Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services and the Associated Policy Implications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Research Zone
3. Data Sources and Research Methods
3.1. Data Sources
3.2. Research Methods
3.2.1. Questionnaire Design
- Totally agree: 5; Agree: 4; Uncertain: 3; Disagree: 2; Strongly disagree: 1; and
- Extremely important: 5; Important: 4; Uncertain: 3; Unimportant: 2; Extremely unimportant: 1.
3.2.2. Farmers’ Awareness of and Demand for Ecosystem Services
3.2.3. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
4. Analysis of the Results
4.1. Sample Demographics
4.2. Ecosystem Services—Analyzing Awareness and Demand
4.3. Analyzing Factors That Influence Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services
- An analysis of the farmers’ personal characteristics found that gender, age, education level and immigrant status have a significant impact on the level of ecosystem services; however, the nation has limited affection towards the level of cognition of ecosystem services. The ecosystem awareness is high for a male, immigrant and young individual with a high level of education. A larger proportion of males had high awareness than females. The proportion of male and female interviewees with high awareness was 62.2% and 29.3%, respectively. Age had a negative effect on the ecosystem services awareness level. The proportion of each age group with high awareness was: under 30 years old, 61.76%; 30–50 years old, 51.35%; and over 50 years old, 39.58%. A higher level of education corresponded with a higher awareness. Immigrants had significantly higher awareness than the non-immigrants. The proportions with high awareness were 58.77% and 26.19%, respectively.
- An analysis of the family characteristics of the farmers found that a farmer with a higher proportion of household income from agriculture and possessing more arable land has a higher awareness of ecosystem services. Such households relied more on land and natural resources, and therefore, they were more sensitive to ecosystem service functions and experienced them more intensely. They focused more on the relationship between humans and nature, and contemplated more about how to reduce the land’s demand for materials. Consequently, they had relatively high awareness. All farmers representing households with 3.3 hectares of arable land or more had a high awareness of ecosystem services.
- An analysis of the farmers’ subjective attitude showed that farmers’ willingness to return their arable land to forestland had a positive effect on the awareness of the ecosystem services. The willingness to return arable land to farmland reflects farmers’ enthusiasm to improve the ecological environment and reform unreasonable production methods, and also reflects their awareness of ecosystem services. The farmers’ level of concern for environmental protection also reflected their awareness. Farmers who were more concerned about the environment had a clearer understanding of ecosystem service functions.
5. Implications
- Farmers in the research zone generally consider ecosystem services in terms of basic life-support functions. They focus less on and lack sufficient understanding of the ecological and societal functions of ecosystem services. Farmers do not completely recognize the important role of the ecosystem in guaranteeing human well-being and sustainable development. Increasing education efforts in relation to the ecological benefits of ecosystems, increasing farmers’ awareness of ecosystem services and shaping ecologically conservative behaviors to enable managers and policy-makers to effectively increase farmers’ participation in environmental conservation and render them the main actors to simultaneously promote sustainable economic development and maintain the environment, will create a more holistic and integrated society.
- The analysis of farmers’ demands for ecosystem services revealed that those in the research zone primarily demand life-supporting materials from the ecosystem. Farmers are primarily concerned with the pursuit of material goods. Their desire for spiritual goods is low. However, it is worth noting that they have a strong demand for natural disaster mitigation, which is one of the core ecosystem services. Interview records indicate that farmers are particularly interested in strengthening the basic infrastructure for disaster prevention and mitigation, restructuring middle- and low-yield fields, and converting slopes to terraces.
- Individual characteristics, such as migration status, gender, education level and age, have an important impact on farmers’ awareness of ecosystem services. The government should consider this while formulating policies to improve farmers’ awareness. A diversified, multi-path approach to education and ecosystem services education is needed. The primary targets of the education efforts should be groups with lower awareness of ecosystem services, such as women, the elderly and non-immigrants. Development of education and the economy should receive equal emphasis. Governments should strengthen farmers’ awareness, their ability to understand ecosystem services and their indirect benefits. In addition, governments should strengthen the education of conservation of resources and raise awareness of environmental protection, particularly in the fragile areas of Guangxi. The educational programs should be combined with cultural customs in ethnic areas in order to strengthen the education on Golden Hill’s beautiful scenery. They should increase investment in education, improve the infrastructure of schools, formulate educational policies that specifically target immigration zones, increase local cultural education and increase farmers’ appreciation for science and culture. These efforts will improve farmers’ enthusiasm to participate in resource protection and management.
