Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity in the Efficiency of Agricultural Eco-Product Value Conversion: An Empirical Study from China

Abstract

Understanding the efficiency of agricultural eco-product value realization is critical for sustainable development and regional equity. Here, we present a comprehensive analysis of the spatiotemporal patterns and regional disparities in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products across China’s 31 provinces from 2010 to 2022. Utilizing an advanced Super-NSBM model, we quantify three dimensions of efficiency: overall value realization, economic value conversion, and social welfare value realization. Spatial mapping and dynamic evolution analysis are conducted through Dagum Gini coefficient decomposition and conditional kernel density estimation. Our results reveal three key insights: (1) China’s agricultural eco-product value realization efficiency remains suboptimal, with a gradual upward trend. Economic value conversion outperforms social welfare value realization, which exhibits significant regional heterogeneity. A distinct east–west gradient is observed, with Western regions demonstrating notable progress despite initial inefficiencies. (2) Inter-regional disparities are narrowing, particularly between Eastern and Central regions. While polarization in Northeast China has diminished, Western regions show widening efficiency gaps and emerging polarization trends. (3) Regional differences are predominantly driven by inter-group disparities, with Eastern China exhibiting the lowest intra-regional variability. Cross-regional differences follow a U-shaped trajectory, decreasing initially before rebounding in recent years. These findings provide a robust empirical foundation for optimizing regional strategies in ecological product value conversion and offer critical insights for addressing spatial inequities in sustainable agricultural development.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, with the rapid development of the economy and the growing public awareness of ecological and environmental issues, the multiple values of ecosystems have been increasingly recognized and explored. In this context, the concept of “ecological products” has emerged as a critical link between ecological protection and economic development. How to achieve the value transformation of ecological products and promote synergy between ecological conservation and economic growth has become a key focus for both academia and policymakers. Currently, the development and value realization of ecological products in China remain in the exploratory stage. In the field of agricultural production, agricultural ecological products, which represent the deep integration of ecological protection and agricultural production practices, have gradually garnered attention. However, their development in China still faces significant challenges. On the one hand, a large number of green, organic, and pollution-free agricultural products remain confined to rural markets. On the other hand, the public’s growing concerns about food safety have created an urgent demand for healthy and green food. This imbalance of information between supply and demand has led to difficulties in the value realization of agricultural ecological products, resulting in blocked pathways and low efficiency. Therefore, improving the value realization of agricultural ecological products has become an urgent priority. The efficiency of ecological value realization is a critical metric for evaluating the transformation of various ecological products and services provided by ecosystems across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Specifically, the efficiency of value realization for agricultural ecological products serves as an important benchmark for assessing their economic and ecological impact. Studying the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization can provide a clear understanding of the conversion efficiency across different regions in China. It objectively reflects the actual conditions of each area, offers valuable policy recommendations for agricultural ecological development, and facilitates the advancement of China’s agricultural sector while promoting ecological harmony and sustainable progress.

Currently, research on ecological products by scholars both domestically and internationally can be categorized into several areas. First, the concept of ecological products is viewed as a “Chinese concept”, with foreign scholars lacking a clear equivalent, often referring to it as “ecosystem services” or “environmental products and services”. In terms of attributes, ecological products possess characteristics of both public goods and quasi-public goods; see [1,2]. The academic community has not proposed a clear definition specifically for agricultural ecological products and continues to use the concept of ecological products; see [3,4]. Daly [5] was the first to use the input–output ratio of ecosystem services to measure a country’s level of sustainable development. Since then, domestic scholars have conducted a series of studies on ecological products based on Daly’s research on ecosystem services. Zhang [6] defined ecological products as the final products resulting from the interaction of biological production and human labor, which serve as necessities for a better human life. Liu [7] argued that ecological products should encompass life support, climate regulation, and comfortable natural elements provided by ecosystems, as well as the supply of material and cultural products provided in green, low-carbon, and circular ways. Qiu [8] proposed a clear concept of ecological products after an in-depth analysis of their formation mechanisms, defining ecological products as carriers of ecological environments or natural resources, which, combined with human labor, meet various human needs through products and services. Alternatively, they may also refer to virtual products or related rights that realize economic value under government planning.

In the realization of ecological product value, research is still in the preliminary exploration phase, with scholars mainly focusing on the pathways and mechanisms of value realization. Zhu [9] explored the mechanisms of ecological product value realization based on value chain theory. Xie [10] conducted an in-depth study on the main issues affecting ecological product value realization, proposing measures such as strengthening top-level institutional design, improving the value accounting and evaluation system, and establishing a sound ecological compensation system. Wang [11] introduced digital technology into the research on the realization of forest ecological product value for the first time, leveraging digital technology to open up pathways for value realization, thus providing new momentum for ecological product value realization. Li [12] studied the realization of rural ecological product value from the perspective of “Resources-Assets-Capital”, suggesting a rational adaptation to resource advantages, integration of external factors, and full utilization of product markets to realize multidimensional product value.

Regarding the accounting of ecological products, the National Development and Reform Commission and the National Bureau of Statistics released the “Ecological Product Total Value Accounting Standards (Trial)” in 2022, which lists value indicators for different ecological types and standardizes the accounting of ecological product value. Currently, the accounting of ecological product value mainly includes methods such as the equivalence factor method, model evaluation method, and functional value method. Many scholars using the equivalence factor method reference the unit area ecological product value equivalence factor table proposed by Gaodi Xie ’s team. The functional value method derives the total value of ecological products by multiplying the physical quantity by the unit price. Wang [13] constructed an ecological economic model based on the characteristics of different ecological services and proposed a method for accounting for the ecological service value of natural resource assets. Zhao [14] utilized the PLUS-InVEST model to assess different ecological types within the Weihe River basin ecosystem and to evaluate and predict its carbon storage.

In the study of the value of agricultural ecological products, domestic research is relatively limited and still in its infancy. Currently, scholars primarily focus on the research related to the value realization of agricultural ecological products. Li [15] analyzed the challenges faced by agricultural ecological products in the four stages of research and development, production, exchange, and consumption, proposing the use of big data technology to facilitate the construction of the ecological product value chain. Yang [16] examined the challenges facing agricultural ecological products and proposed tailored strategies based on different attributes of ecological products, along with accurately constructing the pathways for realizing the value of agricultural ecological products and related support policies. Bao [17] summarized the issues concerning the value realization of agricultural ecological products, noting ongoing challenges such as vague conceptual definitions, unclear property rights, a lack of standardized valuation methods, and relatively singular pathways for value realization. He proposed multiple suggestions for improving the value realization of agricultural ecological products, including strengthening foundational technological support, enhancing the accounting system, and facilitating the flow of production factors.

In summary, research on ecological products has yielded certain accomplishments, particularly in the realization of ecological product value, where scholars have proposed a variety of solutions to address existing difficulties. This has significant real-world implications for the realization of ecological product value in China. However, there are still shortcomings. Both the government and academia pay particular attention to the relevant fields of ecological product value realization, yet many issues persist, including ongoing debates on the definition of ecological products, the lack of unified standards for accounting methods, and relatively singular pathways for value realization. These problems are constraining the development of ecological products [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Currently, the vast majority of scholars focus on the mechanisms for realizing ecological product value, with fewer studying agricultural ecological products, and they primarily concentrate on research concerning the paths for realizing agricultural ecological product value [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Agricultural ecological products, due to their green, natural, and pollution-free characteristics, align well with the Chinese people’s need for a better life, yet they lack effective supply and value realization channels. This paper focuses on researching the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization, analyzing the value conversion efficiency across 31 provinces in China and the differences between various regions. It aims to provide practical data references for policymakers to improve the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization and expand realization channels, holding certain theoretical and practical significance.

