Next Article in Journal
Changes in Major Insect Pests of Pine Forests in Korea Over the Last 50 Years
Previous Article in Journal
A Geospatial Decision Support System Tool for Supporting Integrated Forest Knowledge at the Landscape Scale
Previous Article in Special Issue
National Forest Parks in China: Origin, Evolution, and Sustainable Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/f10080691
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests

by
Xueyan Wang
1,
Jan F Adamowski
2,
Guangda Wang
3,
Jianjun Cao
1,*,
Guofeng Zhu
1,
Junju Zhou
1,
Chunfang Liu
4,5 and
Xiaogang Dong
1
1
College of Geography and Environmental Science, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
2
Department of Bioresource Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Sainte Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada
3
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China
4
College of Social Development and Public Administration, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
5
Gansu Engineering Research Center of Land Utilization and Comprehension Consolidation, Lanzhou 730070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(8), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080691
Submission received: 27 June 2019 / Revised: 28 July 2019 / Accepted: 12 August 2019 / Published: 15 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Benefits of the Urban Forest under Global Change)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Returning Farmland to Forest Program (RFFP) was implemented in China in 1999 with the goal of supporting environmental restoration by returning significant areas of cultivated land to forest. While afforestation supports long-term ecosystem services like carbon sequestration and the reduction of soil and water loss, it also reduces the amount of available arable land, putting financial pressure on those who depend on it for their livelihoods. In an effort to balance both ecological and economic benefits, regional governments offer financial compensation to farmers to offset these pressures in the form of a dollar amount per hectare of reforested land. The current study explores participants’ willingness to accept pay (WTA), along with the difference between the offered per hectare compensation and the amount deemed acceptable by RFFP participants in the region. To this end, 92 households from the representative afforestation area were surveyed in Huining County, Gansu Province, China - an area of strategic ecological importance in the Loess Plateau. The results showed 12.0% of the surveyed respondents to be satisfied with the current compensation policy, while 88.0% of respondents were not. The respondents’ lower and upper WTA limits were $221/ha/year and $1331/ha/year, respectively, with an average WTA of $777/ha/year. The compensation that respondents would be most willing to accept was distributed in the $444–888/ha/year and the $889–1331/ha/year ranges, accounting for 37.0% and 31.5% of the total responses, respectively. Gender, age, and education were found to be the main factors influencing a respondents’ WTA. Results of the survey suggest that the actual compensation amount ($355/ha/year) is much lower than respondents’ WTA, and that compensation measures and policies should be improved to guarantee a basic income.