- Household characteristics, such as the proportion of household income from farming, proportion of the household that is working and arable land per person, also influence farmers’ awareness of ecosystem services. This implies a need to undertake significant efforts to develop modern agriculture, promote ecological agriculture and gradually reform traditional, low-tech, and single-mode production methods by increasing the value of agricultural products and the effectiveness of cultivated land. In Jinqiao Village, a feasible method to popularize ecological agriculture could be to offer financial and technical support to farmers who already possess high awareness of ecosystem services, such as immigrant farmers owning large areas of cultivated land.
- The farmers’ overall concept of ecological protection (as indicated by their willingness to return their cultivated land to forestland and their level of concern for environmental protection) directly affects their awareness of ecosystem services. Farmers in Jinqiao Village live in a relatively closed environment and have limited communication with the outside world. This has narrowed their perspective and hindered their ability to broaden their horizons. Through organized labor export (where farmers spend some time working in distant locations), exchange visits and exchange learning, the government can strive to increase farmers’ knowledge and experience, broaden their horizons and gradually reform their perception of the relationships of people with both the society and environment. This will foster harmonious coexistence of people and nature in the research zone.
6. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contribution
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Balvanera, P.; Pfisterer, A.B.; Buchmann, N.; He, J.S.; Nakashizuka, T.; Raffaelli, D.; Schmid, B. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 1146–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Helmut, H.; Birte, M. Biodiversity in a complex world: Consolidation and progress in functional biodiversity research. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1405–1419. [Google Scholar]
- Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Aizen, M.A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Lebuhn, G.; Minckley, R.; Packer, L.; Potts, S.G.; Roulston, T.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; et al. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 2007, 10, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naeem, S. Disentangling the impacts of diversity on ecosystem functioning in combinatorial experiments. J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 18, 652–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naeem, S. Green with complexity. Science 2015, 319, 913–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reiss, J.; Bridle, J.R.; Montoya, J.M.; Woodward, G. Emerging horizons in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 2009, 24, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lavorel, S.; Grigulis, K.; Lamarque, P.; Colace, M.P.; Garden, D.; Girel, J.; Pellet, G.; Douzet, R. Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D.; Knops, J.; Wedin, D.; Reich, P.; Ritchie, M.; Siemann, E. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 1997, 277, 1300–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.M.; Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Ge, L.Q. Flow process of water conservation service of forest ecosystem. J. Nat. Resour. 2010, 25, 585–593. [Google Scholar]
- Norgaard, R.B. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1219–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robards, M.D.; Schoon, M.L.; Meek, C.L.; Engle, N.L. The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Xie, G.D.; Lu, C.X.; Ding, X.Z.; Li, Y. The impact of urea amendments on atmospheric gas regulation services in rice paddy ecosystems and their valuation. Acta Phytoecol. Sin. 2005, 29, 577–583. [Google Scholar]
- Yapp, G.; Walker, J.; Thackway, R. Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De, G.R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duke, E.A.; Goldstein, J.H.; Teel, T.L.; Finchum, R.; Huber-Stearns, H.; Pitty, J.; Rodriguez, G.B.; Rodriguez, S.; Sanchez, L.O. Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in western panama. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 103, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandhu, H.S.; Wratten, S.D.; Cullen, R. The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zander, K.K.; Straton, A. An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australians. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2417–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutton, P.C.; Anderson, S.J.; Costanza, R.; Kubiszewski, I. The ecological economics of land degradation: Impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 129, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serafy, S.E. Pricing the invaluable: The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25, 25–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toman, M. Special section: Forum on valuation of ecosystem services: Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1980, 25, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, H.F.; Sullivan, C.A. Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers’ perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Xiong, K. Evaluation of Karst ecosystem service value: A case study of Huajiang Gorge of Guizhou Province. Trop. Geogr. 2015, 35, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
- Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, X.K.; Miao, H. A primary study on Chinese terrestrial ecosystem services and their ecological-economic values. Acta Ecol. Sin. 1999, 19, 607–613. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Y.; Wang, R.S.; Huang, J.L.; Yang, W.R. An analysis of the spatial and temporal changes in Chinese terrestrial ecosystem service functions. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2012, 57, 2120–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, G.D.; Zhang, C.X.; Zhang, C.S.; Xiao, Y.; Lu, C.X. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 2015, 37, 1740–1746. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, H.M.; Zhen, L.; Li, F.Y.; Du, B.Z.; Pan, L.H.; Xiang, Q. Measurement method of reasonable consumption for ecosystem productivity supply service: A case study of inner Mongolia grassland transect. Resour. Sci. 2012, 34, 998–1006. [Google Scholar]
- Cao, X.C.; Zhen, L.; Yang, L.; Long, X.; Du, B.Z.; Wei, Y.J.; Li, F. Stakeholder perceptions of changing ecosystem services consumption in the Jinghe watershed: A household survey and PRA. J. Resour. Ecol. 2011, 2, 345–352. [Google Scholar]
- He, J.; Shu, X.B.; Yu, X.B. Surveys and analysis of farmers’ perception about wetland ecosystem services in Poyang Lake. Resour. Sci. 2010, 32, 776–781. [Google Scholar]
- Kontogianni, A.; Luck, G.W.; Skourtos, M. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1479–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Aguilera, P.A.; Montes, C.; Martín-López, B. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, T.; White, T. Understanding deer farmers’ level of environmental awareness. In Client Report for MAF SFF ‘Focus on Deer’; AgResearch Ltd.: Invermay, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.; Sun, C.; Li, Q.; Li, X. Farmers’ environmental awareness measurement indicators, scores and countermeasures in China. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information Science and Engineering, Hangzhou, China, 4–6 December 2010; pp. 5850–5853. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, H.H.; Xu, Y.; Gu, X.B.; Lin, X.Y.; Zhu, Q.X. Systematic rationalization approach for multivariate correlated alarms based on interpretive structural modeling and likert scale. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2015, 23, 1987–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Group Name | Number of Samples | (% of Total) | Group Name | Number of Samples | (% of Total) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ouliu | 5 | 3 | Sanhe | 17 | 10.4 |
Fuqiao | 10 | 6.1 | Anju | 1 | 0.6 |
Lali | 4 | 2.4 | Anle | 2 | 1.2 |
Jinqiao | 19 | 11.6 | Xiatang | 6 | 3.7 |
Qiaola | 9 | 5.5 | Bashan | 1 | 0.6 |
Anyi | 2 | 1.2 | Jinling | 4 | 2.4 |
Huandong | 17 | 10.4 | Shangla | 2 | 1.2 |
Aner | 7 | 4.3 | Xiao Jindong | 8 | 4.9 |
Furong | 4 | 2.4 | Da Jindong | 10 | 6.1 |
Pingsuo | 12 | 7.3 | Keli | 7 | 4.3 |
Fuping | 17 | 10.4 |