2. Theoretical Analysis

2.1. The Staged Realization of Agricultural Ecological Product Value

The value realization of agricultural ecological products is not only a critical means to increase farmers’ income, enhance agricultural value, and promote rural revitalization but also a practical approach to implementing the “Two Mountains” philosophy. This process transcends the mere conversion of natural resources into economic benefits; it also contributes to societal welfare by meeting the public’s growing aspirations for a better quality of life. By transforming ecological products into economic and welfare gains, this approach has a significant impact on improving overall societal welfare levels, particularly those of rural residents. The realization of the value of agricultural ecological products can be understood in two distinct stages. The first stage is the realization of economic value, in which agricultural ecological products are converted into economic outputs. This transformation involves turning the intrinsic ecological value of these products into tangible economic benefits. To achieve this, governments need to craft a transformation model characterized by market leadership, governmental intervention, and multi-stakeholder participation, thereby improving the efficiency of the economic value conversion of agricultural ecological products. The second stage involves the transition from economic value to welfare value, which refers to the process whereby the economic benefits generated through the development and utilization of agricultural ecological products (e.g., market revenues, employment opportunities) are subsequently translated into improvements in overall societal well-being and quality of life. The welfare value of agricultural ecological products can thus be understood as their contribution to enhancing collective societal happiness, which encompasses economic benefits, environmental improvements, and social equity. As the livelihoods of citizens constitute the foundation of a nation, economic growth only fulfills its intrinsic value when it directly contributes to the improvement of people’s livelihoods. By leveraging increased economic value to drive welfare value enhancement, the transformation of economic outputs into societal well-being represents the ultimate realization of agricultural ecological products’ value. Hence, the value realization of agricultural ecological products should not be confined to economic conversion but must ultimately aim to elevate public welfare, thereby fostering societal well-being and achieving its fullest potential [17].

The value of agricultural ecological products lies in the process of their reasonable protection, utilization, and development, primarily through economic mechanisms that convert their ecological and use value while safeguarding the environment. The value of agricultural ecological products is multidimensional, as various ecosystem services provided by agricultural systems cater to human needs. These values can be classified into three categories: material products, regulatory services, and cultural services. Material products are tangible goods directly derived from agricultural ecosystems, such as grains, fruits, vegetables, and timber, which possess clear production and consumption attributes. Regulatory services refer to the environmental regulation functions of agricultural ecosystems, including water conservation and climate regulation. Cultural services encompass cultural, educational, and recreational benefits provided by agricultural ecosystems, such as ecotourism resources and rural aesthetic landscapes [33]. The value realization of agricultural ecological products can be achieved through various means, including market transactions and ecological compensation mechanisms. Material and cultural agricultural ecological products primarily meet human material and spiritual needs, and their value is relatively direct and more easily quantified. By contrast, regulatory agricultural ecological products, which are closely related to agricultural sustainability, have significant impacts on sustainable agricultural development. These products often originate from agricultural ecological conservation and restoration activities and include functions like soil retention, water conservation, windbreaks, sand fixation, and local climate regulation. The value realization of these regulatory products is typically achieved through markets, government interventions, or policy mechanisms, thus indirectly generating benefits for agricultural ecological systems. However, a substantial portion of the value of agricultural ecological products, particularly regulatory products, remains unrealized due to several inherent challenges. These include strong externalities, a lack of clear property rights, difficulty in accurate measurement, and the absence of standard accounting systems. As a result, much of the value has yet to be converted into tangible economic benefits. The potential value of agricultural ecological products is enormous, and failure to realize this potential in a timely manner could constrain socio-economic development and limit improvements to public welfare. Furthermore, it could hinder the sustainable development of ecological products and slow the progress of environmental protection. In light of these challenges, tapping into the vast potential of agricultural ecological products has become an urgent imperative. Achieving this requires active state intervention and the formulation of appropriate, scientifically sound policies. Only through such efforts can we unlock the full value of agricultural ecological products, ensuring their contribution to sustainable development while supporting environmental protection and public welfare.

The analysis above outlines that the value realization of China’s agricultural ecological products can be divided into two distinct stages. The first stage involves the conversion of agricultural ecological resources into economic value, referred to in this paper as the “economic value realization stage” of agricultural ecological products. The second stage comprises the transition from economic value to social welfare, a phase in which governments typically employ mechanisms such as transfer payments and ecological compensation. These approaches are designed to tap into the latent value of agricultural ecological products by redistributing the economic gains produced in the first stage. Through this process, the economic value derived from agricultural ecological products is further transformed into contributions to public welfare, a phase referred to in this paper as the “welfare value realization stage” of agricultural ecological products. During the second stage, the redistribution of economic value helps to improve the income of low-income groups, secure the basic livelihoods of vulnerable populations, and reduce income disparities in society. By doing so, it promotes social harmony and stability while enhancing public welfare across the nation. Ultimately, this stage signifies a critical step in improving China’s social well-being by transforming the economic value generated in the first stage into a more equitable and welfare-oriented outcome for all segments of society [33].

2.2. The Internal Mechanism of Agricultural Ecological Product Value Realization

The efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization measures the degree to which the value of ecological products is achieved. It objectively reflects the input–output relationships of agricultural ecological products across the domains of economy, ecology, and social welfare, providing crucial reference points for the implementation of ecological product policies in China. High efficiency in value realization indicates a higher conversion rate of agricultural ecological products into economic value, better utilization of their inherent value, and fuller exploitation of their potential value. This contributes to agricultural economic development and improves income levels for rural residents. Moreover, the conversion of economic value into social welfare is enhanced, leading to significant improvements in social welfare outcomes. Through government redistribution, income inequality is reduced, and the overall well-being of the population is elevated. in this context, the aspiration for a better quality of life is fulfilled as various stakeholders benefit from and actively participate in the process of agricultural ecological product value realization. These efforts in turn promote ecological construction and restoration, increasing the value and supply capacity of agricultural ecological products and fostering a positive cycle of environmental development and protection.

The value realization of agricultural ecological products occurs in two stages. The first stage involves the conversion of ecological products into economic value, reflecting their economic conversion capacity and efficiency. During this stage, various ecological products serve as inputs. Considering the involvement of multiple societal stakeholders in the transformation of ecological resources into ecological products and, subsequently, into economic value, social capital is also regarded as an input in the first stage. Through this transformation, ecological products are converted into economic value. The second stage measures the efficiency of the welfare value realization of agricultural ecological products, which is defined as the ratio of the economic value of agricultural ecological products to social welfare. This stage indicates the capacity of agricultural ecological products to enhance social welfare. High efficiency at this stage demonstrates that the value realization of ecological products results in significant improvements in social welfare levels. In this stage, the government redistributes the economic value generated from ecological products as an input, with the aim of enhancing social welfare and public well-being. Therefore, economic welfare, ecological welfare, educational welfare, and medical welfare are collectively used as outputs to evaluate the degree to which the economic value of agricultural ecological products is converted into social welfare. The efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization is the combined efficiency of economic value realization in the first stage and welfare value realization in the second stage. Investigating the value realization efficiency provides deeper insights into the intrinsic mechanisms behind the value realization of ecological products. Importantly, the value realization mechanism analyzed in this study is not limited to China. It is also applicable to other countries with similar agricultural structures and ecological environments. As such, the theoretical framework proposed in this study can serve as a reference for agricultural ecological product research globally, facilitating international comparisons and collaboration. The specific value realization mechanism is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Methods

3.1.1. Super-NSBM Model

Theoretical analysis indicates that the value realization of agricultural ecological products can be divided into two stages, with the underlying mechanisms characterized by complexity and diversity. The efficiency of value realization is calculated based on input and output indicators. Various models are available for efficiency measurement, with the DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) model being one of the most widely used. However, traditional DEA models lack slack variables, which often results in overestimated efficiency values, and they are unable to rank decision-making units (DMUs) when efficiency scores equal 1. To address these limitations, the Super-SBM (Super Slack-Based Measure) model was introduced. This model offers non-radial and non-oriented advantages, enabling a more accurate evaluation of DMU efficiency. Nonetheless, the Super-SBM model does not account for efficiency evaluations at sub-stage levels, limiting its application in multi-stage decision-making environments. To overcome these shortcomings, this study adopts the two-stage Super-NSBM (Non-oriented Slack-Based Measure) model [34,35,36,37]. This model retains the non-radial and non-oriented characteristics of the Super-SBM model and is suitable for application across various types of decision-making units and environmental conditions. It addresses the shortcomings of traditional DEA models, such as the exclusion of slack variables, and provides a more precise assessment of DMU efficiency. Furthermore, it is particularly well-suited for analyzing complex agricultural ecosystems, effectively capturing the diversity and complexity inherent in the context of this research. The Super-NSBM model employed in this study demonstrates strong universality and is applicable to agricultural ecological product value research in different countries and regions. Its flexibility allows it to adapt to multi-stage and complex systems, offering a reliable analytical tool for evaluating efficiency under diverse scenarios of agricultural ecological product value realization. In this research, China’s 31 provincial-level administrative divisions and four major regions are treated as single decision-making units to estimate the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization and its sub-stage efficiencies. The specific model equations are as follows:

$${\rho }_{se}^{\ast }=\min {\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^k{w}^k}\left[1+\frac{1}{m_k}\left({\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{m_k}\frac{s_i^{k^{-}}}{x_{io}^k}}\right)\right]}{{\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^k{w}^k}\left[1-\frac{1}{v_{1k}+v_{2k}}\left({\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{v_{1k}}\frac{s_r^{gk}}{y_{ro}^{gk}}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{v_{2k}}\frac{s_r^{bk}}{y_{ro}^{bk}}}}\right)\right]}}.$$

(1)

$$s.t.\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1,\ne 0}^n{x}_{ij}^k{\lambda }_j^k+s_i^{k^{-}}={\theta }^k{x}_{io}^k,i=1,\cdots ,m_k,k=1,\cdots ,K.}\\ {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1,\ne 0}^n{y}_{rj}^{gk}{\lambda }_j^k+s_i^{gk}={\phi }^k{y}_{ro}^{gk},r=1,\cdots ,s_k,k=1,\cdots ,K.}\\ {\displaystyle \sum _{j=1,\ne 0}^n{y}_{rj}^{bk}{\lambda }_j^k-s_i^{bk}={\delta }^k{y}_{ro}^{bk},r=1,\cdots ,s_k,k=1,\cdots ,K.}\\ \epsilon \le 1-{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_{1k}+v_{2k}}}\left({\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{v_{1k}}\frac{s_r^{gk}}{y_{ro}^{gk}}+{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{v_{2k}}\frac{s_r^{bk}}{y_{ro}^{bk}}}}\right).\\ z^{(k,h)}{\lambda }^h=z^{(k,h)}{\lambda }^k,{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1,\ne 0}^N{\lambda }_j^k}={\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^K{w}^k}=1.\\ {\lambda }^k\ge 0,s_i^{k^{-}}\ge 0,s^{gk}\ge 0,s^{bk}\ge 0,w^k\ge 0.\end{array}\right.$$

(2)

In Equations (1) and (2), $m_k$ and $v_k$ represent the number of inputs and outputs in the k-th stage, respectively, while ${\phi }_k$ denotes the number of intermediate outputs. $x,y,z$ represent the inputs, outputs, and intermediate outputs, respectively. ${\lambda }_k$ indicates the model weights for the k-th stage, and $w_k$ denotes the weights for the k-th stage. $s^{k-}$ refers to the slack variables for input indicators, $s^{gk}$ represents the slack variables for expected outputs, and $s^{bk}$ denotes the slack variables for undesired outputs. Θ is the efficiency value under radial conditions, while ε represents the level of importance for the non-radial measures. In this model, the efficiency score ${\rho }^{\ast }$ is calculated by minimizing the weights ($w^k$) associated with each sub-process k. The input and output data ($x_{ij}^k$,$y_{rj}^k$) used in this formula are derived from the raw data across all decision-making units (DMUs). To ensure consistency, minimum values (min ($x_{ij}^k$)) are computed across all the n DMUs for the same indicator I in sub-process k. This allows uniform scaling and comparison between DMUs. In this study, the measurement of agricultural ecological product value realization efficiency in China is divided into two stages, with both stages considered equally important. Therefore, K = 2 and the weights of the two stages are equal. A decision-making unit is regarded as DEA-efficient only if the efficiency values for both stages are greater than 1.

3.1.2. Dagum Gini Coefficient

The Dagum Gini coefficient not only accurately reflects the primary sources of regional differences but also adequately considers the distribution status of subsamples and the issue of sample overlap. This addresses the limitations of the traditional Gini coefficient, which fails to reflect regional disparities and the inability of regional environments to change over time. In this paper, the Dagum Gini coefficient is used to analyze the regional differences in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China [38]. The formula is as follows:

$$G={\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^k{\displaystyle \sum _{h=1}^k{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n_j}{\displaystyle \sum _{r=1}^{n_h}\left|F_{ji}-F_{hr}\right|/2n^2\overline{y}}}}}.$$

(3)

In Equation (3), G represents the overall difference in the efficiency of agricultural ecological product realization, k denotes the total number of divided regions, I and j indicate different regions, n represents the number of provinces in China, and F refers to the measured efficiency of agricultural ecological product realization. F represents the average level of efficiency for agricultural ecological product realization.

The Dagum Gini coefficient can be de”ompo’ed Into three components, namely $G=G_w+G_{rb}+G_t$, $G_w$ represents the distribution difference in value realization efficiency within regions. $G_b$ indicates the distribution difference in value realization efficiency between regions. $G_t$ reflects the impact of the cross-term of value realization levels between regions on the total Gini coefficient G, which is known as hybrid density. The formulas for the decomposition of these three components are as follows:

$$G_w={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^k{\lambda }_i{S}_i{G}_{ii}}.$$

(4)

$$G_b={\displaystyle \sum _{i=2}^k{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{i-1}({\lambda }_i{S}_i+{\lambda }_i{S}_j)G_{IJ}{D}_{ij}}}.$$

(5)

$$G_t={\displaystyle \sum _{i=2}^k{\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{i-1}({\lambda }_i{S}_i+{\lambda }_i{S}_j)G_{IJ}(1-D_{ij})}}.$$

(6)

3.1.3. Conditional Kernel Density Estimation

The conditional kernel density estimation method incorporates time and space parameters, allowing for the use of continuous density curves to describe the overall density of random variables undergoing transformations across different states. This non-parametric estimation method [39] is employed in this paper to analyze the dynamic evolution of the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization across various temporal and spatial contexts. The formula is as follows:

$$f(a,b)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n{h}_a{h}_b}}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{K}_a\left(\frac{A_i-a}{h_a}\right)}{K}_b\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_i-b}{h_b}}\right).$$

(7)

$$f(a,b)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n{h}_a{h}_b}}{\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^n{K}_a\left(\frac{A_i-a}{h_a}\right)}{K}_b\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_i-b}{h_b}}\right).$$

(8)

3.2. Establishment of an Indicator System

This study constructs an indicator system based on the principles of scientific rigor, objectivity, and rationality. Drawing extensively on previous research [40,41] and considering the characteristics of the research subject, we developed an indicator system to measure the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization in China. First, the input indicators include social input, land resource input, water resource input, production material input, and agricultural ecological product input. Specifically, social input is measured using the number of agricultural employees as a labor input indicator, while sown area of crops and agricultural water consumption represent land and water resource inputs, respectively. Production material input is measured using the amount of chemical fertilizer and agricultural diesel consumption. For agricultural ecological product input, considering that agricultural ecological products can be categorized into material, regulatory, and service products, we selected key crop yields and the number of “Beautiful Villages” as representative indicators.

