Abstract
Successful farmland eco-compensation projects need to reflect the heterogeneous preferences both from suppliers and beneficiaries. This paper tries to answer this question by investigating both citizen and farmer preferences for different farmland eco-compensation methods in Wuhan, China, and explore some of the socio-demographic characteristics that contribute to their preferences. Based on the data of 288 citizens and 331 farmers, the multinomial logit model was employed to analyze their preferences for the four farmland eco-compensation methods (monetary compensation, in-kind compensation, technology compensation and policy compensation), respectively. The results show that: (1) Monetary compensation is the most welcomed farmland eco-compensation method among both citizens and farmers. (2) Despite farmers and citizens both putting a high value on monetary compensation methods, citizens are more likely to provide compensation methods that can help farmers improve their living standards in a sustainable method (in-kind compensation, technology compensation and policy compensation). Farmers are less likely to choose the in-kind compensation method. (3) The preference for farmland eco-compensation systems of farmers and citizens are influenced by different socio-demographic characteristics. The results can help the government to design more aimed farmland eco-compensation methods for farmers with different socio-demographic characteristics.
Highlights
The farmland ecosystem is one of the most essential ecosystems in the world [1]
Policy compensation is generally divided into two types
When the estimated coefficient of the variable is positive, it indicates that the selected variable has a positive effect on the preference of this eco-compensation method compared with the monetary compensation method as the compensation group
Summary
The farmland ecosystem is one of the most essential ecosystems in the world [1]. It is regarded primarily as a source of provisioning services, providing humans with agricultural products, bio-energy, landscape facilities and animal habitats [2,3]. The provision typically has an impact on the well-being of the whole society but reduce farmer incomes [6,7], since they are compulsorily asked to take measures to protect their farmland by the government, which limits the farmers’ right to use farmland resources and makes them suffer economic losses in the process of urbanization [8]. Those protection measures may lead to injustice; for example, some environmental protection measures may restrict the legitimate rights of the residents and the district [9], such as the economic interests and the development opportunities, resulting in uneven welfare among stakeholders. Farmers’ enthusiasm for protecting their farmland will decrease, which will affect national food security and social stability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