1. Introduction

It is well known that climate change contributes to water and food scarcity, biodiversity loss, and the uncertainty of future generations. To minimize these threats, several mitigation strategies have been introduced, including enhancing afforestation and improving forest management practices [1,2,3]. In the 1920s, the USA became the first country to propose a policy to facilitate afforestation [4]. France, Britain, Germany, and other European countries soon followed, beginning to return farmland to forest and grassland in the 1960s [5]. Since the 1998 Yangtze River flood, environmental protection has become a significant concern for the Chinese government. The Returning Farmland to Forest Program (RFFP) was implemented in 1999 with the goal of returning 3.2 × 107 ha of arable land to forestland by 2010 [6,7]. Land with a slope greater than 25° was targeted, as conversion of this land was considered to have maximum potential for controlling soil erosion, alleviating poverty, and transforming rural livelihoods. From 1998 to 2008, China saw a 4.2 × 107 ha increase in forest area, contributing significantly to the worldwide forested area increase from 1.2 × 108 ha in 1981 to approximately 2.1 × 108 ha by the end of 2014 [8]. With forested area increasing, many ecological services such as soil and water conservation, biodiversity maintenance, and climate change mitigation have improved [9,10,11]. However, one of the main challenges of maintaining afforestation benefits is providing appropriate compensation to farmers [12], especially given that, in contrast to most other forestry projects, the main participants in the RFFP are farmers [13,14], and arable land remains a primary source of income for many rural households, including migrants that lose their jobs in urban areas in China [15,16]. Appropriate compensation can help to balance the ecological and economic benefits of farmland afforestation projects, which have been shown to improve participant awareness and support for environmental protection, and to promote coordination and stable development of society and the economy [17]. In the case of the RFFP, farmer compensation has received a great deal of attention [14,18,19]. Many studies [20,21] have argued that the government compensation standard is arbitrary and insufficient, and that it should be revised to account for regional variations.
At present, two methods are primarily used to estimate appropriate compensation for farmers: Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). The PES method rewards resource managers for the provision of ecosystem services through cash payments or other compensation based on the market, and is characterized by ecological functions subject to trade, the standard of exchange, and supply and demand between the seller and buyer of these services [22,23,24]. Although it has been widely used to estimate compensation [23], Wegner and Irene [25] found two major obstacles in the design and implementation of effective PES schemes. The first is that PES fails to account for both the physical properties of ecosystem services and the factors influencing the capacity of land users and ecosystem service beneficiaries to participate in PES and derive benefits from it. According to the researchers, this arises from the focus of PES on maximization of economic efficiency, and the assumption that individuals respond to financial incentives uniquely on the basis of personal utility calculations. The second obstacle is that PES schemes tend to be disjointed from broader national strategies for rural development and from wider socio-economic trends that strongly influence the capacity of land users to participate in these schemes and shift to sustainable land-use practices. In practice, both obstacles are difficult to overcome. In contrast to PES, CVM is a survey-based valuation approach allowing for a precise focus on respondents’ answers [26,27,28], and can be leveraged to provide important relevant information for decision makers by presenting respondents a contingent situation and information regarding the willingness to secure changes, such as changes in the availability of public goods, amenities, the quality of commodities, or to adopt changes, such as land use change [14,29,30,31]. CVM has been extensively reviewed [32,33] as an applied method for assessing the worth of non-market goods and services [34]. CVM can also be used to assess market-based goods, such as livestock, if reducing reliance on these goods can enhance public ecosystem services [35]. As a market simulation method, CVM has inherent shortcomings [32]; however, it contains mechanisms to reduce the impact of most deviations, such as providing the respondents with detailed information, increasing the credibility and certainty of the content of the questions, and controlling the investigation time of each sample at 20 to 30 min [36,37,38].
Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept pay (WTA) can be used, in both approaches, as proxy economic measures of environmental services, with the former being more relevant for buyers of ecosystem services (i.e., ‘acquisition’), and the latter being more relevant for sellers of ecosystem services (i.e., ‘loss’) [14,39,40,41]. Generally, WTP is lower than WTA [42]. Low WTP is primarily attributed to the limited economic value of ecosystem services provided by individual land owners [23], while higher WTA is due to high costs associated with significant changes in the land use, and participant identities and lifestyles [43,44]. Based on the perspective of welfare loss, however, in developing countries and underdeveloped regions, such as Huining, labeled as a national-level poor county, it is recommended that the WTA of the affected party be used as a reference for the compensation standard, rather than the WTP [45].
Due to obstacles in PES schemes and the inherent mechanisms in CVM to account for shortcomings, in the current study CVM was selected to (1) explore the WTA of farmers from Huining County participating in the afforestation program; (2) determine the amount of compensation needed to fill the gap between previously offered subsidies and the WTA values determined by the locals; and (3) determine the main factors influencing farmers’ WTA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Located in the eastern Gansu Province, China (104°29′–105°31′E, 35°24′–36°26′N) at a mean altitude of 2025 m, Huining County covers an area of roughly 6439 km2, and occupies a strategic position in the ecology of the Loess Plateau [46] (Figure 1). The area experiences mean annual temperatures of 6–9 °C and average annual rainfalls ranging from 180–450 mm. In this area, arable land is the traditional source of income for locals. Encouraged by the national RFFP, afforestation in the region began in 1999, with most trees planted between 2000 and 2003. Since RFFP implementation, arable land in the area has shrunk considerably. By the end of 2015, the county’s total afforested area had reached 706.7 km2, representing a forest coverage rate of 12.47%. Due to the quality of seedlings, high sapling maintenance costs and water deficiencies, the rate of tree survival was low in the county’s northern and central regions. However, in the southern region of Huining County, which is the study area of the present research, tree survival rate was relatively high due to greater annual precipitation [47].

2.2. Questionnaire Design and Field Survey

From late July to early August of 2017, a total of 92 households were surveyed. First, 20 households participating in the RFFP and a few local staff members engaged in this project were interviewed with an open-ended questionnaire. Based on these collected data, a semi-structured questionnaire comprising both open-ended and multiple-choice questions was designed to counteract the biases inherent in single data sources [48]. Next, a pre-survey of 15 households was conducted to identify potential improvements in the developed questionnaire. Finally, after modification and finalization of the questionnaire, the formal investigation was carried out. Roughly 900 households (with an average of five people/household) were located in the study area (Figure 1). In accordance with social survey requirements [35], 100 households were randomly selected as respondents from these 900, accounting for about 10% of the total households. After removing households that had moved or that did not wish to participate, 92 valid surveys remained.
Survey questions fell into several main categories: participant gender, age, educational background, area of total arable land, area of total afforested area, type of developed forest, duration of afforestation efforts, income derived from forests, and government compensation received. Additional questions probed the participants’ willingness to accept compensation and to return farmland to forests, as well as the participant awareness of potential environmental problems. Face-to-face interviews were conducted at each stage to ensure a high response rate, maintain respondent motivation, and support the use of graphical supplements [49,50].