For intermediate indicators, both the economic value conversion capacity of ecological products in the first stage and the welfare value realization efficiency in the second stage must be considered. According to the two-stage theory of the Super-NSBM model, intermediate indicators inherently serve dual functions: they are outputs of the economic value conversion stage (first stage) and inputs of the welfare value realization stage (second stage). This dual attribute fundamentally determines their statistical correlation with input and output indicators. Therefore, the gross agricultural output value is chosen as the desired output indicator for the intermediate stage. At the same time, considering that agricultural activities such as fertilizer application, plowing, and mulching emit carbon dioxide, agricultural carbon emissions are included as an undesired output indicator for the intermediate stage. Agricultural carbon emissions for each province in China are calculated using the IPCC carbon emission coefficient method [18].

Output indicators represent social welfare, and this study selects four aspects to comprehensively reflect China’s welfare status. Specifically, ecological welfare is represented by the forest coverage rate, economic welfare by the per capita disposable income of rural residents, educational welfare by the average years of education of rural residents, and medical welfare by the number of village health clinic personnel per thousand agricultural population.

Although this study focuses primarily on agricultural ecological products in China, the efficiency evaluation framework developed in this study can serve as a reference for similar research conducted in other countries or regions. Researchers and policymakers can adapt and expand the proposed indicator system to reflect the specific environmental and economic contexts of their respective regions. This flexibility allows for tailored applications that address localized needs while maintaining the core framework’s analytical rigor. The specific selection of indicators is detailed in

Table 1. Measurement indicators for agricultural ecological product value realization efficiency.

Primary	Secondary Indicators	Tertiary Indicators	Variables	Units
Input indicators	Land resources	Crop sown area	x1	104 hectares
	Water resources	Agricultural water consumption	x2	108 m3
	Human resources	Employment in agriculture	x3	104 people
	Input of means of production	Fertilizer use	x4	104 tons
		Agricultural diesel use	x5	104 tons
	Major agricultural products	Total grain output	x6	104 tons
		Number of beautiful leisure villages	x7	-
Middle indicators	Agricultural output value	Gross agricultural product	y	108 yuan
	Agricultural ecological pollution	Carbon emissions from agricultural sources	b	104 tons
Output indicator	Economic welfare	Per capita disposable income in rural areas	z1	104 yuan
	Medical benefit	Village health office personnel per 1000 agricultural population	z2	-
	Educational welfare	Per capita education level in rural areas	z3	year
	Ecological welfare	Green cover area	z4	-

.

3.3. Data Sources

This study is based on the principles of data integrity, representativeness, and scientific rigor. It selects data from 31 provinces in China (excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan) for the years 2010 to 2022 to measure the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization and analyze its temporal and spatial characteristics. The data primarily come from sources such as the China Statistical Yearbook, China Rural Statistical Yearbook, China Tourism Statistical Yearbook, as well as official websites of the National Bureau of Statistics and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. In addition, considering the presence of missing data, this study employs the moving average method to impute the missing values. Descriptive statistics of the original data are presented in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the original data.

Indicator	Mean	Standard Error	Median	Standard Deviation	Min	Max
x1	534.516	19.203	521.230	385.503	8.860	1520.940
x2	121.346	5.246	96.100	105.305	2.600	561.700
x3	746.000	27.313	636.544	548.302	21.000	2711.717
x4	182.278	7.195	184.600	144.441	2.800	716.100
x5	5.155	0.204	4.740	4.097	0.050	16.490
x6	2028.816	88.093	1396.330	1768.452	28.761	7867.721
x7	18.303	0.946	13.000	18.997	0.000	82.000
y	3588.552	129.903	3157.250	2607.794	100.772	12,130.708
b	324.556	11.528	319.236	231.432	12.731	995.728
z1	1.328	0.032	1.213	0.639	0.375	3.973
z2	2.052	0.109	1.560	2.184	0.610	22.510
z3	7.674	0.041	7.815	0.825	3.804	9.915
z4	32.647	0.900	35.220	18.060	4.020	66.800

below.

4. Results

4.1. Efficiency Analysis of Agricultural Ecological Products

4.1.1. Analysis of Agricultural Ecological Product Value Realization Efficiency

By employing the Super-SBM model, this study calculated the efficiency of value realization for China’s agricultural ecological products from 2010 to 2022. It analyzed the input–output processes during the stages of economic value realization and welfare value realization, and compared the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization, agricultural economic value realization, and agricultural welfare value realization, as shown in

Table 3. Efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization in China.

Area	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Beijing	1.030	1.090	1.113	1.132	1.128	1.135	1.113	1.339	1.281	1.434	1.517	1.392	1.458
Tianjin	0.382	0.395	1.001	0.455	0.320	1.039	1.145	1.155	1.218	1.336	1.232	1.163	1.336
Hebei	1.000	0.891	1.000	0.859	0.788	1.007	1.004	0.596	0.532	0.519	0.554	0.432	0.491
Shanxi	0.525	0.585	0.763	0.561	0.560	0.562	0.441	0.422	0.396	0.359	0.338	0.324	0.309
Inner Mongolia	0.318	0.375	0.364	0.354	0.772	0.645	0.537	0.515	0.471	0.402	0.357	0.339	0.338
Liaoning	1.292	1.173	1.182	1.353	1.215	1.162	1.031	0.680	0.639	0.556	0.416	0.403	0.400
Jilin	0.488	0.421	0.402	0.352	0.519	0.544	0.448	0.385	0.362	0.329	0.655	0.599	0.439
Heilongjiang	0.479	0.556	0.753	0.940	1.204	1.158	1.060	1.062	1.034	1.021	1.019	1.013	0.449
Shanghai	1.324	1.447	1.453	1.455	1.195	1.118	1.250	1.124	1.090	1.062	1.070	1.068	1.085
Jiangsu	1.017	1.020	1.005	1.005	1.041	1.060	1.050	1.047	1.034	1.016	1.002	1.005	1.121
Zhejiang	1.000	1.028	1.018	1.019	1.010	1.019	1.019	1.024	1.023	1.026	1.025	1.005	1.004
Anhui	0.327	0.333	0.333	0.316	1.073	0.887	0.676	0.564	0.460	0.406	0.360	0.330	0.312
Fujian	1.001	1.162	1.131	1.181	1.136	1.338	1.484	1.192	1.194	1.186	1.127	1.101	1.072
Jiangxi	0.813	1.001	1.011	1.004	1.078	1.021	1.013	0.749	0.689	0.593	0.414	0.379	0.360
Shandong	1.043	1.034	1.019	1.029	1.038	1.077	1.083	1.121	1.114	1.064	1.037	1.121	1.120
Henan	1.004	1.002	1.000	0.147	1.122	1.072	1.055	1.046	1.042	1.066	1.092	1.054	1.024
Hubei	1.000	0.539	0.584	0.677	1.020	0.773	1.021	0.750	0.579	0.442	0.413	0.708	1.003
Hunan	1.006	1.005	1.008	1.011	1.011	1.043	1.009	0.632	0.582	0.606	1.048	1.025	1.029
Guangdong	1.095	1.069	1.011	1.048	1.160	1.224	1.213	1.242	1.245	1.216	1.193	1.148	1.129
Guangxi	0.280	0.292	0.313	0.418	0.597	0.537	0.420	0.429	0.543	0.372	0.251	0.286	0.744
Hainan	1.066	1.075	1.051	1.040	1.183	1.225	1.211	1.241	1.256	1.310	1.140	1.221	1.268
Chongqing	1.049	1.040	1.089	1.027	1.042	1.066	1.068	1.045	1.049	1.065	1.022	1.025	1.037
Sichuan	1.029	1.046	1.016	1.175	1.258	1.171	1.146	1.099	1.071	1.077	1.072	1.047	1.044
Guizhou	1.073	1.016	1.039	1.074	1.078	1.182	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Yunnan	0.490	0.434	0.431	0.425	0.555	0.670	0.782	0.835	1.000	1.004	1.002	1.013	1.012
Xizang	1.221	1.320	1.278	1.211	1.196	1.010	1.022	1.049	1.113	1.077	1.051	1.047	1.148
Shaanxi	0.384	0.455	0.531	0.468	0.579	0.728	0.574	0.551	0.562	0.644	0.598	0.671	0.483
Gansu	0.365	0.365	0.357	0.346	0.486	0.521	0.392	0.379	0.357	0.335	0.338	0.339	0.331
Qinghai	1.004	1.012	1.002	1.019	1.114	1.012	1.038	1.044	1.046	1.084	1.140	1.156	1.349
Ningxia	0.221	0.424	0.404	0.410	1.025	1.250	1.052	1.019	0.832	1.028	1.021	1.015	0.864
Xinjiang	0.248	0.250	0.247	0.244	0.286	0.303	0.276	0.297	0.302	0.290	0.290	0.307	0.306
Eastern region	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000
Central region	1.222	1.221	1.252	1.238	1.211	1.188	1.189	1.174	1.153	1.160	1.157	1.141	1.112
Western region	0.574	0.598	0.596	0.573	0.576	0.597	0.573	1.028	1.051	1.049	1.055	1.049	1.048
Northeast region	1.589	1.513	1.469	1.459	1.415	1.393	1.389	1.317	1.293	1.284	1.273	1.260	1.289
China	0.198	0.198	0.199	0.198	0.198	0.200	0.198	0.217	0.230	0.230	0.230	0.222	0.221

