Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Standards of ecological compensation for traditional eco-agriculture: Taking rice-fish system in Hani terrace as an example

  • Published:
Journal of Mountain Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Traditional eco-agriculture provides many ecosystem services which are important for the local environment, especially in mountain areas. In order to encourage the farmers to engage in eco-agriculture, it is necessary to establish an eco-compensation mechanism for them. As the compensation standard is one of key issues in establishing eco-compensation mechanism, this paper calculated the standard based on the farmers’ willingness to accept (WTA) and the input-output analysis of eco-compensation. We took the traditional rice-fish eco-agriculture as the research object, conducting field surveys in Hani Terrace of Honghe County. Through the questionnaires in 2011, we obtained the farmers’ willingness to accept government compensation and market compensation. Then, the research evaluated the output of eco-compensation, the economic value of rice-fish paddy ecosystem services. Finally, under different market compensation standards, we compared the input and output of government compensation. The results show that, in 2011 the government should to pay farmers 7462 yuan·ha−1·a−1 to meet their willingness, but the output (ecological benefit) was only 7393 yuan·ha−1·a−1. However, when the rice price increases 1 yuan·kg−1 because of the limited use of chemicals in the next year, the government just has to pay farmers 4062 yuan·ha−1·a−1 and the surplus will be 3331 yuan·ha−1·a−1.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, USA. pp 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2003) Soil fertility management and insect pests: harmonizing soil and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil & Tillage Research 72: 203–211. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00089-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antle JM, Pingali PL (1994) Pesticides, productivity and farmer health: a Philippines case study. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 418–430. DOI: 10.2307/1243654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg H (2001) Pesticide use in rice and rice-fish farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey) 20: 897–905. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00039-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biel A, Stenman OJ, Nilsson A (2011) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap revisited: the role of emotions and moral satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology 32: 908–917. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund J, Limburg KE, Rydberg T (1999) Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden. Ecological Economics 29: 269–291. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00014-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de-Groot R, et al. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. DOI: 10.1038/387253a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Polasky S (2007) Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64: 286–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drinkwater LE, Wagoner P, Sarrantonio M (1998) Legumebased cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396: 262–265. DOI: 10.1038/24376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbach K, Lubell M, DeClerck FAJ (2012) Payment for Ecosystem Services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 156: 27–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S, Majumdar D, Jain MC (2003) Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from an irrigated rice of North India. Chemosphere 51: 181–195. DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00822-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson LE, Ramirez I, Yokota R, et al. (2004) On-farm assessment of organic matter and tillage management on vegetable yield, soil, weeds, pests, and economics in California. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 103: 443–463. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung H, Zhu YY, Molina IR, et al. (2003) Using genetic diversity to achieve sustainable rice diseases management. Plant Disease 87: 1156–1169. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.10.1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Tang C, Rengel Z, et al. (2004) Calcium, magnesium and microelement uptake as affected by phosphorus sources and interspecific root interactions between wheat and chickpea. Plant and Soil 261: 29–37. DOI: 10.1023/B:PLSO.0000035579.39823.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li SM, Li L, Zhang FS, et al. (2004) Acid phosphatase role in chickpea/maize intercropping. Annals of Botany 94: 297–303. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mch140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li WH (2001) Agro-Ecological Farming Systems in China. Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris, France. pp 83–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li WH, Liu MC, Zhang D (2009) Tradeoff analysis on comprehensive valuation of traditional agriculture and rice monocropping in Zhejiang. Resources Science 31: 899–904. (In Chinese). DOI: 1007-7588(2009)06-0899-06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liou RM, Huang SN, Lin CW (2003) Methane emission from fields with differences in nitrogen fertilizers and rice varieties in Taiwan paddy soils. Chemosphere 50: 237–246. DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu MC, Zhang D, Li WH (2010) Evaluation of comprehensive benefit of rice-fish agriculture and rice monocropping: a case study of Qingtian County, Zhejiang Province. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture 18: 164–169. (In Chinese). DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1011.2010.00164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, et al. (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33: 103–117. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao QL (1998) Yuecheng reservoir project financial assessment and computation on water price. Journal of Economics of Water Resources 6: 16–17. (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • MFC (Ministry of Forestry of China) (2009) Yearbook of Forestry in China. Forestry Press, Beijing, China. pp 96–98. (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman AD, Belcher KW (2011) The contribution of carbonbased payments to wetland conservation compensation on agricultural landscapes. Agricultural Systems 104: 75–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, McLaughlin L, Zepp A, et al. (1992) Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 10: 750–760. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8809(93)90030-S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualset CO, Shands HL (2005) Safeguarding the future of US agriculture: the need to conserve threatened collections of crop diversity worldwide. University of California Genetic Resources Conservation Program, Davis, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren WL, Cao CG, Wang JP (2008) Economic valuation of gas regulation as a service by rice-duck-fish complex ecosystem. Ecological Economy 4: 266–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R, et al. (2008) The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics 64:835–848. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spurgeo J (1998) The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37: 373–382. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00074-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, et al. (2009) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64: 245–252. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, et al. (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversityecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8: 857–874. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 39: 25–35. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9176-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Way MJ, Heong KL (1994) The role of biodiversity in the dynamics and management of insect pests of tropical irrigated rice—a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research 4: 567–587. DOI: 10.1017/S000748530003282X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao Y, Xie GD, Lu CX, et al. (2005) The value of gas exchange as a service in rice paddies in suburban Shanghai, P.R. China. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment 109: 273–283. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie GD, Xiao Y, Zhen L, et al. (2005) Study on Ecosystem Services Value of Food Production in China. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture 13: 10–13. (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang SS, Chang HL (1998). Effect of environmental conditions on methane production and emission from paddy soil. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 69: 69–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00098-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida K (2001) An economic evaluation of the multifunctional roles of agriculture and rural areas in Japan. Technical bulletin 5: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Min QW, Liu MC, et al. (2012) Ecosystem service tradeoff between traditional and modern agriculture: A case study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China 5: 743–752. DOI: 10.1007/s11783-011-0385-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Min QW, Cheng SK, et al. (2009) Ecosystem services evaluation of traditional agricultural regions: A case Study of ConaJiang County, Guizhou Province. Resource Science 1: 31–37. (In Chinese). DOI: 1007-7588(2009)01-0031-07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, et al. (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64: 253–260. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng ZX, Min QW (2006) Organic agriculture: a new opportunity for rice-fish agriculture development. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 22: 299–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu YY, Chen HR, Fan JH, et al. (2000) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406: 718–722. DOI: 10.1038/35021046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Mou-cheng Liu, Zheng Yuan, Qing-wen Min & Anthony M. Fuller

  2. School of Environment and Natural Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100084, China

    Yin Xiong

  3. Institute of Tourism, Beijing Union University, Beijing, 100101, China

    Ye-hong Sun

  4. 3307 Room, A11 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100101, China

    Ye-hong Sun

Authors
  1. Mou-cheng Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yin Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zheng Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qing-wen Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ye-hong Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anthony M. Fuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ye-hong Sun.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Mc., Xiong, Y., Yuan, Z. et al. Standards of ecological compensation for traditional eco-agriculture: Taking rice-fish system in Hani terrace as an example. J. Mt. Sci. 11, 1049–1059 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2738-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2738-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation