Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Materials
2.1. Methodology
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Data
3. Empirical Results
3.1. Empirical Results of Citizens
3.1.1. Analysis of Citizens’ Preference
- (1)
- Rent-seeking or corruption can be avoided if farmland eco-compensation is implemented in a monetary way and farmers can choose how to use the money. Compensation money can be directly compensated to farmers, avoiding transmission through governments at all levels, and reducing the opportunity for the government to use the power to intervene and embezzle. Citizens may be supportive of letting farmers have more choices in their production and life by providing money.
- (2)
- Citizens’ private time will be occupied if they choose the non-monetary compensation method, which makes them less likely to choose those methods. Moreover, the citizens were more likely to provide compensation methods that could help farmers improve their living standards in a sustainable way (in-kind and technological compensation methods). Citizens put a higher value on technological compensation because citizens’ education levels were typically higher than that of farmers, which made the technological compensation method easier to accept by citizens rather than farmers.
3.1.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Citizens
3.1.3. Econometric Results of MNL Model on Citizens
3.2. Empirical Results of Farmers
3.2.1. Analysis of Farmers’ Preference
- (1)
- Monetary compensation is the most favored compensation method due to its simplicity, directness and being less likely to be corrupted by the relevant department. Monetary compensation also gives farmers more choices. After the compensation funds are distributed to the farmers, the control will be completely owned by the farmers. Farmers can purchase materials and agricultural machinery according to their actual needs and make the best use of the compensation.
- (2)
- Farmers appear to hope that the local government can take some measures on preferential policies, such as reducing the taxes on the farmer-owned property.
- (3)
- They also appear to desire to learn about new technologies and improve their income in the long term. However, there are still many farmers who do not appear to realize the advantages and importance of professional training. Instead, they believe that participating in training takes up time and has no significant effect on current family income. In addition to the lack of farmers’ own comprehension, the government also has improper considerations. For example, the training is not integrated with the local condition, and targeted training cannot be conducted according to farmers in different situations. These are likely reasons that made technology compensation less popular among farmers.
- (4)
- Farmers strongly disliked the in-kind compensation because it may easily lead to rent-seeking. In the process of distributing and receiving materials, it is inevitable that there will be losses and reductions in materials. Moreover, there are a large number of farmers in the region, which makes it is difficult to meet all their needs simultaneously. Different farmers have different needs for agricultural materials, and the materials provided by compensation are probably not what the farmers need or want. For this reason, farmers are less likely to choose the in-kind compensation method. In the long run, technical compensation can help farmers learn advanced technologies and have new survival skills even after losing their farmland.
3.2.2. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Farmers
3.2.3. Econometric Results of MNL Model on Farmers
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Policy Implications
- (1)
- As the beneficiaries of farmland eco-compensation, farmers should strengthen their independent participation in farmland protection, improve the utilization efficiency of compensation, seize the opportunity to learn advanced agricultural technology, pay attention to agricultural policies and finally improve their life satisfaction and family income. As free recipients of farmland ecological services and products, citizens should actively participate in farmland protection and eco-compensation and supervise government policy formulation and management. These methods could avoid government failures and promote the transparent and efficient operation of eco-compensation policies. For citizens, the government should strengthen policy publicity on the importance of farmland in ensuring food security, maintaining biodiversity and promoting environmental improvement, showing society that farmland has essential ecological service value and improve the enthusiasm of the public to participate in farmland protection and compensation.
- (2)
- For the government, despite monetary compensation being the main method of compensation, a diversified form of compensation should also coexist. When formulating compensation policies, it can be learned from the practices of the Chengdu Cultivated Land Protection Fund and provide the compensation funds in the form of farmers’ pension subsidies. In the follow-up management, there is a certain need to improve the supporting system of eco-compensation. It is necessary to establish an eco-compensation supervision mechanism, avoid rent-seeking and corruption and provide institutional guarantees for the eco-compensation mechanism of farmland to promote its effective and efficient implementation. Particularly, an eco-compensation policy evaluation mechanism should be established to dynamically evaluate the implementation of farmland eco-compensation and timely adjust and optimize it according to farmers’ needs and the actual implementation of compensation policy.
- (3)
- When making decisions, the decision-makers of farmland management need to fully consider who the beneficiaries of eco-compensation are and who provide eco-compensation, and understand the preferences of different stakeholders. It can not only mobilize the enthusiasm of farmers for protecting the ecological environment of farmland and improving their living standards but also for citizens to participate in eco-compensation projects, which is helpful for government departments to raise compensation funds. In addition, farmland eco-compensation should be based on local conditions, fully considering the heterogeneity of farmers, and different compensation strategies should be formulated for different groups in different regions so as to improve the incentive effects of policies.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cao, S.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Z.; Liu, X. Net value of farmland ecosystem services in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2291–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Yu, L. Rural household participation in and satisfaction with compensation programs targeting farmland preservation in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 1148–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Zhang, F.; Luo, C.; Zhang, A. Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wade, M.R.; Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D. Ecological restoration of farmland: Progress and prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jiang, P.; Li, M.; Lv, J. The causes of farmland landscape structural changes in different geographical environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Jiang, C.; Truong Dang, T.; Li, L. Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City, China: A choice experiment study. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, X. The value of rehabilitating urban rivers: The Yarqon River (Israel). J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Jiang, C.; Li, L. The economic valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 158–164. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, B.; Wang, X.; Wei, Q. Ecological compensation theoretical frame construction of farmland through the perspective of land utilization. J. Northeast Agric. Univ. 2013, 44, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.; Lu, Q. Integrated evaluation of payments for ecosystem services programs in China: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2018, 4, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, R.; Bruner, A.; Chow, J.; Malky, A.; Rubio, J.C.; Vallejos, C. Ecological Compensation to Address Environmental Externalities: Lessons from South American Case Studies. J. Sustain. For. 2015, 34, 605–622. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, Y.; Liu, M.; Yang, L. Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for Arable Land Based on the Value Flow of Support Servicessets program. Land 2021, 10, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, L. A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in agricultural ecological compensation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 16522–16532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albrecht, M.; Schmid, B.; Obrist, M.K.; Schüpbach, B.; Duelli, D.K.P. Effects of ecological compensation meadows on arthropod diversity in adjacent intensively managed grassland. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hellerstein, D.M. The US Conservation Reserve Program: The evolution of an enrollment mechanism. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 601–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batie, S.S. Green payments and the US Farm Bill: Information and policy challenges. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodge, I.; Mcnally, S. Evaluating the environmentally sensitive areas: The value of rural environments and policy relevance. J. Rural Stud. 1998, 14, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaskell, P.T.; Tanner, M.F. Agricultural change and environmentally sensitive areas. Geoforum 1991, 22, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambonilaza, M.; Dachary-Bernard, J. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wall, D.; Jordan, P.; Melland, A.R.; Mellander, P.E.; Buckley, C.; Reaney, S.M.; Shortle, G. Using the nutrient transfer continuum concept to evaluate the European Union Nitrates Directive National Action Programme. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 664–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison-Mayfield, L.; Dwyer, J.; Brookes, G. The Socio-Economic Effects of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 49, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Home, R.; Balmer, O.; Jahrl, I.; Stolze, M.; Pfiffner, L. Motivations for implementation of ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland farms. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 34, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, A.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, A. Practice and the research progress on eco-compensation for cultivated land. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 2321–2330. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, G.; Ma, Y.; Mao, X.; Zhu, H.; Jiang, H. Ecological Compensation in Farmland Ecological Environment Protection: Study and Practice. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2016, 32, 76–80. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z. Study on the Frame Construction and the Running Path of Our Agro EcologicalCompensation Policy. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 30, 122–126. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, J.; Cai, Y. Influence of Livelihood Endowment on Effectiveness of Farmer’s Participation in Farmland Protection and Compensation—A Case Study in 311 Rural Households in Chengdu. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2017, 2, 116–125, 135–136. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X. Long-term Mechanism Construction of Agricultural Ecological Compensation—Taking Suzhou as An Example. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2017, 38, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S.; Moxey, A.; Prager, K.; Hanley, N.; Skates, J.; Bonn, A.; Evans, D.C.; Glenk, K.; Thomson, K. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 9, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Bernués, A.; Alfnes, F. Psychographic profile affects willingness to pay for ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean high nature value farmland. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 128, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, G.; Bellotti, B. Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes? Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 515–516, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Villanueva, A.J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Arriaza, M.; Rodríguez-Entrena, M. The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 142–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, A.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, A. Eco-compensation of Cultivated Land and Accounting Framework Based on the Optimal Allocation Model of Land. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2010, 20, 97–102. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, K.; Ou, M.; Wolde, Z. Regional Differences in Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: An Analysis of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, X.; Shang, G.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z. Research on the farmland ecological compensation patterns and its influencing factors-From the perspective of farmers’differentiation. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2020, 41, 131–137. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, L.; Cai, 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. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Ji, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, H. Ecological compensation standard for non-point pollution from farmland. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 2017, 12, 139–146. [Google Scholar]
- Ou, M.; Wang, K.; Guo, J. Research progress on ecological compensation mechanism of farmland protection. Res. Agric. Mod. 2019, 40, 357–365. [Google Scholar]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 2009, 26, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rega, C. SEA and ecological compensation in land use plans. In Proceedings of the Special Conference on Strategic Environmental Assessment, IAIA SEA Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, 21–23 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Shihua, L.; Deshan, T. Study on ecological compensation policy among the micro subjects on water energy resources development. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2009, 2009, 414. [Google Scholar]
- Cowell, R. Stretching the limits: Environmental compensation, habitat creation and sustainable development. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1997, 22, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villarroya, A.; Puig, J. Ecological compensation and Environmental Impact Assessment in Spain. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Imura, H. Eco-Compensation Mechanisms and Policies in China; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, S.; Pagiola, S.; Wunder, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 663–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, R.; Hunziker, M.; Lehmann, B. Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: A political market share approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Castro, A.J.; Montes, C. A choice experiment study for land-use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 87, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hackl, F.; Pruckner, G.J. Towards More Efficient Compensation Programmes for Tourists’ Benefits from Agriculture in Europe. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1997, 10, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.; Shore, N.; Train, K. Households’ willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 32, 509–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Y.; Yinying, C. Farmers’ Selection of Farmland Ecological Compensation Mode and Its Relevant Factors. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2012, 21, 591–596. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, S.D.; Bray, J.; Seaks, T.G. A multinominal logit analysis of the influence of policy variables and board experience on FOMC voting behavior. Public Choice 1997, 92, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, F.X.; Zheng, X. Impact of ecological compensation methods on farmers’green production behaviors from the perspective of value perception. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2021, 31, 164–171. [Google Scholar]
- Kurttila, M.; Hämäläinen, K.; Kajanus, M.; Pesonen, M. Non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry—A multinominal logit model analysis. For. Policy Econ. 2001, 2, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briz, T.; Ward, R. Consumer awareness of organic products in Spain: An application of multinominal logit models. Food Policy 2009, 34, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Fan, W. A multinomial logit model of pedestrian-vehicle crash severity in North Carolina. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 8, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Mcnamara, P.; Wu, Y.; Yue, D. An econometric analysis of changes in arable land utilization using multinomial logit model in Pinggu district, Beijing, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafri, N.M.; Rony, A.I.; Adri, N. Study on Pedestrian Compliance Behavior at Vehicular Traffic Signals and Traffic-Police-Controlled Intersections. Int. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. Res. 2020, 18, 400–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, F. Study on the Eco-Compensation Policies for the Green Transformation Development of Agriculture in China. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 33, 14–18, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, A. Review of Researches on Theories for Farmland Ecological Compensation. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2017, 33, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, D.; Chang, L.; Hou, T. Measure of Watershed Ecological Compensation Standard Based on WTP and WTA: A case study in Liaohe River Basin. Resour. Sci. 2012, 34, 1354–1361. [Google Scholar]
- Su, F.; Shang, H. Impact of the Ecological Compensation Pattern on Livelihood Capital of Farmers. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2013, 27, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Yin, C.; Cheng, L. Empirical Study on the Compensation Mechanism about Adoption of Agricultural Cleaner Production Technology:A Case Study on the Survey of Farmers in Eryuan County. J. Agric. Resour. Environ. 2011, 28, 88–93, 118. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, C.; Guo, X.; Zu, Y.; Chen, J. Based on CVM Agro-ecological Compensation in Upstream of Erhai Lake Basin. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 2014, 33, 730–736. [Google Scholar]
- Sardaro, R.; Faccilongo, N.; Roselli, L. Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy. Energy Policy 2019, 133, 110885.1–110885.12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, A.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, A. An Empirical Study of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Based on Choice Experiments Method. J. Nat. Resour. 2012, 27, 1154–1163. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition | Value | Mean Value |
---|---|---|---|
Water | The degree of importance of water quality | 5-point Likert Scale | 4.1707 |
Fertility | The degree of importance of decreasing farmland fertility | 5-point Likert Scale | 3.7042 |
Air | The decreasing degree of air quality | 5-point Likert Scale | 4.1303 |
Income | Monthly income of the respondent | 1000 Yuan | 9.238 |
Holder | Whether the respondent is a household owner or not | 1/0 | 0.3713 |
Age | The age of the respondent | Year | 32.6703 |
Method | Coef. | Odds Ratio | Std.Err. | z | P > z |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In-kind | |||||
Water | −0.4101 | 0.6636 | 0.2367 | −1.73 | 0.083 |
Fertility | 1.0992 | 3.0017 | 0.3125 | 3.52 | 0.000 |
Air | −0.7371 | 0.4785 | 0.2271 | −3.25 | 0.001 |
Income | 0.0001 | 1.0001 | 0.0000 | 3.05 | 0.002 |
Holder | 1.2556 | 3.5099 | 0.6226 | 2.02 | 0.044 |
Age | 0.0430 | 1.0439 | 0.0176 | 2.44 | 0.015 |
_cons | −5.8107 | 0.0030 | 1.7461 | −3.33 | 0.001 |
Technology | |||||
Water | −0.3381 | 0.7131 | 0.2055 | −1.65 | 0.100 |
Fertility | 0.3513 | 1.4210 | 0.2426 | 1.45 | 0.148 |
Air | −0.1371 | 0.8719 | 0.2073 | −0.66 | 0.508 |
Income | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.84 | 0.399 |
Holder | 0.9828 | 2.6718 | 0.5414 | 1.82 | 0.069 |
Age | 0.0569 | 1.0585 | 0.0149 | 3.81 | 0.000 |
_cons | −4.9958 | 0.0068 | 1.5880 | -3.15 | 0.002 |
Policy | |||||
Water | 0.3244 | 1.3833 | 0.2827 | 1.15 | 0.251 |
Fertility | −0.1302 | 0.8779 | 0.2665 | −0.49 | 0.625 |
Air | −0.0152 | 0.9849 | 0.2372 | −0.06 | 0.949 |
Income | −0.0001 | 0.9999 | 0.0001 | −1.91 | 0.056 |
Holder | 0.4720 | 1.6031 | 0.6552 | 0.72 | 0.471 |
Age | −0.0047 | 0.9954 | 0.0233 | −0.20 | 0.842 |
_cons | −2.7975 | 0.0610 | 2.1091 | −1.33 | 0.185 |
Variables | Description | Value | Mean Value |
---|---|---|---|
Participation | Whether the farmer has participated in farmland protection activity or not | 1/0 | 0.0579 |
Support | Whether the farmer support farmland protection activities or not | 1/0 | 0.9607 |
Gender | The gender of the farmer, male = 1, otherwise = 0 | 1/0 | 0.5744 |
Age | The age of the farmer | Year | 50.6021 |
Income | Annual income of the respondent’s family | 1000 Yuan | 21.1684 |
Method | Coef. | Odds Ratio | Std.Err. | z | P > z |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
In-kind | |||||
Participation | 2.2727 | 9.7055 | 0.9212 | 2.47 | 0.014 |
Support | −2.3839 | 0.0922 | 1.2592 | −1.89 | 0.058 |
Gender | 0.4211 | 1.5236 | 0.7949 | 0.53 | 0.596 |
Age | 0.0020 | 1.0020 | 0.0302 | 0.06 | 0.948 |
Income | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.31 | 0.191 |
_cons | −2.6928 | 0.0677 | 2.0483 | −1.31 | 0.189 |
Technology | |||||
Participation | 1.2965 | 3.6563 | 0.6220 | 2.08 | 0.037 |
Support | 12.7647 | 349,657.7158 | 1025.8440 | 0.01 | 0.990 |
Gender | 1.0223 | 2.7795 | 0.4441 | 2.30 | 0.021 |
Age | −0.0380 | 0.9627 | 0.0157 | −2.43 | 0.015 |
Income | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | 1.80 | 0.071 |
_cons | −14.3556 | 0.0000 | 1025.8440 | −0.01 | 0.989 |
Policy | |||||
Participation | −0.2628 | 0.7689 | 0.8347 | −0.31 | 0.753 |
Support | 13.1710 | 524,914.1477 | 896.1392 | 0.01 | 0.988 |
Gender | 0.8208 | 2.2723 | 0.3756 | 2.19 | 0.029 |
Age | −0.0492 | 0.9520 | 0.0143 | −3.44 | 0.001 |
Income | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0000 | −0.61 | 0.542 |
_cons | −12.8554 | 0.0000 | 896.1396 | −0.01 | 0.989 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, X.; Zhou, X.; Cao, S.; Zhang, A. Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Land 2021, 10, 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111159
Yang X, Zhou X, Cao S, Zhang A. Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Land. 2021; 10(11):1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111159
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Xin, Xiaohe Zhou, Shuwen Cao, and Anlu Zhang. 2021. "Preferences in Farmland Eco-Compensation Methods: A Case Study of Wuhan, China" Land 10, no. 11: 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111159