Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods and Data Collection
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Survey Design and Implementation
2.3. Ecosystem Services and Opportunity Costs Evaluation
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Public Knowledge of Ecosystem Services and PWES
3.2. Public Perceptions of PWES
3.3. Public WTA and WTP for PWES Standard
3.4. Public Participation in the PWES Implementation
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. WTP and WTA for PWES Standard
4.2. Residents’ Livelihoods in PWES Implementation
4.3. Implication for Policy and Watershed Management
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wunder, S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benra, F.; Nahuelhual, L.; Felipe-Lucia, M.; Jaramillo, A.; Jullian, C.; Bonn, A. Balancing ecological and social goals in PES design—Single objective strategies are not sufficient. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.; Yan, S.; Song, X.; Li, Z.; Mao, J. Spatial targets and payment modes of win–win payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, A.C.; Grote, M.N.; Caro, T.; Ghosh, A.; Thorne, J.; Salerno, J.; Mulder, M.B. How community forest management performs when REDD+ payments fail. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 034019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hook, A.; Laing, T. The politics and performativity of REDD+ reference levels: Examining the Guyana-Norway agreement and its implications for ‘offsetting’ towards ‘net zero’. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 132, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salzman, J.; Bennett, G.; Carroll, N.; Goldstein, A.; Jenkins, M. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Hayes, T.; Murtinho, F.; Wolff, H.; López-Sandoval, M.F.; Salazar, J. Effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services after loss and uncertainty of compensation. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinzig, A.P.; Perrings, C.; Chapin, F.S.; Polasky, S.; Smith, V.K.; Tilman, D.; Turner, B.L. Paying for Ecosystem Services Promise and Peril. Science 2011, 334, 603–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagiola, S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 712–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muradian, R.; Arsel, M.; Pellegrini, L.; Adaman, F.; Aguilar, B.; Agarwal, B.; Corbera, E.; de Blas, D.E.; Farley, J.; Froger, G.; et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wunder, S.; Brouwer, R.; Engel, S.; Ezzine-de-Blas, D.; Muradian, R.; Pascual, U.; Pinto, R. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dasgupta, S.; Hamilton, K.; Pagiola, S.; Wheeler, D. Environmental Economics at the World Bank. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2008, 2, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent, J.R. Microeconomic Analysis of Innovative Environmental Programs in Developing Countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shang, W.; Gong, Y.; Wang, Z.; Stewardson, M.J. Eco-compensation in China: Theory, practices and suggestions for the future. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 210, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pei, S.; Zhang, C.X.; Liu, C.L.; Liu, X.N.; Xie, G.D. Forest ecological compensation standard based on spatial flowing of water services in the upper reaches of Miyun Reservoir, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Huang, J.; Hadjikakou, M.; Huang, Y.; Li, K.; Bryan, B.A. Reframing water-related ecosystem services flows. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.; Zhu, A.; Liu, W. Quantifying inter-regional payments for watershed services on the basis of green ecological spillover value in the Yellow River Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 132, 108300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Yang, R.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Song, Z. From “blood transfusion” to “hematopoiesis”: Watershed eco-compensation in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 33, 49583–49597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Tran, L.T.; Wang, Y.; Qi, L.; Zhou, W.; Zhou, L.; Yu, D.; Dai, L. A framework of freshwater services flow model into assessment on water security and quantification of transboundary flow: A case study in northeast China. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 304, 114318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farley, J.; Costanza, R. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2060–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.; Brombal, D.; Farah, P.D.; Moriggi, A.; Critto, A.; Zhou, Y.; Marcomini, A. China’s water environmental management towards institutional integration. A review of current progress and constraints vis-a-vis the European experience. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Retallack, M. The intersection of economic demand for ecosystem services and public policy: A watershed case study exploring implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremer, L.L.; Auerbach, D.A.; Goldstein, J.H.; Vogl, A.L.; Shemie, D.; Kroeger, T.; Nelson, J.L.; Benítez, S.P.; Calvache, A.; Guimarães, J.; et al. One size does not fit all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Li, S.; Ouyang, Z.; Tam, C.; Chen, X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9477–9482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ouyang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Xiao, Y.; Polasky, S.; Liu, J.; Xu, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Rao, E.; Jiang, L.; et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science 2016, 352, 1455–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, D.; Wu, W.; Liang, L.; Li, L.; Zhao, G. Payments for watershed ecosystem services: Mechanism, progress and challenges. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2018, 4, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pan, X.; Xu, L.; Yang, Z.; Yu, B. Payments for ecosystem services in China: Policy, practice, and progress. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, H.; Robinson, B.E.; Liang, Y.-C.; Polasky, S.; Ma, D.-C.; Wang, F.-C.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Ouyang, Z.-Y.; Daily, G.C. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 16681–16686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, K.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. Stability and influencing factors when designing incentive-compatible payments for watershed services: Insights from the Xin’an River Basin, China. Mar. Policy 2021, 134, 104824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.F.; Hou, C.B. Study on implementation framework and compensation pattern of basin ecological compensation mechanism in China: From the perspective of compensation funds source. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 23, 23–29. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Diswandi, D. A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, R.; Zheng, H.; O’Connor, P.; Xu, H.; Li, Y.; Lu, F.; Robinson, B.E.; Ouyang, Z.; Hai, Y.; Daily, G.C. Time and space catch up with restoration programs that ignore ecosystem service trade-offs. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabf8650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garcia-Cuerva, L.; Berglund, E.Z.; Binder, A.R. Public perceptions of water shortages, conservation behaviors, and support for water reuse in the U.S. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 113, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Pody, R.; Cheng, R.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, Z. Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 104, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, G.; Boas, I.J.C.; Mol, A.P.J.; Lu, Y. What drives public acceptance of chemical industrial park policy and project in China? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 138, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, G.; Chen, C.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y. Public perception and attitude towards chemical industry park in Dalian, Bohai Rim. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Pang, Q.; Hua, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, K. Linking ecological red lines and public perceptions of ecosystem services to manage the ecological environment: A case study in the Fenghe River watershed of Xi’an. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelcich, S.; Buckley, P.; Pinnegar, J.K.; Chilvers, J.; Lorenzoni, I.; Terry, G.; Guerrero, M.; Castilla, J.C.; Valdebenito, A.; Duarte, C.M. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 15042–15047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, T.M.; Markowitz, E.M.; Howe, P.D.; Ko, C.-Y.; Leiserowitz, A.A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 1014–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremer, L.L.; Farley, K.A.; Lopez-Carr, D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioParamo program. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Lupi, F.; He, G.; Ouyang, Z.; Liu, J. Factors affecting land reconversion plans following a payment for ecosystem service program. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1740–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Liu, J.; Li, D. Getting their voices heard: Three cases of public participation in environmental protection in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 98, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, G. Stakeholder and public participation in river basin management—An introduction. WIREs Water 2015, 2, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Balay, J.W. How Much is Too Much?: Challenges to Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2014, 140, 01814001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Miao, H. Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-community conflicts: A case study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2254–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, V.L.; Fielding, K.S.; Louis, W.R. Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E. Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2680–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, I.; Zhao, M. Water resource management and public preferences for water ecosystem services: A choice experiment approach for inland river basin management. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 821–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Tilt, B. Public engagements with smog in urban China: Knowledge, trust, and action. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Shen, J.; He, W.; Sun, F.; Zhang, Z.; Guo, W.; Zhang, X.; Kong, Y. An evolutionary game analysis of governments’ decision-making behaviors and factors influencing watershed ecological compensation in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, B.; Wong, C.P.; Lu, F.; Ouyang, Z.; Wang, Y. Drivers of drying on the Yongding River in Beijing. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatachalam, L. The contingent valuation method: A review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 89–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, A.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vassilopoulos, A.; Avgeraki, N.; Klonaris, S. Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 6425–6444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche, K.R.; Müller-Itten, M.; Dralle, D.N.; Bolster, D.; Müller, M.F. Climate change and the opportunity cost of conflict. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 1935–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Z.H.; Li, L.S.; Liu, J. The emissions reduction effect and technical progress effect of environmental regulation policy tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Liu, X.; Zhao, S.; Zhu, Y. An evolutionary systematic framework to quantify short-term and long-term watershed ecological compensation standard and amount for promoting sustainability of livestock industry based on cost-benefit analysis, linear programming, WTA and WTP method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 18004–18020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunder, S.; Engel, S.; Pagiola, S. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Peng, F.; Chen, H. Analysis of the Influencing Factors for Willingness to Pay of Payment for Ecosystem Services of River Basin: A Case of Changsha Reach of Xiang Jiang River Basin. Econ. Geograhy 2012, 32, 130–135. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, H.; Zhang, L. Analysis of the people’s willingness to pay for environmental services compensation and its influence factors in the Jinhua River Basin. Resour. Sci. 2010, 32, 761–767. [Google Scholar]
- Muradian, R.; Corbera, E.; Pascual, U.; Kosoy, N.; May, P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1202–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Guo, L.; Zhang, J. Non-use value composition ratio and influencing factors in different attributes of resources based on cross-cases perspective. Resour. Sci. 2017, 39, 723–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, P.; Poe, G.L.; Wolf, S.A. Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.; Chang, L.; Hou, T.; Zhao, Y. 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]
- Xu, D.; Tu, S.; Chang, L.; Zhao, Y. Interest conflict of River Basin ecological compensation based on evolutionary game theory. China Popul. Dev. Stud. 2012, 22, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Flower, R.J.; Thompson, J.R. Sustaining China’s Water Resources. Science 2013, 339, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheng, J.; Qiu, W.; Han, X. China’s PES-like horizontal eco-compensation program: Combining market-oriented mechanisms and government interventions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Yang, W. Water Sustainability for China and Beyond. Science 2012, 337, 649–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaikumbung, M.; Doucouliagos, H.; Scarborough, H. The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 124, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, H.; Sui, D.; Wu, H.; Zhao, M. The influence of social capital on farmers’ participation in watershed ecological management behavior: Evidence from Heihe Basin. China Rural Econ. 2018, 1, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, H.; Zhao, M. Willingness to pay differences across ecosystem services and total economic valuation based on choice experiments approach. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 351–359. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, C.; Li, G. The influencing factors for willingness to pay of payment for watershed services: A case of the water receiving area of Zhengzhou Cityof the Middle Route Project of the South-North Water Transfer Project. Econ. Geograhy 2015, 35, 38–46. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; König, H.; Matzdorf, B.; Zhen, L. The Institutional Challenges of Payment for Ecosystem Service Program in China: A Review of the Effectiveness and Implementation of Sloping Land Conversion Program. Sustainability 2015, 2015, 5564–5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, H.; Liu, G.; Wang, J.; Wan, J. Policy and practice progress of watershed eco-compensation in China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2007, 17, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.J.; Dong, Z.F.; Xu, Y.; Ge, C.Z. Eco-compensation for watershed services in China. Water Int. 2016, 41, 271–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Shen, C.; Wei, J.; Niu, Y. Study of ecological compensation in complex river networks based on a mathematical model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 22861–22871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, J.; Shen, Z.; Huang, M.; Zhang, X. Exploring effective best management practices in the Miyun reservoir watershed, China. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 123, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, C.; Luo, C. A differential game design of watershed pollution management under ecological compensation criterion. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, B.; Chen, N.; Lin, H.; Hong, H. Empirical appraisal of Jiulong River Watershed Management Program. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2013, 81, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Status | Percentage (%) | Item | Status | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Women | 53.2 | Occupation | Farmer | 48.4 |
Men | 46.8 | Government employee | 3.8 | ||
Average age | Years old | 44.1 | Enterprise employee | 12.5 | |
Education level | Primary school | 17.6 | Teacher | 2.1 | |
Middle school | 40.7 | Researcher and scientist | 0.6 | ||
High school | 26.5 | Self-employed | 12.9 | ||
University | 14.7 | Student | 6.7 | ||
Graduate | 0.5 | Retired | 6.7 | ||
Annual income (thousand CNY) | ≤10 | 23.8 | NGO employee | 0.6 | |
10.1–20 | 20.6 | Media practitioner | 0.5 | ||
20.1–50 | 38.0 | Others | 5.1 | ||
50.1–100 | 13.7 | Family members | Average (persons) | 3.6 | |
>100 | 3.9 |
Factors | B | Sig. | Std. Error |
---|---|---|---|
Education level | 0.206 | 0.043 * | 0.102 |
Gender | −0.039 | 0.807 | 0.161 |
Age | 0.012 | 0.730 | 0.036 |
Household income | 0.119 | 0.161 | 0.085 |
Level of public concerns about environmental issues | 0.403 | 0.000 ** | 0.085 |
Place of residence | −0.470 | 0.011 * | 0.185 |
Relevance of occupation to environmental protection | 0.109 | 0.038 * | 0.053 |
Factors | WTP | WTA | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Sig | Exp (B) | B | Sig | Exp (B) | |
Education level | −0.406 | 0.013 * | 0.667 | 0.302 | 0.223 | 1.353 |
Gender | 0.104 | 0.644 | 1.109 | −1.016 | 0.004 ** | 0.362 |
Household income level | 0.081 | 0.023 * | 1.804 | −0.377 | 0.036 * | 0.686 |
Environmental improvement | 0.771 | 0.000 ** | 2.162 | 0.442 | 0.064 | 1.556 |
Level of public concerns about environmental issues | 0.256 | 0.043 * | 1.292 | −0.484 | 0.018 * | 1.623 |
Place of residence | 1.090 | 0.038 * | 2.663 | −1.312 | 0.046 * | 0.269 |
Public knowledge about PWES | 0.169 | 0.034 * | 1.184 | 0.247 | 0.269 | 1.281 |
Question | Dominant Opinion | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|
PWES scheme participation | SLCP | 78.9 |
Whether to consult respondents | No | 58.9 |
Desire to engage in decision-making | Yes | 77.7 |
Whether to support or not | Yes | 90.0 |
Reason for support | Can improve the environment | 60.0 |
PWES methods | Cash or subsidy | 92.2 |
PWES standard | Ordinary | 60.0 |
Household income changes | Unchanged | 72.2 |
Environmental improvement | Little improvement | 48.9 |
Living standard improvement | Ordinary | 46.7 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Chen, C.; He, G.; Lu, Y. Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159550
Chen C, He G, Lu Y. Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159550
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Chunci, Guizhen He, and Yonglong Lu. 2022. "Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in the Eyes of the Public, China" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159550