2.3. Data Processing Method

Several methods have been used to calculate WTA, for example, the individual utility function theory [14], median [51], and Maximum Likelihood Estimation [52]. In the current study, the WTA is expressed as a weighted-average—a simple but accurate approach [53,54]. One-way variance analysis (one-way ANOVA) was used to test the differences between socio-economic variables and WTA values, and the least significant difference test was conducted when significant differences were detected through ANOVA. Multivariate linear regression was used to analyze the effects of socio-economic variables on respondent WTA [18,55], as this approach has been determined to be suitable for analyzing the correlation between dependent and independent variables in similar contexts [56]. A p < 0.05 was used as the critical significance threshold to determine differences in the variables. The data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) statistical software.

3. Results

3.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants

Table 1 shows the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. Among the respondents, 59.8% were male, which exceeded the proportion of females (40.2%). The majority of the respondents were farmers (83.7%), while other occupations accounted for 16.1%. The highest level of education obtained by respondents was primary school at 39.1%, junior high school at 20.7%, senior high school at 5.4%, and college at 4.3%. Illiteracy was prevalent in 30.4% of those surveyed. Overall, 72.8% of the total respondents were between 40 and 70 years old, with 25.0% of the total respondents between 60 and 70 years old. In investigated households, 55.0% of families comprised two to five members, while 42.0% contained five to eight members, and 3.0% encompassed more than eight members.

3.2. Household Land Resources and Perception of Afforestation

On average, 0.3 ha of farmland land per household, or 0.1 ha per person, was returned to forest under the RFFP. In terms of arable land, 1.2 ha per household or 0.2 ha per person was returned to forest cover. At the time of the current study, the existing cultivated land area was 0.8 ha per household, or 0.2 ha/person. Among the investigated households, 41 households, or 44.6%, retained less than 1.0 ha of arable land, while 38 households, or 41.3%, had between 1.0 and 1.5 ha, and 14.1% of the households owned over 1.5 ha of cultivated croplands (Table 2).
Approximately 93.5% of the respondents emphasized planting apricot trees when returning farmland to forests due to their economic potential. Almost 100% of the respondents believed that species changes during afforestation could have adverse effects. In addition, 56.5% of the respondents believed the impact of forests on local environment to be negative or negligible (Table 2).

3.3. Factors Affecting Participant WTA

Respondents returned a wide range of compensation values, from $0 to $1331/ha/year. Based on these values and their frequencies, the average WTA was calculated at $777/ha/year. Participants were divided into four groups in terms of WTA: $0–221/ha/year, $222–444/ha/year, $445–888/ha/year, and $889–1331/ha/year. It was found that the majority of surveyed respondents reported a WTA value in the range of $444–888/ha/year or $889–1331/ha/year - approximately 37.0% and 31.5% of total respondents, respectively. No significant difference was observed in WTA among the different occupations. Conversely, gender, age, educational background, family size, and total arable land all had significant effects on WTA (Table 3 and Table 4).
A multiple linear regression model was developed with WTA as the dependent variable, and gender (X1), age (X2), educational background (X3), profession (X4), family members (X5), agricultural acreage (X6), and land-area returned to forest (X7), as the independent variables (Table 4). Results of the regression analysis suggest that the main factors affecting respondents’ WTA are gender, age, and educational background (Table 5).

