Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for the Kuancheng Traditional Chestnut Cultivation System

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.04.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Kuancheng Traditional Chestnut Cultivation System is located in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Water Containment Function Area. The Traditional Chestnut Cultivation System is characterized by agroforestry compound, and some studies have shown that the compound planting of chestnut has better ecological benefits than the single chestnut planting mode. However, most of the local farmers in Kuancheng are mainly engaged in single chestnut cultivation. Through ecological compensation, farmers are being encouraged to change their chestnut planting mode, which can achieve the purpose of inheriting China’s important agricultural heritage and improving the ecological benefits. This paper introduces preference coefficients to correct for opportunity costs, and through interviews and questionnaires, we obtained the input and output of the single chestnut cultivation, chestnut-maitake, chestnut-millet, and chestnut-chicken and the income of laborers working outside the home in the Kuancheng area. Through analysis and calculation, we obtained the following results: (1) Although the net income of the three chestnut composite modes is higher, their economic input is higher than that of a single chestnut planting mode, and the return on unit investment is lower. (2) The average income of young and middle-aged workers who work outside is higher than that of the local farming industry, so the local chestnut agroforestry plantation has a higher opportunity cost. (3) The final calculation shows that the chestnut-chicken agroforestry operation mode needs no compensation, the chestnut-maitake plantation mode is compensated at least 1608.5 USD ha^-1 yr^-1, and the minimum compensation for the chestnut-millet plantation mode is 198.3 USD ha^-1 yr^-1, which can guarantee that farmers receive the full value of their creations. Ultimately, farmers are incentivized to revive the traditional agroforestry production mode to achieve both economic and ecological benefits while inheriting agricultural heritage.

Key words: ecological compensation standards, China Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (China-NIAHS), Cost-Benefit method, opportunity cost, Kuancheng Traditional Chestnut Cultivation System

LIU Moucheng, BAI Yunxiao, YANG Lun, WANG Bojie. Calculation of Ecological Compensation Standards for the Kuancheng Traditional Chestnut Cultivation System[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(4): 471-479.

Figures/Tables 5

References 35

[1]	Deng C, Zhang S G, Lu Y C, et al. 2020. Determining the ecological compensation standard based on forest multifunction evaluation and financial net present value analysis: A case study in southwestern Guangxi, China. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 39(7):730-749. DOI URL
[2]	Gao G Z. 2010. Research on Castanea intercropping patterns and effect of Huairou District in Beijing. Diss., Beijing, China: Beijing Forest University. (in Chinese)
[3]	Gao H, Yao S B. 2014. Research on the ecological compensation standard of Sanjiangyuan area in China. Journal of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, 30(4):10-14. (in Chinese)
[4]	Han M, Yu H Z. 2016. Wetland dynamic and ecological compensation of the Yellow River Delta based on RS. Energy Procedia, 104:129-134. DOI URL
[5]	He K, Yan A Q, Wang X, et al. 2020. Hot spots, threads and prospects in the researches of agricultural ecological compensation in China from 1996 to 2018. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 34(4):65-71. (in Chinese)
[6]	He K, Zhang J B, Wang X T, et al. 2018. A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in agricultural ecological compensation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(17):16522-16532. DOI URL
[7]	Hu Z T. 2016. China grassland eco-compensation mechanism: Empirical research in Inner Mongolia and Gansu. Diss., Beijing, China: China Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[8]	Immerzeel W, Stoorvogel J, Antle J. 2008. Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? Agricultural Systems, 96(1-3):52-63. DOI URL
[9]	Kong D S. 2017. Research on regional eco-compensation mechanism: A case study of Guizhou. Diss., Beijing, China: China Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[10]	Li W H, Liu M C. 2010. Several strategic thoughts on China’s eco-compensation mechanism. Resources Science, 32(5):791-796. (in Chinese)
[11]	Liu D, Hu Z T, Jin L S, et al. 2019a. Study on compensation rate for fallow program in groundwater over-exploited area based on rural households’ willingness to accept. China Population, Resources and Environment, 29(8):130-139. (in Chinese)
[12]	Liu J Z, Liu W J, Liu J J, et al. 2006. Chestnut three-dimensional cultivation model and its benefits. Friends of the Fruit Farmer, (1):26-27. (in Chinese)
[13]	Liu M C, Lun F, Zhang C Q, et al. 2012. Standards of payments for paddy ecosystem services: Using Hani Terrace as case study. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 20(6):703-709 .. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[14]	Liu M C, Min Q W, Yang L. 2018a. Rice pricing during organic conversion of the Honghe Hani Rice Terrace System in China. Sustainability, 10(1):183. DOI: 10.3390/su10010183. DOI URL
[15]	Liu M C, Yang L, Bai Y Y, et al. 2018b. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood endowments on their participation in eco-compensation policies: Globally important Agricultural Heritage Systems case studies from China. Land Use Policy, 77:231-239. DOI URL
[16]	Liu M C, Zhang D, Li W H. 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(1):164-169. (in Chinese) DOI URL
[17]	Liu X, Kong X B, Wu F F, et al. 2019b. Farmers’ fallow willingness and compensation standard of different models—A case study in the Northern Foothills Plain of Taihang Mountain and Heilonggang District. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 26(5):328-333. (in Chinese)
[18]	Liu Y Q, Zhang H B. 2018. Discussion on farmers’ willingness to accept compensation for ecological services and its influential factors based on CVM method: A case study in Yancheng Rare Bird Nature Reserve. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 34(11):982-987. (in Chinese)
[19]	Miao L J, Yu Y H, Guan C J, et al. 2014. The application of the opportunity cost method in the determination of marine ecological compensation standard. Ocean Development and Management, 31(5):21-26. (in Chinese)
[20]	Pei S, Zhang C X, Liu C L, et al. 2019. Forest ecological compensation standard based on spatial flowing of water services in the upper reaches of Miyun Reservoir, China. Ecosystem Services, 39:100983. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100983. DOI URL
[21]	Qin Y H, Kang M Y. 2007. A review of ecological compensation and its improvement measures. Journal of Natural Resources, 22(4):557-567. (in Chinese)
[22]	Wang L. 2011. Study on the sustainable development of agriculture in Kuancheng County based on energy value analysis. Diss., Beijing, China: Minzu University of China. (in Chinese)
[23]	Wang Y Q, Chen Y Z. 2016. The impacts of labor migration on farm households’ cropping structure. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 37(2):41-48. (in Chinese)
[24]	Wei H M, He B, Liang Y, et al. 2014. Effects of different Chinese chestnut-crop intercropping patterns on soil physical and chemical properties. Non-wood Forest Research, 32(3):150-153. (in Chinese)
[25]	Wu Q, Zhang H P. 2017. Study on forest ecological compensation standard system. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 37(9):99-103. (in Chinese)
[26]	Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S. 2008. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics, 65(4):822-833. DOI URL
[27]	Xiao J W, Yang Y M. 2017. The residents of Xiangjiang River Basin in Hunan Province are willing to pay the WTP empirical study—Based on CVM conditional value method. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 37(8):139-144. (in Chinese)
[28]	Xu R H, Jiang X C. 2020. Knowledge graph of foreign marine ecological compensation research: Analysis based on Web of Science. Journal of Ocean University of China (Social Sciences), (1):84-93. (in Chinese)
[29]	Yang Q, Nan Z B, Chen Q Q, et al. 2020. The research progress of ecological compensation of grasslands in China has progressed. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(7):2489-2495. (in Chinese)
[30]	Yin X Q. 2017. Implementation performance and suggestions of grassland eco-compensation policies: Based on Urat Back Banner, Inner Mongolia. Ecological Economy, 33(3):39-45. (in Chinese)
[31]	Yu B, Xu L Y, Wang X. 2016. Ecological compensation for hydropower resettlement in a reservoir wetland based on welfare change in Tibet, China. Ecological Engineering, 96:128-136. DOI URL
[32]	Yu C G, Zhang P, Guo P J, et al. 2019. Quantitative study on compensation standards for ecological damage to fishery in reclaimed areas: A case study from Zhoushan Coast. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(4):1416-1425. (in Chinese)
[33]	Yuan Z K, Yuan S B, Yao M, et al. 2005. Law of soil loss at agro-forest ecosystem of Castanea mollissima. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 3(4):115-118. (in Chinese)
[34]	Zhang T, Huang B. 2005. Study on the ecosystem and economic benefits of chestnut garden in Dabie Mountain. Forest Science and Technology, (7):6-8. (in Chinese)
[35]	Zhang Y Y, Liu M C, Min Q W, et al. 2015. Calculation of price compensation of agriculture products in the period of organic conversion in Agricultural Heritage Sites—Taking Paddy Rice of Hani Terrace in Honghe County of Yunnan Province as an example. Journal of Natural Resources, 30(3):374-383. (in Chinese)

Cultivation mode		Chestnut	Chestnut- Maitake	Chestnut- Millet	Chestnut- Chicken
Output	Chestnut	5722.7	6295.0	5150.4	5150.4
	Maitake	-	35297.5	-	-
	Millet	-	-	3767.4	-
	Chicken	-	-	-	4636.8
	Out-of-work	2240.3	0	1700.2	1700.2
	Subtotal	7963.0	41592.5	10618.0	11487.4
Input	Seeds or chicks	-	15000.0	22.6	1008.5
	Fertilizer and pesticide	279.0	279.0	394.9	279.0
	Tools	31.7	10018.5	31.7	61.8
	Irrigation	7.7	2200.2	7.7	7.7
	Processing fees	-	-	150.7	-
	Labor costs	2550.2	8160.7	4335.4	3315.3
	Subtotal	2868.6	35658.5	4943.0	4672.3
Income		5094.4	5934.0	5675.0	6815.0
ROI		1:2.77	1:1.17	1:2.15	1:2.46
ROI_% (%)		177.6	16.6	114.8	145.9

Cultivation mode		Chestnut	Chestnut- Maitake	Chestnut- Millet	Chestnut- Chicken
Output	Chestnut	5722.7	6295.0	5150.4	5150.4
	Maitake	-	35297.5	-	-
	Millet	-	-	3767.4	-
	Chicken	-	-	-	4636.8
	Out-of-work	2240.3	0	1700.2	1700.2
	Subtotal	7963.0	41592.5	10618.0	11487.4
Input	Seeds or chicks	-	15000.0	22.6	1008.5
	Fertilizer and pesticide	279.0	279.0	394.9	279.0
	Tools	31.7	10018.5	31.7	61.8
	Irrigation	7.7	2200.2	7.7	7.7
	Processing fees	-	-	150.7	-
	Labor costs	2550.2	8160.7	4335.4	3315.3
	Subtotal	2868.6	35658.5	4943.0	4672.3
Income		5094.4	5934.0	5675.0	6815.0
ROI		1:2.77	1:1.17	1:2.15	1:2.46
ROI_% (%)		177.6	16.6	114.8	145.9

Production mode	Amount of labor (p d ha^-1)	Income difference (USD p^-1 d^-1)	Opportunity cost (USD ha^-1)
Chestnut	150	6.2	927.4
Chestnut-Maitake	480		2967.5
Chestnut-Millet	255		1576.5
Chestnut-Chicken	195		1205.6

Production mode	Amount of labor (p d ha^-1)	Income difference (USD p^-1 d^-1)	Opportunity cost (USD ha^-1)
Chestnut	150	6.2	927.4
Chestnut-Maitake	480		2967.5
Chestnut-Millet	255		1576.5
Chestnut-Chicken	195		1205.6

Production mode	Net income	Preference coefficient	Opportunity cost	Net income from conservation	Compensation
Chestnut	5094.4	1.2	927.4	3981.5	-
Chestnut-Maitake	5934.0	1.2	2967.5	2373.0	1608.5
Chestnut-Millet	5675.0	1.2	1576.5	3783.2	198.3
Chestnut-Chicken	6815.1	1.2	1205.6	5368.4	0