. The results indicate that the value realization efficiency of China’s agricultural ecological products is at a relatively low level, with the overall efficiency remaining suboptimal. This suggests the presence of inefficiencies or underperformance in the value realization process of agricultural ecological products. According to the calculated results, the DEA values in the second stage show significant disparities. When DEA is inefficient, its values tend to be at a lower level. In contrast, during the first stage, efficiency values are generally higher, with most regions achieving relatively high levels of efficiency. This indicates that the low efficiency in the value realization of agricultural ecological products is primarily due to the poor welfare value transformation efficiency of these products. The underlying reasons for this inefficiency may include the fact that current agricultural production largely remains in the initial stage of material production, lacking exploration of cultural and spiritual dimensions, such as the development of services like rural leisure tourism and agricultural experiential activities. Additionally, there is a relatively late conceptual recognition of agricultural ecological products, and many regions do not prioritize their development. For example, while agricultural ecological products contribute to environmental regulation—such as water conservation and soil retention—they are often undervalued. Current measures, such as the implementation of the “Grain for Green” policy, fail to fully recognize the potential value of agricultural ecological products and adopt tailored, region-specific strategies. During the study period, the overall efficiency of China’s agricultural ecological products showed an upward trend, albeit with a modest growth rate. From 2010 to 2022, the efficiency value increased from 0.198 to 0.221, peaking at 0.23 in 2020. However, the overall growth in the value realization efficiency of China’s agricultural ecological products remained slow.

From a provincial perspective, regions such as Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang exhibit efficiency values exceeding 1, indicating a relatively high level of efficiency in the value realization of agricultural ecological products. Provinces like Tianjin, Guangxi, and Yunnan show an upward trend in efficiency values, all achieving values greater than 1 by 2022. In contrast, provinces such as Hebei and Liaoning demonstrate a declining trend in efficiency values. Meanwhile, provinces like Heilongjiang, Anhui, and Jiangxi display an inverted “U-shaped” distribution in efficiency values, characterized by an initial increase, peaking in the middle period, followed by a subsequent decline. Regions such as Xinjiang, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia generally exhibit low efficiency values, with most values below 0.5, indicating poor overall efficiency in value realization. The potential reasons for these disparities may lie in the varying levels of economic development across regions. In economically developed areas, where living standards are generally higher and agricultural production conditions are more favorable, the overall level of value realization tends to be higher. Conversely, in less economically developed regions, where living standards are lower and ecological and resource conditions are more constrained, the efficiency of agricultural ecological value realization tends to be significantly lower. Additionally, adjustments to national industrial structures and changes in the economic environment also exert a certain influence on the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization.

From a regional perspective, the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization follows the pattern of “Northeast > Eastern > Central > Western regions”. The Northeast region exhibits high and stable value realization efficiency, consistently maintaining DEA effectiveness. This can be attributed to the region’s advantageous geographical location, fertile land resources, and high degree of agricultural mechanization, all of which significantly facilitate agricultural production. Moreover, the Northeast region was one of the first areas in China to complete industrialization, resulting in relatively high living standards. Although the region’s economy has shown a declining trend in recent years, the significant outflow of population has, to some extent, helped maintain local welfare levels despite the economic downturn. The Eastern region benefits from its strong economic advantages, with agricultural investments generally higher than those in other regions. This has led to noticeable advantages in refined farming practices and mechanized production. For example, Zhejiang province stands out with its highly developed agriculture, efficient land use, and extensive agricultural management experience. Land idling is rare, and many farmers from Zhejiang lease land in other provinces for agricultural production. Additionally, the economic strength of the Eastern region ensures higher average household income levels and better development in education, healthcare, and other sectors compared to other regions. In the Central region, agricultural production conditions are favorable, with abundant water and soil resources. However, agricultural development has long been characterized by extensive practices that prioritize quantity over quality, resulting in a high-energy-consumption and high-pollution development model. This has led to lower efficiency in the value realization of agricultural ecological products compared to the Northeast and Eastern regions. Nevertheless, in recent years, the Central region has made significant progress by developing region-specific ecological agriculture, advancing ecological product construction, carbon trading, and ecological compensation. These efforts have yielded notable achievements in promoting agricultural and rural modernization as well as the development of distinctive, high-efficiency agriculture. The Western region, on the other hand, faces constraints due to its economic underdevelopment and challenging terrain and topography. Compared to other regions, it has fewer resources, and its lagging agricultural and economic development directly contribute to the low efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization.

4.1.2. Analysis of the Economic Value Realization Efficiency of Agricultural Ecological Products

As shown in Figure 2, the economic value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China is generally high across various provinces, with many provinces achieving DEA efficiency. This indicates that China has a relatively strong capacity for the economic transformation of agricultural ecological products. From a temporal perspective, during 2010, 15 provinces, including Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang, achieved an efficiency score greater than 1, indicating DEA efficiency. Additionally, 10 provinces, including Hebei, Shanxi, and Jilin, had efficiency scores greater than 0.75, reflecting a high efficiency level. Five provinces, such as Tianjin, Heilongjiang, and Yunnan, had efficiency scores exceeding 0.5, representing a medium efficiency level, while Ningxia had an efficiency score below 0.5, indicating a low efficiency level. In 2014, 18 provinces achieved DEA efficiency, with Jiangxi, Anhui, and Heilongjiang newly added to this group. However, Shanxi, Jilin, and Shanxi shifted from high efficiency to medium efficiency levels, while Gansu dropped from high efficiency to low efficiency. Notably, Ningxia experienced the most significant improvement, rising from low efficiency to high efficiency levels. By 2018, 16 provinces achieved DEA efficiency, with Tianjin, Yunnan, and Tibet newly added to this category. However, five provinces, including Liaoning, Anhui, and Jiangxi, failed to maintain DEA efficiency and fell to low efficiency levels. Gansu and Jilin were the only provinces categorized as low efficiency during this period. In 2022, 17 provinces achieved DEA efficiency, but Heilongjiang and Jiangsu failed to maintain this status. Meanwhile, Shanghai, Hunan, and Hubei were newly added to the DEA-efficient group. Gansu, Jilin, and Gansu remained at the low efficiency level during this period.

From a regional perspective, as shown in Figure 3, the economic value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China is generally high, with efficiency values ranging between 0.9 and 1. This indicates that the economic value realization of agricultural ecological products in China is relatively well-developed. The Central region demonstrates the highest efficiency values, consistently maintaining a super-efficiency level and achieving DEA effectiveness. This can be attributed to strong government policy support, such as the main grain-producing area compensation mechanisms and special farmland protection systems, which have effectively ensured a balance between inputs and outputs in agricultural ecological products. Moreover, the Central region benefits the most from policies such as agricultural ecological product pilot programs, green finance innovation, and digital agriculture initiatives, directly enhancing its economic value realization efficiency. The Eastern region maintains efficiency values at a level of 1, suggesting that its capacity for economic value realization of agricultural ecological products is strong. This is largely due to the region’s relatively high level of economic development, which allows for greater support and resource investment in agricultural modernization. In contrast, the Northeastern region shows a significant decline in efficiency. Before 2015, it maintained a super-efficiency level, but it subsequently dropped to a high efficiency level, with efficiency values declining to 0.822 by 2022. This decline can be attributed to the degradation of the ecological environment in recent years, including the substantial loss of black soil, which has negatively impacted agricultural productivity. Additionally, the outflow of a large portion of the labor force has further contributed to the decline in efficiency. The Western region, on the other hand, has shown a consistent upward trend in efficiency. Since 2017, it has achieved super-efficiency levels, benefiting from improvements in the ecological environment and the implementation of the national Western Development Strategy. These advancements have led to economic and ecological improvements in the region, which are essential conditions for enhancing the economic value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products.

4.1.3. Research on the Efficiency of Welfare Value Realization of Agricultural Ecological Products

As shown in Figure 4, compared to the economic value realization efficiency, the welfare value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products is significantly lower, with fewer provinces achieving super-efficiency. In fact, many provinces have efficiency values at low levels, indicating a low degree of conversion for the welfare value of agricultural ecological products in China. From a temporal perspective, in 2010, Tibet and Qinghai had efficiency values greater than 1, achieving DEA effectiveness. Twelve provinces, including Hebei, Shanghai, and Jiangsu, were at a high efficiency level, while Guizhou, Hubei, and Zhejiang had medium efficiency levels. Fourteen provinces, including Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Gansu, were at low efficiency levels. By 2014, there was a noticeable improvement compared to 2010, with two additional provinces reaching high efficiency levels and three more at medium efficiency levels. The number of provinces at low efficiency levels decreased by six, indicating a significant enhancement in economic welfare. In 2018, five provinces achieved super-efficiency, nine were at high efficiency, ten were at medium efficiency, and seven were at low efficiency. Overall, there was not much change compared to 2014. By 2022, there was a clear overall improvement, with efficiency values increasing to varying degrees. Among them, eight provinces, including Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai, achieved super-efficiency, while six provinces remained at low efficiency levels. Seventeen provinces were at medium to high efficiency levels, all showing varying degrees of improvement.

As shown in Figure 5, from a regional perspective, the overall welfare value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China is relatively low. The efficiency level remains around 0.2, indicating a low-efficiency state and highlighting the urgent need for improvement in the transformation of social welfare. The Northeastern and Eastern regions exhibit super-efficiency levels, reflecting relatively high welfare value transformation efficiency. In contrast, the Central region has efficiency values ranging between 0.9 and 1. Although it has not achieved DEA effectiveness, its efficiency level is still relatively high. Before 2016, the welfare value realization efficiency in the Western region remained between 0.6 and 0.7. However, with the implementation of China’s “13th Five-Year Plan”, a series of ecological protection and economic support initiatives were introduced in the Western region. These efforts significantly improved local living standards and various social welfare indicators. Benefiting from both economic development and ecological improvements, the welfare value realization efficiency in the Western region showed a marked improvement. By 2017, the Western region had achieved DEA effectiveness in welfare value realization efficiency.

4.2. Dynamic Evolution of the Distribution of Efficiency in Realizing the Value of Agricultural Ecological Products

Figure 6 illustrates the dynamic distribution of the efficiency of value realization for agricultural ecological products in China and its four major regions. Firstly, from the perspective of distribution position, the centers for China, as well as the Eastern, Central, Northeastern, and Western regions, have notably shifted to the right. This indicates a significant improvement in the efficiency of value realization for agricultural ecological products across all regions, reflecting a continuous increase in efficiency levels and a relatively rapid rate of evolution.

From the perspective of peak characteristics, the distribution of value realization efficiency in China underwent a transformation from a broad peak to a sharp peak between 2010 and 2017, and then reverted from a sharp peak back to a broad peak. This indicates that the disparity in value realization efficiency across China initially narrowed and then widened again. In the Eastern, Central, and Northeastern regions, the distribution of value realization efficiency has gradually converged, with the shape of the peaks becoming broader, transitioning from sharp peaks to broad peaks. This suggests a reduction in the disparity of value realization efficiency in these regions. Conversely, the Western region has shifted from a broad peak to a sharp peak, with concentrations on both sides, indicating an increase in the disparity of value realization efficiency in that area. In terms of the number of peaks, the number of peaks in China decreased from two to one by 2022, while the Eastern and Central regions reduced from multiple peaks to a single dominant peak. This suggests that there is no significant polarization in the levels of value realization efficiency in China and these regions. Although the number of peaks in the Northeastern region remained unchanged, the distance between the two peaks significantly decreased during the sample period, evolving from two independent peaks into connected peaks. This indicates a certain alleviation of the polarization phenomenon in value realization efficiency levels in the Northeastern region. In the Western region, the number of peaks remained constant; however, the distance between the two peaks increased and the peaks became sharper, indicating a more pronounced polarization phenomenon in value realization efficiency levels in this region.

From the perspective of distribution patterns, over time, the kernel density curves for the Eastern and Central regions gradually lost their significant tailing features, indicating that the disparity in value realization efficiency between these two regions is decreasing. The kernel density curve for the Northeastern region exhibits a left tail, suggesting that certain provinces have lower value realization efficiency compared to others. However, compared to the extreme distributions observed at the beginning of the sample period, the disparity in value realization efficiency within the region is diminishing. In the Western region, there is a pronounced tailing phenomenon, which intensified over the sample period, indicating an increasing disparity in value realization efficiency in this area. China’s overall distribution also shows a notable left tail. During the sample period, the tailing phenomenon first intensified and then diminished, indicating that the disparity in value realization efficiency in China initially increased and then decreased. In summary, the disparity in ecological product value realization efficiency is decreasing in the Eastern, Central, and Northeastern regions, while it is increasing in the Western region. Overall, China’s value realization efficiency disparity first increased and then decreased.

4.3. Regional Differences in Agricultural Ecological Product Value Realization Efficiency

This study utilizes the Dagum Gini coefficient to analyze the differences among the four major regions, decomposing the overall disparity into intra-regional differences, inter-regional differences, and super-variable density differences, as shown in

Table 4. Dagum Gini coefficient and contribution rate results.

Year	Gini Coefficient				Contribution Rate (%)
	G	Gw	Gb	Gt	Intra-Group	Inter-Regional	Variable Density
2010	0.240	0.060	0.102	0.078	24.954	42.371	32.675
2011	0.238	0.061	0.098	0.080	25.490	41.152	33.357
2012	0.214	0.050	0.109	0.055	23.438	50.894	25.669
2013	0.257	0.063	0.112	0.081	24.669	43.561	31.771
2014	0.163	0.046	0.042	0.075	28.316	25.945	45.739
2015	0.147	0.038	0.067	0.042	25.574	45.755	28.671
2016	0.168	0.041	0.092	0.034	24.597	55.104	20.300
2017	0.198	0.046	0.103	0.049	23.233	52.236	24.531
2018	0.209	0.048	0.117	0.044	22.808	56.285	20.908
2019	0.232	0.053	0.134	0.045	23.003	57.753	19.243
2020	0.230	0.056	0.118	0.056	24.405	51.403	24.192
2021	0.223	0.055	0.109	0.059	24.792	48.740	26.468
2022	0.241	0.057	0.137	0.047	23.661	56.639	19.701

. Analyzing the overall Gini coefficient, the average Gini coefficient for the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China is 0.212, indicating significant regional differences in agricultural ecological product value realization efficiency during the study period. From 2010 to 2022, the overall Dagum Gini coefficient first declined and then increased, exhibiting a “U”-shaped distribution. The Dagum Gini coefficients for 2010 and 2022 are nearly identical, suggesting that after nearly a decade of development, the differences between regions have remained relatively unchanged. During the period from 2010 to 2015, the overall Gini coefficient showed a downward trend, reaching its lowest point in 2015, indicating significant progress in the coordinated development of agricultural ecology in China during this time. However, from 2016 to 2022, the overall Gini coefficient displayed an upward trend, returning to the level observed in 2010 by 2022. This suggests that the coordinated development of regional agricultural ecological products declined during this period, likely due to the widening economic disparities among regions and differences in investment in agricultural ecological products. From the analysis of Gini coefficient decomposition and contribution rates, the overall Gini coefficient is composed of the within-group Gini coefficient, the between-group Gini coefficient, and the super-variable density Gini coefficient. Among these, the between-group Gini coefficient has the highest value and contribution rate. During the study period, the between-group Gini coefficient exhibited an upward trend, with its contribution rate continuously increasing, indicating that the overall disparity is primarily driven by inter-regional differences. In contrast, the value of super-variable density differences has consistently declined, and its contribution rate has decreased, while the within-group Gini coefficient has shown little change, resulting in a negligible overall contribution rate change. This indicates that the intra-regional differences are relatively stable, while the differences caused by overlapping inter-regional factors are diminishing.

From the perspective of regional differences, as shown in

Table 5. Dagum Gini coefficient difference decomposition results.

Year	Gw				Gb
	Northeast Region	Eastern Region	Central Region	Western Region	Northeast-East	Northeast-Central	Northeast-West	East-Central	East-West	Central-West
2010	0.240	0.097	0.179	0.319	0.261	0.263	0.317	0.168	0.276	0.277
2011	0.233	0.116	0.193	0.293	0.251	0.239	0.282	0.204	0.272	0.263
2012	0.223	0.052	0.174	0.292	0.208	0.220	0.277	0.160	0.260	0.257
2013	0.252	0.117	0.292	0.286	0.213	0.321	0.302	0.281	0.264	0.308
2014	0.158	0.118	0.087	0.209	0.158	0.157	0.208	0.110	0.187	0.169
2015	0.144	0.050	0.109	0.200	0.124	0.159	0.189	0.119	0.170	0.167
2016	0.161	0.062	0.131	0.216	0.160	0.152	0.196	0.144	0.204	0.183
2017	0.212	0.085	0.152	0.210	0.242	0.198	0.224	0.245	0.206	0.211
2018	0.220	0.090	0.174	0.209	0.260	0.215	0.230	0.290	0.204	0.233
2019	0.242	0.112	0.206	0.221	0.296	0.243	0.259	0.333	0.215	0.274
2020	0.192	0.105	0.265	0.241	0.242	0.256	0.241	0.308	0.215	0.287
2021	0.202	0.105	0.265	0.231	0.256	0.249	0.246	0.284	0.208	0.267
2022	0.025	0.110	0.263	0.237	0.442	0.314	0.346	0.275	0.214	0.265

, the Gini coefficient within the Northeast region fluctuates around 0.2. The Eastern region exhibits the lowest Gini coefficient, indicating that the disparity in the value realization efficiency among provinces in this area is minimal, reflecting a more balanced efficiency. In contrast, the Gini coefficient for the Central region shows an upward trend, increasing significantly from 0.179 to 0.263 during the study period, suggesting a widening gap in the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization among provinces in this region. Although the Gini coefficient in the Western region is the highest, it demonstrates an overall declining trend, with values decreasing in recent years, indicating a reduction in the efficiency disparity in value realization. Regarding the inter-group Gini coefficients, the Northeast region has relatively high Gini coefficients compared to the Eastern, Central, and Western regions, and all exhibit a “U” shaped distribution, reaching a minimum around 2015. This suggests a significant efficiency gap between the Northeast and the other three major regions. From 2010 to 2015, this efficiency gap decreased, while from 2015 to 2022, it increased again. The Gini coefficients of the Eastern and Central regions are overall rising, indicating an increasing efficiency disparity between these two regions. Additionally, the Gini coefficients for the Eastern and Western regions, as well as those for the Central and Western regions, also follow a “U” shaped distribution, reaching a minimum in 2015. This indicates that the efficiency gap between the Western region and both the Eastern and Central regions is widening. Although the efficiency values in the Western region have significantly improved in recent years, there remains a notable gap compared to the Eastern and Central regions.

5. Discussion

The findings reveal the current state and regional disparities in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China, providing important references for policymaking and implementation. The results indicate that the overall value realization efficiency of China’s agricultural ecological products is relatively low. Although there has been a gradual upward trend during the study period, the efficiency level has yet to reach an ideal state. From a regional perspective, the efficiency follows a pattern of “high in the east, low in the west”, with economically developed provinces generally exhibiting higher efficiency, while less-developed provinces lag behind. This phenomenon suggests that the level of regional economic development has a significant impact on the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products. From a two-stage perspective, while the economic value realization efficiency is relatively high, the welfare value realization efficiency remains low. This indicates that there are certain obstacles in translating the economic value of agricultural ecological products into social welfare in China, with limited conversion capacity and welfare effects. Therefore, enhancing the welfare value realization capacity of agricultural ecological products is a critical direction for improving their overall value realization efficiency [42,43,44,45,46]. In terms of regional disparities, this study highlights both inter-regional discrepancies and internal imbalances in the development of value realization efficiency for agricultural ecological products. This unbalanced development pattern suggests that efforts to enhance efficiency should focus more on underdeveloped regions, particularly Western China. The disparities in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products primarily stem from differences between regions, reflecting uneven development in the realization of value. At the same time, these findings emphasize the need for region-specific policies that foster coordinated development and resource complementarity between regions, ultimately promoting holistic efficiency improvements [47,48].

In summary, this study reveals the current state and evolutionary characteristics of the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China from both temporal and spatial dimensions. It identifies key challenges, including the overall low efficiency, insufficient welfare value conversion capacity, and significant regional disparities. These issues not only hinder the comprehensive realization of the value of agricultural ecological products but also pose challenges to regional coordinated development and the improvement of social welfare. To address the problems identified in the analysis, we propose that future research and policy practices on agricultural ecological products should focus on the following aspects: (1) optimizing the value realization mechanisms of agricultural ecological products to enhance welfare value conversion efficiency; (2) narrowing regional disparities and promoting balanced development through regional collaboration mechanisms; (3) strengthening support for underdeveloped regions to comprehensively improve the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products [33,49,50,51,52]. Based on these findings, this study offers specific recommendations to provide meaningful references for policymakers and to improve the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization.

(1)

Improving the Value Realization Mechanism for Agricultural Ecological Products. To address the issues of slow growth in value realization efficiency and low welfare value conversion efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China, it is essential to further improve the mechanisms by which these values are realized. A “market-driven, government-guided” approach should be adopted to supply the market with high-quality ecological agricultural products at premium prices. Efforts should focus on improving the production quality of agricultural products, accelerating brand development, and certifying high-quality products. Regional advantages should also be leveraged to develop specialized ecological agriculture, thereby promoting the value realization of material-based agricultural products. Simultaneously, agriculture’s multifunctional nature should be fully utilized by capitalizing on rural ecological strengths. This includes developing culturally oriented agricultural ecological products, such as agritourism and agricultural cultural education, to create distinctive rural cultures. Market mechanisms should be harnessed to integrate the “ecology+” philosophy into ecological agricultural development. For example, collaborative efforts with the market could lead to tourism and cultural projects such as “ecology + wellness” and “ecology + experiential learning”. These initiatives would fully tap into the service functions of agricultural ecological products. Additionally, a reasonable ecological compensation mechanism should be established to fully utilize the regulatory value of agricultural ecological products. This includes improving the value assessment system for ecological products, standardizing calculation methods, and formulating consistent asset accounting frameworks. Reasonable economic compensation standards should also be set to facilitate the value realization of regulatory agricultural ecological products. Furthermore, agricultural policy support should be strengthened and rural infrastructure development accelerated, to enable the transformation of agricultural economic assets into social welfare. Ultimately, these efforts would ensure that the benefits of agricultural economic development are translated into tangible improvements in residents’ livelihood, thereby enhancing the well-being of China’s population.

(2)

Addressing Regional Disparities and Imbalances in Agricultural Ecological Product Value Realization Efficiency. To tackle the significant regional disparities and imbalances in the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization in China, it is recommended to leverage spatial coordination mechanisms and establish cross-regional ecological collaboration systems. These systems would facilitate the complementarity of ecological resources across regions. For provinces with low efficiency in agricultural ecological product value realization, it is essential to reduce administrative barriers by establishing cross-regional coordination agencies to centralize the management of conservation projects. Such agencies could comprehensively coordinate ecological protection and development planning across regions, thereby driving the integrated implementation of policies. This approach would promote the flow of ecological elements across regions and harness spatial coordination effects between provinces with lower efficiency, achieving more balanced regional development and improvement in efficiency. For provinces with relatively high efficiency in agricultural ecological product value realization, the introduction of an information-sharing platform could enhance collaboration. By harnessing modern digital technologies, regional ecological data-sharing systems could be established to improve transparency in resource utilization and management. These platforms could integrate functionalities such as ecological resource monitoring, environmental assessments, and economic benefit analyses, thereby facilitating seamless information exchange and more refined management practices among regions. This would ultimately enable provinces to achieve a higher level of efficiency in ecological value realization. For regions shouldering a significant ecological protection responsibility, economic policies centered on “ecological compensation” could be implemented. For example, regions benefiting from ecological services could provide financial transfers, incentive schemes, or tax concessions to regions contributing to ecological preservation. These measures would help overcome barriers to cooperation caused by conflicting economic interests, fostering stronger partnerships among regions. Moreover, enhancing regional cooperation in agricultural ecological resource management—by capitalizing on the unique ecological products of each region—could effectively strengthen the complementarity of ecological resources. This strategy would support differentiated development and competitive specialization among regions, leading to the establishment of a comprehensive industrial chain for agricultural ecological products. Such a system would balance agricultural ecological resources across regions and ensure coordinated, shared development for all.

(3)

Improving the Agricultural Subsidy System and Facilitating Value Realization through Pilot Policies. The agricultural subsidy system should be further improved to promote the value realization of agricultural ecological products, leveraging national pilot policies. Production subsidy systems and circular ecological agriculture support policies should be refined to encompass the protection of agricultural ecological product origins and the full production cycle, including pre-production, production, and post-production stages. These policies should include support for practices such as the application of organic fertilizers, land tillage, and straw incorporation, as well as the replacement of degradable mulch film, management of livestock manure emissions, and reduced use of organic pesticides. Ecologically sound management practices throughout the production cycle should be appropriately compensated, forming a comprehensive subsidy mechanism. Furthermore, the advantages of the National Agricultural Green Development Pilot Zones should be utilized in conjunction with regional advantages to identify and develop specialized agricultural ecological products. The government should also ensure the effective implementation of supporting policies. By relying on state-recognized ecological farms, new market players in agricultural ecology can be cultivated and encouraged to leverage their strengths. These efforts should focus on improving production quality, standardizing agricultural production technologies, and building green ecological brands to promote the value realization of agricultural ecological products. Such initiatives would further advance agricultural green development and improve high-quality growth in the agricultural sector.

The following is a discussion of this study’s innovations and limitations. This study systematically investigates the spatiotemporal differentiation characteristics of the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China, addressing a significant research gap in this field. Theoretically, it provides an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms underlying the value realization of agricultural ecological products. Methodologically, it introduces an innovative indicator system for efficiency measurement and employs the Super-NSBM model to calculate the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in two stages. This approach effectively overcomes the limitations of traditional DEA models in multi-stage efficiency evaluations. Based on the analysis results, constructive recommendations are proposed, offering a novel pathway for further exploration of the mechanisms driving the value realization of agricultural ecological products. Despite the important progress made in measuring the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products and analyzing their spatiotemporal differentiation characteristics, this study has several limitations. First, the mechanisms for the value realization of agricultural ecological products are not yet fully developed and numerous factors influence their efficiency. The indicator system constructed in this study is subject to certain limitations due to the authors’ expertise, which may constrain the comprehensiveness of the efficiency measurement. Second, the choice of the Super-NSBM model was not compared with other models to evaluate its accuracy. Future research could incorporate other advanced models, such as Fuzzy DEA or semi-parametric methods, to enable a more comprehensive and robust assessment of the efficiency of agricultural ecological products. Furthermore, this study focuses solely on the spatiotemporal differentiation of agricultural ecological product efficiency, analyzing differences across various time periods and regions. However, it does not delve into the factors driving these regional disparities. Future research could construct integrated models that incorporate natural variables, such as climate and topography, alongside socio-economic factors, such as policies and population dynamics. Such an approach would provide deeper insights into the factors influencing regional differences in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products.

6. Conclusions

This study, based on data from 31 provinces in China spanning the period 2010–2022, employs the Super-NSBM model to measure the efficiency of agricultural ecological product value realization. Additionally, kernel density estimation and the Dagum coefficient are used to analyze the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics and regional disparities in efficiency. The key findings are as follows:

First, the overall efficiency of value realization of agricultural ecological products in China is relatively low. Between 2010 and 2022, the efficiency of value realization of agricultural ecological products in China remained low, although it showed a slow upward trend. Regionally, the efficiency of value realization exhibited a pattern of “higher in the east and lower in the west”, with economically developed provinces generally achieving higher efficiency, and some less developed provinces lagging behind. In terms of the two stages of value realization, the efficiency of economic value realization of agricultural ecological products is relatively high. Although some provinces have not achieved effective DEA, most provinces have efficiency values exceeding 0.75, indicating that the input–output ratio of China’s current agricultural ecological system is relatively reasonable, with a high level in the transformation of agricultural ecological resources into economic value. Conversely, the efficiency of welfare value realization of agricultural ecological products is low, with only a few achieving effective DEA. Some provinces exhibit mid to low levels of value realization efficiency, indicating that there are certain obstacles in the transformation of the economic value of agricultural ecological products into social welfare in China, resulting in weak conversion capabilities and minimal welfare effects. Therefore, enhancing the realization of welfare value in agricultural ecological products will be a crucial direction for improving their overall value realization.

Secondly, significant regional disparities and internal development imbalances exist in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China. While the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products across China and its regions is gradually improving, with an accelerated pace of evolution, provincial disparities in value realization efficiency initially increased before decreasing. The efficiency gap between the Eastern and Central regions is narrowing, the polarization phenomenon in the Northeast region is weakening with further reductions in disparities, yet the efficiency gap in the Western region is widening, with an increasingly evident trend of polarization.

Thirdly, the differences in the value realization efficiency of agricultural ecological products in China are pronounced, and these disparities are primarily attributed to inter-group differences. The inter-group disparities in the Eastern region are smaller compared to those in the Central, Northeast, and Western regions, with the Western region exhibiting the highest inter-group disparities. While inter-group disparities in the Eastern region are decreasing, those in the Central region are increasing.