of Forestry in China. Beijing: Forestry Press, 1990 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mao Q L. Yuecheng reservoir project financial assessment and computation on water price. Journal of Economics of Water Resources, 1998, 33(6):16–17 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Li W H, Liu M C, Zhang D. Tradeoff analysis on comprehensive valuation of traditional agriculture and rice monocropping in Zhejiang. Resources Science, 2009, 31(6): 899–904 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yoshida K. An economic evaluation of the multifunctional roles of agriculture and rural areas in Japan. Technical bulletin, 2001

  49. Zeng H C. SO2 pollution of coal power in city and their management technology. Central China Electric Power, 1998, 11(4): 14–19 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shrestha R K, Seidl A F, Moraes A S. Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics, 2002, 42(1–2): 289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zheng W, Shi H H, Chen S, Zhu M Y. Benefit and cost analysis of mariculture based on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68(6): 1626–1632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Chestnut L G, Mills D M. A fresh look at the benefits and costs of the US acid rain program. Journal of Environmental Management, 2005, 77(3): 252–266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Spurgeo J. The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1998, 37(8–12): 373–382

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dale V H, Polasky S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 2007, 64(2): 286–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China

    Dan Zhang, Qingwen Min, Moucheng Liu & Shengkui Cheng

  2. Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

    Dan Zhang

Authors
  1. Dan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qingwen Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Moucheng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shengkui Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingwen Min.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, D., Min, Q., Liu, M. et al. Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: a case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 6, 743–752 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation