Cargando…

‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution

Ecological compensation is an important means for controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and compensation methods comprise an essential part of the compensation policy for mitigating this form of pollution. Farmers’ choice of compensation methods affects their response to compensation p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Xiaoping, Yan, Yan, Yao, Liuyang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32260510
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072484
_version_ 1783525411061235712
author Li, Xiaoping
Yan, Yan
Yao, Liuyang
author_facet Li, Xiaoping
Yan, Yan
Yao, Liuyang
author_sort Li, Xiaoping
collection PubMed
description Ecological compensation is an important means for controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and compensation methods comprise an essential part of the compensation policy for mitigating this form of pollution. Farmers’ choice of compensation methods affects their response to compensation policies as well as the effects of pollution control and ecological compensation efficiency. This study divides ecological compensation methods into two distinct philosophies—the “get a fish” method (GFM) and “get a fishing skill” method (GFSM)—based on policy objectives, to determine farmers’ choice between the two methods and the factors influencing this choice. Furthermore, by analyzing survey data of 632 farmers in the Ankang and Hanzhong cities in China and using the multivariate probit model, the study determines farmers’ preferred option among four specific compensation modes of GFM and GFSM. The three main results are as follows. (1) The probability of farmers choosing GFM is 82%, while that of choosing GFSM is 51%. Therefore, GFM should receive more attention in compensation policies relating to agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. (2) Of the four compensation modes, the study finds a substitution effect between farmers’ choice of capital and technology compensations, capital and project compensations, material and project compensations, while there is a complementary relationship between the choice of material and technology compensations. Therefore, when constructing the compensation policy basket, attention should be given to achieving an organic combination of different compensation methods. (3) Highly educated, young, and male farmers with lower part-time employment, large cultivated land, and a high level of eco-friendly technology adoption and policy understanding are more likely to choose GFSM. Hence, the government should prioritize promoting GFSM for farmers with these characteristics, thereby creating a demonstration effect to encourage transition from GFM to GFSM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7178243
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71782432020-04-28 ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Li, Xiaoping Yan, Yan Yao, Liuyang Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Ecological compensation is an important means for controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and compensation methods comprise an essential part of the compensation policy for mitigating this form of pollution. Farmers’ choice of compensation methods affects their response to compensation policies as well as the effects of pollution control and ecological compensation efficiency. This study divides ecological compensation methods into two distinct philosophies—the “get a fish” method (GFM) and “get a fishing skill” method (GFSM)—based on policy objectives, to determine farmers’ choice between the two methods and the factors influencing this choice. Furthermore, by analyzing survey data of 632 farmers in the Ankang and Hanzhong cities in China and using the multivariate probit model, the study determines farmers’ preferred option among four specific compensation modes of GFM and GFSM. The three main results are as follows. (1) The probability of farmers choosing GFM is 82%, while that of choosing GFSM is 51%. Therefore, GFM should receive more attention in compensation policies relating to agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. (2) Of the four compensation modes, the study finds a substitution effect between farmers’ choice of capital and technology compensations, capital and project compensations, material and project compensations, while there is a complementary relationship between the choice of material and technology compensations. Therefore, when constructing the compensation policy basket, attention should be given to achieving an organic combination of different compensation methods. (3) Highly educated, young, and male farmers with lower part-time employment, large cultivated land, and a high level of eco-friendly technology adoption and policy understanding are more likely to choose GFSM. Hence, the government should prioritize promoting GFSM for farmers with these characteristics, thereby creating a demonstration effect to encourage transition from GFM to GFSM. MDPI 2020-04-05 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7178243/ /pubmed/32260510 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072484 Text en © 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Li, Xiaoping
Yan, Yan
Yao, Liuyang
‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title_full ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title_fullStr ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title_full_unstemmed ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title_short ‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
title_sort ‘get a fish’ vs. ‘get a fishing skill’: farmers’ preferred compensation methods to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7178243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32260510
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072484
work_keys_str_mv AT lixiaoping getafishvsgetafishingskillfarmerspreferredcompensationmethodstocontrolagriculturalnonpointsourcepollution
AT yanyan getafishvsgetafishingskillfarmerspreferredcompensationmethodstocontrolagriculturalnonpointsourcepollution
AT yaoliuyang getafishvsgetafishingskillfarmerspreferredcompensationmethodstocontrolagriculturalnonpointsourcepollution