Element | Group | Number | Proportion (%) | Element | Group | Number | % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 98 | 62.8 | Ethnic Group | Han | 9 | 5.8 |
Female | 58 | 37.2 | Zhuang | 114 | 73.1 | ||
Age | <30 | 34 | 21.8 | Maonan | 14 | 8.9 | |
30–60 | 100 | 64.1 | Yao | 19 | 12.2 | ||
>60 | 22 | 14.1 | Immigration Status | Immigrant | 114 | 73.1 | |
Highest Level of Education Completed | Elementary (or Lower) | 76 | 49.2 | Non | 42 | 26.9 | |
Middle School | 59 | 37.8 | Household Yearly Income | <10,000 | 35 | 22.4 | |
High School | 21 | 13.45 | 10,000–30,000 | 56 | 35.9 | ||
Occupation | Agriculture | 78 | 50 | 30,000–50,000 | 36 | 23.1 | |
Multiple | 63 | 40.4 | >50,000 | 29 | 18.6 | ||
Other | 15 | 9.6 | Household Arable Land Area (mu) | 0–20 | 98 | 62.8 | |
Proportion of Household that Works | 0–0.5 | 85 | 54.5 | 20–50 | 47 | 30.1 | |
0.5–1 | 71 | 45.5 | >50 | 11 | 7.1 |
Function | Core Ecosystem Services | Awareness | Demand |
---|---|---|---|
Material Supply | Food Production | 4.4744 | 4.7628 |
Raw Material Supply | 4.2244 | 4.4014 | |
Water Supply | 4.0833 | 4.4926 | |
Social Security | 3.9744 | 4.3206 | |
Ecological Security | Biodiversity | 3.9231 | 4.0738 |
Waste Treatment | 3.7628 | 4.3868 | |
Air Purification | 3.6795 | 4.3196 | |
Natural Disaster Mitigation | 3.6538 | 4.4554 | |
Water Purification | 3.5256 | 4.3656 | |
Cultural Landscape | Leisure and Entertainment | 3.8590 | 3.5913 |
Cultural Heritage | 3.3205 | 3.8205 |
Variables | Assignments |
---|---|
Awareness Level | Ordered Variable. Low: 1; Medium: 2; High: 3 |
Gender | Categorized Variable. Female: 1; Male: 2 |
Age | Ordered Variable. Actual data (age of interviewee in years) |
Education Level | Ordered Variable. None: 1; Elementary or lower: 2; Middle School: 3; High School: 4; College or higher: 5 |
Occupation | Categorized Variable. Agriculture: 1; Multiple: 2; Other: 3 |
Marital Status | Categorized Variable. Unmarried: 1; Married: 2 |
Ethnicity | Categorized Variable. Han: 1; Zhuang: 2; Maonan: 3; Yao: 4 |
Immigration Status | Categorized Variable. Immigrant: 1; Non-immigrant: 2 |
Household Yearly Income | Ordered Variable. 0–5000: 1; 5000–10,000: 2; 10,000–30,000: 3; 30,000–50,000: 4; 50,000 and more: 5 |
Portion of Household Income from Agriculture | Ordered Variable. Actual data |
Portion of Household that works | Ordered Variable. Actual data |
Household’s Arable Land | Ordered Variable. Actual data |
Willingness to Return Arable Land to Forest Land | Categorized Variable. Not willing: 1; Willing: 2 |
Level of Concern for Environmental Protection | Categorized Variable. Not concerned: 1; Undecided: 2; Concerned: 3 |
Responsibility for Environmental Stewardship | Categorized Variable. Government: 1; Farmers: 2 |
Estimate | Std. Error | Wald | Df | P Val. Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||
Gender | 1.476 | 0.392 | 14.149 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.707 | 2.245 |
Age | −0.29 | 0.13 | 4.877 | 1 | 0.027 | −0.055 | −0.003 |
Education Level | 0.631 | 0.225 | 7.882 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.19 | 1.071 |
Immigration Status | −1.837 | 0.456 | 16.216 | 1 | 0.000 | −2.732 | −0.943 |
Portion of Household Income from Agriculture | 1.251 | 0.487 | 6.603 | 1 | 0.010 | 0.297 | 2.205 |
Household’s Arable Land | 0.041 | 0.014 | 8.423 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.013 | 0.068 |
Willingness to Return Arable Land to Forest Land | 1.517 | 0.538 | 7.955 | 1 | 0.005 | 0.463 | 2.571 |
Level of Concern for Environmental Protection | 0.80 | 0.275 | 8.439 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.269 | 1.339 |
© 2017 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/).
Share and Cite
Xun, F.; Hu, Y.; Lv, L.; Tong, J. Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services and the Associated Policy Implications. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091612
Xun F, Hu Y, Lv L, Tong J. Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services and the Associated Policy Implications. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091612
Chicago/Turabian StyleXun, Fangfang, Yecui Hu, Ling Lv, and Jinhui Tong. 2017. "Farmers’ Awareness of Ecosystem Services and the Associated Policy Implications" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091612