4. Discussion

In China and elsewhere, stakeholders’ WTA plays an important role in the implementation of afforestation policies, as is the case with other policies aiming to restore ecosystem services [57]. Family status, the income source of a farmer, state compensation efforts, and policy implementation have been found to have a significant influence on an individual’s WTA [58]. In the current study, as shown in Table 4, no significant difference in WTA was observed between different occupations, in contrast to the findings of Zhang et al. [50]. The reason for this may be that the participants were all familiar with the income earned from farmland before its transformation to forests; their WTA for forestland was similar to this known cultivated land income. Conversely, gender, age, educational background, family size, and total arable land all significantly impacted participants’ WTA (Table 4 and Table 5).
Gender can affect people’s behavior, values, and characteristics, and so can be an important factor in WTA [59]. The current study found that 24.0% of males and 40.2% of females had a WTA value higher than $444/ha/year (Table 1). This significant difference between genders is consistent with the research of Feng et al. [26], and may be related to the wage disparity between genders. As males are often on the upper end of income disparity, they are often less negatively impacted by income fluctuations. In the study region, females, however, tend to be engaged in the family’s agricultural work [60]. The income from apricot forests (kernel collection), for example, would be mainly garnered from females’ labor. As a result of this disparate impact, females in the study area may have been more prone to identify changes in income [61]. Age is another important factor affecting WTA. In the current study, the WTA value increased with respondents’ age, contrary to the results of Feng et al. [26]. In the study area, it was observed that a significant portion of the young labor force in Huining County had moved from the region to find work elsewhere. These circumstances have created an environment in which the main labor force in the study area is over 50 years old; the survey demonstrated that 39.1% of the respondents were between 50 and 60 years old, and 33.7% were over 60 years old (Table 1). Based on the survey carried out in the present study, the primary purpose of land management for members of this generation is to ensure food security. Higher education was also found to be correlated with a higher WTA. These results are consistent with Li and Cai [62], but contrary to Feng et al. [26] and Wang [60]. A significantly negative relationship is often observed between educational background and WTA. This has been attributed to a more robust understanding of the long-term benefits of environmental protection among more educated participants [53]. The correlation between a higher level of education and a higher WTA in the current study suggests that at present, compensation in the region is not adequate to maintain the basic needs of participants and make up for the opportunity costs of afforestation, leading to a decline in living standards [63].
From an economic perspective, WTA is often affected by family income. For example, Yu and Cai [64] found that WTA decreased with increasing household annual income; this same trend is evident in the present study. The average WTA value for the Huining County respondents, at $777/ha/year, is significantly higher than that of respondents in other areas [58]. In the study area, participants’ income was, on average, low ($195/year), and households seldom participated in markets outside of the agricultural sector. With high dependence on agriculture, changes in land use are especially impactful as they directly affect the primary income source for many residents. It is particularly important in such cases to instate an adequate compensation standard to offset the opportunity costs of afforestation. Some participants reported earning at least $666/ha/year from cultivated, pre-afforestation land, while the compensation from the national policy was $200–355/ha/year and the income from afforestation was low (with most of the apricot kernels being used for food) - an income reduction, in extreme cases, of approximately 30%. However, previous studies have shown respondents’ income after afforestation to vary regionally [65]. For example, in areas with poor agricultural productivity, subsidies were found to increase farmers’ incomes, while in areas with higher yields, the same subsidies were insufficient to compensate for the opportunity cost of afforestation [66]. In terms of family size, the current study found that the larger the family, the higher the WTA, consistent with the research of Deressa et al. [65]. It is suggested that, when household income is derived principally from agriculture, the financial burden from losing income due to afforestation of previously cultivated land is exacerbated by additional family members [60,67]. Furthermore, it is likely that farmers with more arable land earn a higher revenue from farming, and thus report higher WTA values [53].
Besides the factors influencing WTA mentioned above, additional factors contribute to a high WTA in the study area. For example, populations of wildlife, such as hare, pheasant, and sparrow, have increased as the forest coverage in the study area has increased [68]. However, these improvements in biodiversity have initiated a series of adverse effects. All of the respondents reported that the number of wild animals feeding on their crops has increased rapidly since afforestation, resulting in damages to the crops and, in extreme cases, crop failure. In such cases, WTA increases to compensate for losses incurred as a result of afforestation.

5. Conclusions and Implications for Policy

In general, the RFFP has a substantial incubation period, and thus the return on investment is delayed. For example, apricot plantations are economic forests with a compensation period of five years. As a result, participants’ income is often reduced in the short term due to the adjustment period necessary to establish an income-generating forest [69]. With the gradual growth of an economic forest, the economic benefits also emerge, and with proper management, the economic benefits may be higher after afforestation than when the same land was cultivated as traditional cropland [70]. However, in Huining County, the economic forests implemented in conjunction with the RFFP have seen a low survival rate. This, in combination with a lack of governmental management, has contributed to a low return on investment from the forest fruit industry, resulting in a gap between the income garnered from the cultivated land before afforestation, and the compensation and income earned from the economic forests after afforestation [71]. This situation contributed to the higher WTA observed in the study region. In this study, besides income, other social characteristics, such as gender, age, and educational level also had a significant influence on a farmers’ WTA. In addition, the results of the current study suggest that the “one-size-fits-all” compensation standard is inadequate as it ignores the spatial heterogeneity of natural and economic conditions, resulting in a difference in satisfaction with the level of compensation, as found in other regions [72,73]. Therefore, in the study area, governments should pay locals at least an additional $422/ha/year to offset the gap between the average local WTA and the actual compensation given, by providing money through the rural credit cooperative, and recording payments in a passbook to enable farmers to verify how much they receive [31].
With this gap being unfilled, the risk of farmland reclamation remains largely unaddressed. This risk, it is argued, could be partially mitigated through comprehensive environmental policies [74]. For example, it may be possible to increase farmer income through the development of ecotourism, which could help alleviate compensation pressure [75]. Ecotourism activities, such as sightseeing among the apricot forests, picking gardens, youth agricultural plantations (planting organic wild vegetables), and rabbit hunting, could not only provide conditions for urban residents to experience rural life, but could also increase the income of farmers in the area and support the appropriate adjustment of the regional economic structure [76]. Farmhouse construction could also be leveraged to protect the environment by creating a new income source, reducing the pressure to cultivate land. This shift may allow some arable land to remain idle, leading to a decline in water consumption, and helping to improve the balance between the economy and ecology of the region [77].
In sum, to maintain the long-term benefits arising from afforestation, compensation should be specific-site dependent, and development measures based on local resources should be adopted by governments. Only with such changes can both ecological restoration and economic development be achieved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C., X.W and J.F.A.; Methodology, J.C.; Validation, J.C.; Formal Analysis, X.W.; Investigation, X.W., G.W., X.D., G.Z. and C.L.; Data Curation, X.W. and J.Z.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, X.W.; Writing-Review and Editing, J.C. and J.F.A.; Visualization, X.W.; Funding Acquisition, J.C.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41461109), the Major Program of the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu province, China (18JR4RA002), and the Key Laboratory of Ecohydrology of Inland River Basin, Chinese Academy of Science (KLERB-ZS-16-01) and the Open Fund for Key Laboratory of Land Surface Process and Climate Change in the Cold and Arid Region of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LPCC2018008).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hammadi, A.; Ahmed, T.; Touhami, R.; Faïzet, S. Forest Cover in Tunisia Before and After the 2011 Tunisian Revolution: a Spatial Analysis Approach. J. Geovisualization Spatial Anal. 2018, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hakim, L.; Nakagoshi, N. Ecotourism and Climates changes: The ecolodge contribution in global warming mitigation. J. Trop. Life Sci. 2014, 4, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gunter, U.; Ceddia, M.G.; Tröster, B. International ecotourism and economic development in Central Americaand the Caribbean. J. Sustain. Tour. 2017, 25, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Duff, B.; Rasmussen, P.E.; Smiley, R.W.; Barnett, V.; Payne, R.D.; Steiner, R.W. Wheat/Fallow Systems in Semi-Arid Regions of the Pacific NW America; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 1995.
  5. Zhang, H.M.; Yu, J. The practice of returning farmland to forests and grasslands in Europe and the United States. Sichuan For. Explor. Des. 2014, 4, 54–58. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, F.S.; Zeng, D.H.; Imothyj, F.; Liao, P.F.L. Organic carbon in soil physical fractions under different-aged plantations of Mongolian pine in semi-arid region of Northeast China. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2010, 44, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, M.L.; Liu, X.; Wang, B. Changing and Developing Trend of the Farmland Requisition-Compensation Balance Policy in China. Asian Agric. Res. 2010, 2, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  8. Robbins, A.S.T.; Harrell, S. Paradoxes and Challenges for China’s Forests in the Reform Era. China Q. 2014, 218, 381–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chazdon, R.L.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Laestadius, L.; Bennett-Curry, A.; Buckingham, K.; Kumar, C.; Moll-Rocek, J.; Vieira, I.C.G.; Wilson, S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 2016, 45, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Beiser-McGrath, L.F.; Huber, R.A. Assessing the relative importance of psychological and demographic factors for predicting climate and environmental attitudes. Clim. Chang. 2018, 149, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Iranah, P.; Lal, P.; Wolde, B.T.; Burli, P. Valuing visitor access to forested areas and exploring willingness to pay for forest conservation and restoration finance: The case of small island developing state of Mauritius. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 868–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Qu, S.; Heerink, N.; Xia, Y.; Guo, J. Farmers’ satisfaction with compensations for farmland expropriation in China. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 572–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zinda, J.A.; Trac, C.J.; Zhai, D.; Harrell, S. Dual-function forests in the returning farmland to forest program and the flexibility of environmental policy in China. Geoforum 2016, 78, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nyongesa, J.M.; Bett, H.K.; Lagat, J.K.; Ayuya, O.L. Estimating farmers’ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: Case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya. Ecol. Process. 2016, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pan, D. The Impact of Agricultural Extension on Farmer Nutrient Management Behavior in Chinese Rice Production: A Household-Level Analysis. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6644–6665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Cao, Y.; Zhang, X.L. Are they satisfied with land taking? Aspects on procedural fairness, monetary compensation and behavioral simulation in China’s land expropriation story. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Drechsler, M.; Wtzold, F.; Johst, K.; Bergmann, H.; Settele, J. A model-based approach for design in cost-effective compensation payments for conservation of endangered species in real landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 140, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vedel, S.E.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Thorsen, B.J. Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 113, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, X. Dimensions and measurement of peasants’ land acquisition compensation satisfaction (Nongmin zhengdibuchang manyidu de weidu jiegou ji celiang). Chin. Stud. 2013, 2, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, M.; Wang, K.; Chen, H.; Yue, Y.M.; Zhang, W. Impacts of land use and land cover changes upon organic productivity values in Karst ecosystems: A case study of Northwest Guangxi, China. Front. Earth Sci. China 2010, 4, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wu, Y.; Heerink, N. Foreign direct investment, fiscal decentralization and land conflicts in China. China Econ. Rev. 2016, 38, 92–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Swallow, B.M.; Kallesoe, M.F.; Iftikhar, U.A.; Noordwijk, M.V.; Bracer, C.; Scherr, S.J.; Raju, K.V.; Poats, S.V.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Ochieng, B.O.; et al. Compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world: Framing pantropical analysis and comparison. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Milder, J.C.; Scherr, S.J.; Bracer, C. Trends and Future Potential of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Alleviate Rural Poverty in Developing Countries. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kosoy, N.; Corbera, E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1228–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wegner, G.I. Payments for ecosystem services (pes): A flexible, participatory, and integrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2016, 18, 617–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Feng, D.; Liang, L.; Wu, W.; Wang, L.Y. Factors influencing willingness to accept in the Paddy Land-to-Dry Land program based on contingent value method. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Koetse, M.J. Effects of payment vehicle non-attendance in choice experiments on value estimates and the WTA-WTP disparity. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Flachaire, E.; Hollard, G.; Shogren, J.F. On the origin of the WTA-WTP divergence in public good valuation. Theory Decis. 2013, 74, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cameron, T.A. Contingent Valuation. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cao, J.J.; Xu, X.Y.; Gong, Y.F.; Zhang, X.F.; Li, M.T.; Yang, S.R. Estimation of the Non-Use Value (Existence Value) of the University’s Old Campus by Contingent Valuation Method—A Case Study in Central and Western China. Singapore Management University. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education, Economics and Management Research (ICEEMR 2018); Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gelo, D.; Koch, S.F. Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mahieu, P.A.; Rirea, P.; Kristrom, B.; Brannlund, R.; Giergiczny, M. Exploring the determinants of uncertainty in contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Whittington, D. Ethical issues with contingent valuation surveys in developing countries: A note on informed consent and other concerns. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 28, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tao, Z.; Yan, H.M.; Zhan, J.Y. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services in Heshui Watershed Using Contingent Valuation Method. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 13, 2445–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cao, J.J.; Holden, N.M.; Qin, Y.Y.; Song, X.Y. Potential Use of Willingness to Accept (WTA) to Compensate Herders in Maqu County, China, for Reduced Stocking. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 65, 533–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. MacMillan, D.; Hanley, N.; Daw, M. Costs and benefits of wild goose conservation in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 119, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dargiri, M.N.; Shamsabadi, H.A.; Thim, C.K.; Rasiah, D. Value-at-risk and Conditional Value-at-risk Assessment and Accuracy Compliance in Dynamic of Malaysian Industries. J. Appl. Sci. 2013, 13, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brown, M.A.; Clarkson, B.D.; Barton, B.J.; Joshi, C. Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: Stakeholder perspectives and a way forward. J. R. Soc. N. Zeal. 2014, 44, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Robert, A. Determining the Economic Value of Water: Concepts and Methods; Routledge: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Viscusi, K.W. Reference-Dependence Effects in Benefit Assessment: Beyond the WTA-WTP Dichotomy and WTA-WTP Ratios. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 2015, 6, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lo, A.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Wang, P.; Wolf, S.A. A targeted approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bennett, M.T. China’s sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, P.; Wolf, S.A.; Lassoie, J.P.; Poe, G.L.; Morreale, S.J.; Su, X.; Dong, S. Promise and reality of market-based environmental policy in China: Empirical analyses of the ecological restoration program on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xu, D.W.; Rong, J.; Yang, N.; Zhang, W. Measure of Watershed Ecological Compensation Standard Based on WTP and WTA. Asian Agric. Res. 2013, 5, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhao, X.N.; Pute, W.; Hao, F.; Wang, Y.K. Constructing ecological-protecting barrier: Basic research of rainfall runoff regulation and application in the Loess Plateau of China and its implications for global arid areas. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 4717–4723. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cao, J.J.; Tian, H.; Adamowski, J.F.; Zhang, X.F.; Cao, Z.J. Influences of afforestation policies on soil moisture content in China’s arid and semi-arid regions. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research; SAGE Publications: Saunders Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; Volume 40, p. 244. [Google Scholar]
  49. Trac, C.J.; Schmidt, A.H.; Harrell, S.; Hinckley, T.M. Is the Returning Farmland to Forest Program a Success? Three Case Studies from Sichuan. Environ. Pract. 2013, 15, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Zhang, J.; Luo, M.; Cao, S. How deep is China’s environmental Kuznets curve? An analysis based on ecological restoration under the Grain for Green program. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kristrom, B. Spike Models in Contingent Valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martínez-Espiñeira, R.A. Box-Cox Double-Hurdle model of wildlife valuation: The citizen’s perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 192–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xiong, K.; Kong, F. The Analysis of Farmers’ Willingness to Accept and Its Influencing Factors for Ecological Compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland. Procedia Eng. 2017, 174, 835–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Y.X.; Chen, X.D.; Zhang, S.J.; Bai, J.; Zhang, Y.W. Research on the Willingness to Accept Compensation and Compensation Sharing of Returning Land for Farming to Forestry in Zhangjiakou and Chengde Region. Meteorol. Environ. Res. 2011, 2, 41–44. [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson, D.Y.; Swallow, B.M.; Luckert, M.K. Costs of Lost opportunities: Applying Non-Market Valuation Techniques to Potential REDD+ Participants in Cameroon. Forests 2017, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, W.; Ai, C. Research on water resources bearing capacity of Wuhan based on multivariate linear regression model. J. Henan Polytech. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2017, 36, 75–79. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  57. GrêtRegamey, A.; Brunner, S.; Kienast, F. Mountain ecosystem services-who cares? Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, S.Q.; Liu, J.Y.; Zhang, C.; Yi, C.X.; Wu, W.X. Effects of afforestation on soil carbon turnover in China’s subtropical region. J. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 21, 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Khajehpour, M.; Ghazvini, S.D.; Memari, E.; Rahmain, M. Retracted: Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2011, 15, 1188–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, X. Assessing willingness to accept compensation for polluted farmlands: A contingent valuation method case study in northwest China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stork, E.; Hartley, N.T. Gender and Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Professors’ Behaviors: A Comparison of Chinese and American College Students. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2014, 7, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Li, Y.Y.; Cai, Y.Y. Agricultural land ecological compensation standard estimate based on farmers’ willingness to accept: A case study of Hubei province. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 23, 245–250. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  63. Liang, Y.; Zhu, D. Subjective Well-Being of Chinese Landless Peasants in Relatively Developed Regions: Measurement Using PANAS and SWLS. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 123, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yu, L.L.; Cai, Y.Y. Ecological compensation based on farmers’ willingness: A case study of Jingsan county in Hubei Province, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 26, 215–223. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  65. Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, Y. Research on Rural Labor Force Allocation in the Regions of Sloping Land Conversion Program; Northwest A & F University: Yangling, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  67. Danquah, J.A.; Kuwornu, J.K.M. Assessment of Farm Households’ Willingness to Participate in Reforestation Projects in Ghana: Implications for Policy. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2015, 8, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Laurance, W.F. The unique challenges of conserving large old trees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 416–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yi, X.M. Research on the Protection of Farmers’ Rights and Interests on the Issue of Restoring Farmland to Forest; Central China Normal University: Wuhan, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. Pu, W.J.; Wang, W.J. The impact of economic forest industry development in Qinling-Bashan mountains on Farmers’ income—Taking longnan as Example. Heihe J. 2018, 238, 23–25. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  71. Xie, H.L.; Cheng, L.J. Influence factors and ecological compensation standard of winter wheat-fallow in the groundwater funnel area. J. Nat. Resour. 2017, 32, 2012–2022. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  72. Clayton, T.J. You Should Never Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth: One-Size-Fits-All Compensation in Wrongful Conception; University of Westminster: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  73. Huang, F.X.; Kang, M.Y.; Zhang, X.S. The economic compensation strategy in the process of turning cultivated land back into forests and grasslands (TCFG). Acta Ecol. Sin. 2002, 22, 471–478. [Google Scholar]
  74. Paletto, A.; De-Meo, I.; Cantiani, M.G.; Maino, F. Social Perceptions and Forest Management Strategies in an Italian Alpine Community. Mt. Res. Dev. 2013, 33, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Anand, A.; Chandan, P.; Singh, R.B. Homestays at Korzok: Supplementing Rural Livelihoods and Supporting Green Tourism in the Indian Himalayas. Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sun, M.D.; Cao, J. Landscape design in the transformation of productive vegetable gardens to sightseeing picking gardens. J. Landsc. Res. 2011, 3, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  77. Amatya, L.K.; Cuccillato, E.; Haack, B.; Shadie, P.; Sattar, N.; Salerno, F. Improving Communication for Management of Social-ecological Systems in High Mountain Areas. Mt. Res. Dev. 2010, 30, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 10 00691 g001 550
Figure 1. The study area in Huining County, Gansu Province, China.
Figure 1. The study area in Huining County, Gansu Province, China.
Forests 10 00691 g001
Table
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents.
Statistical IndicatorsMale (55)Number of ParticipantsProportion (%)Female (37)Number of ParticipantsProportion (%)
AgeUnder 3022.2Under 3011.1
30–4022.230–4022.2
40–5077.640–501112.0
50–602628.350–601010.9
60–701314.160–701010.9
Above 7055.4Above 7033.3
Educational BackgroundIlliterate77.6Illiterate2122.8
Primary School2628.3Primary School1010.9
Junior High School1314.1Junior High School66.5
High School77.6High School00
Undergraduate11.1Undergraduate11.1
ProfessionFarmer4245.7Farmer3437.0
Migrant Worker66.5Migrant Worker11.1
Businessperson55.4Businessperson11.1
Table
Table 2. Respondent land resource information and environmental attitude.
Table 2. Respondent land resource information and environmental attitude.
Statistical IndicatorsClassification IndicatorNumber of RespondentsProportion (%)
Arable land (ha)0–14144.6
1–1.53841.3
>1.51314.1
Arable land lost during afforestation (ha)0–0.36368.5
0.3–0.61617.4
>0.61314.1
Forest speciesApricot (Prunus armeniaca L.)8693.5
Poplar (Populus L.)66.5
SatisfiedYes1112.0
No8188.0
Income from forestYes1112.0
No8188.0
Attitude towards environmental changePositive4043.5
Negative3942.4
No change1314.1
Attitude towards species increasePositive00
Negative92100
Table
Table 3. Explanation of variables.
Table 3. Explanation of variables.
VariableDefinition and Assignment
Gender1 = Male; 2 = Female
Age1 = < 30; 2 = 30–40; 3 = 40–50; 4 = 50–60; 5 = 60–70; 6 = > 70
Profession1 = Farmer; 2 = Migrant Worker; 3 = Businessperson
Educational background1 = Illiterate; 2 = Primary School; 3 = Junior High School; 4 = High School; 5 = Undergraduate
Family size1 = 2–5; 2 = 6–8; 3 = > 8
Agricultural acreage (ha)1 = 0–0.8; 2 = 0.8–1.5; 3 = > 1.5
Farmland returned to forest (ha)1 = 0–0.3; 2 = 0.3–0.6; 3 = > 0.6
Table
Table 4. Effects of social and economic variables on willingness to accept payment (WTA).
Table 4. Effects of social and economic variables on willingness to accept payment (WTA).
WTA ($)GenderAgeEducational BackgroundProfessionFamily MembersAgricultural Acreage (ha)Farmland Returned to Forest (ha)
0–2211.000 ± 0.000 a3.390 ± 0.500 a1.220 ± 0.430 a1.000 ± 0.000 a1.000 ± 0.000 a2.000 ± 0.000 a2.000 ± 0.000 a
222–4441.150 ± 0.360 bd4.000 ± 0.000 b2.810 ± 1.080 b1.000 ± 0.000 a1.300 ± 0.470 b2.740 ± 0.450 b2.000 ± 0.000 a
445–8882.000 ± 0.000 c4.600 ± 0.550 c5.000 ± 0.000 c1.000 ± 0.000 a2.000 ± 0.000 c3.000 ± 0.000 b2.000 ± 0.000 a
889–13312.000 ± 0.000 dc5.000 ± 0.000 dc5.000 ± 0.000 dc1.000 ± 0.000 a2.000 ± 0.000 dc3.000 ± 0.000 b2.570 ± 0.540 b
Note: Different lowercase letters show differences across WTA groups.
Table
Table 5. The main factors influencing farmer’s WTA.
Table 5. The main factors influencing farmer’s WTA.
ModelStandard ErrorStandard CoefficientTSig
Constant0.202_−9.4840.000
Gender (X1)0.1550.1663.6460.000
Age (X2)0.0840.2685.2050.000
Educational Background (X3)0.0980.2266.6520.000

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; Adamowski, J.F.; Wang, G.; Cao, J.; Zhu, G.; Zhou, J.; Liu, C.; Dong, X. Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests. Forests 2019, 10, 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080691

AMA Style

Wang X, Adamowski JF, Wang G, Cao J, Zhu G, Zhou J, Liu C, Dong X. Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests. Forests. 2019; 10(8):691. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080691

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xueyan, Jan F Adamowski, Guangda Wang, Jianjun Cao, Guofeng Zhu, Junju Zhou, Chunfang Liu, and Xiaogang Dong. 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests" Forests 10, no. 8: 691. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080691

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop