Next Article in Journal
Impact of Farm Size on Farmers’ Recycling of Pesticide Packaging Waste: Evidence from Rural China
Previous Article in Journal
Urban Heat Island Effect in Different Sizes from a 3D Perspective: A Case Study in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/land14030464
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Can the Capability Approach Contribute to a New Perspective on the Value of Cropland Ecosystem Services?

by
Yi Tang
1,
Junzhu Liu
1 and
Zhoupeng Chen
2,*
1
School of Public Administration, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
2
School of Politics and Public Administration, Guangxi Minzu University, Nanning 530006, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(3), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030464
Submission received: 22 January 2025 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 22 February 2025 / Published: 23 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Global Farmland Protection, Food Security and Land Use Planning)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultivated land ecosystems are complex systems that integrate human activities with natural environments, playing a critical role in both ecological and socio-economic processes. These ecosystems face significant challenges, including land degradation, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss. Despite their importance, there is currently no standardized conceptual framework or unified approach for valuing cultivated land ecosystems and their ecosystem services. This paper aims to address this gap by developing a comprehensive framework that incorporates the unique characteristics of cultivated land ecosystems, with particular focus on the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being. It introduces a novel theoretical approach for evaluating these services through the capability approach, emphasizing the integration of key concepts, the clarification of ecosystem service definitions, and the classification of their functions. Furthermore, the study explores the practical applications of this framework for the management and valuation of cultivated land ecosystems. The capability approach, as an innovative solution, is utilized to support and enhance the ecosystem services and benefits provided by cultivated land ecosystems, ultimately contributing to improved social well-being. The findings of this research are crucial for promoting sustainable management practices and advancing the implementation of ecological compensation strategies within the context of cultivated land.

1. Introduction

Cultivated land is a fundamental resource for human survival and development, and it is a cornerstone for ensuring national food and ecological security. For a long time, people have focused predominantly on the production function of cultivated land and its value; however, the basic national condition of limited per capita cultivated land resources has kept the cultivated land in China in a state of high-intensity and overloaded utilization, which has led to the degradation of the ecosystem function of the cultivated land in many areas, and the contradiction between humans and land has become increasingly pronounced, posing significant challenges to the sustainable use of cultivated land [1]. As complex human–land coupling systems based on natural ecosystems and superimposed with a high degree of artificial intervention [2,3], cultivated land ecosystems provide ecological functions, such as climate regulation and water conservation, as well as cultural and landscape functions, such as beautification and rural traditions, in addition to production functions. Recent studies have advanced in approaches, scope, and depth, focusing on the interaction mechanisms between human well-being and cultivated land ecosystem services, as well as the quantification of their multifunctional value [4,5]. Conventional cultivated land protection strategies have prioritized quantity over quality and ecological value. As societal and economic development progresses and living standards improve, public demand for the diverse ecosystem services of cultivated land has significantly increased. In-depth discussion and scientific evaluation of the various well-being functions provided by cultivated land ecosystems for human society and their values [6] influence the sustainable utilization and management of cultivated land resources. In the foreseeable future, due to multiple uncertainties such as global ecological changes and extreme climate emergencies, the sustainability of cultivated land ecosystem services, as the most active core area of interaction between human beings and natural ecosystems, will face greater challenges. If we do not deeply understand the coupling mechanism between human well-being and the ecosystem service value of cultivated land, the irreversible degradation of cultivated land ecosystem service function and the aggravation of unsustainable regional development will seriously damage human well-being and hinder the realization of the goal of ecological civilization construction.
To effectively address development challenges in society, the economy, and the environment, world leaders adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the United Nations in September 2015. The agenda includes 17 ambitious global sustainable development goals (SDGs). Among these, Goal 2 emphasizes “eradicating hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture”. Goal 15 focuses on “protecting, restoring, and promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, achieving sustainable forest management, preventing and combating desertification, reversing land degradation, and halting biodiversity loss”. These objectives aim to promote people-centered rural development and environmental protection, facilitate the transformation of agricultural and food systems, and enhance rural livelihoods, among other things.
Cultivated land ecosystems, as the core areas of natural ecosystems that have the deepest direct and indirect impacts on human activities and well-being, as well as the most significant material exchanges and interactions, are key subjects of research in the process of realizing the SDGs and the coupling of human–land systems. In recent years, the state has increasingly prioritized the construction of ecological civilization at the strategic level, and the cultivated land protection policy has shifted from focusing purely on quantity protection to a comprehensive approach that includes quantity, quality, and ecological protection. However, there are still many problems in the formulation and implementation of the current cultivated land protection policy, such as policy simplification, lack of flexibility and insufficient transparency in implementation, and lack of effective monitoring mechanisms. Therefore, it is important to deepen understanding of the influence process, key factors, and interaction mechanisms between cultivated land ecosystem services and human well-being to construct a theoretical analysis framework and assessment index system of cultivated land ecosystem service value suitable for social development, to clarify the driving force of change in cultivated land ecosystem service value, to scientifically develop policies for cultivated land ecological compensation, and to enhance human capacity in governing and transforming natural ecosystems, thereby achieving the sustainable development of cultivated land resources.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Proposal, Characteristics, and Core Connotation of Capability Approach Theory

2.1.1. Proposal and Characteristics of Capability Approach Theory

In the 1980s, Amartya Sen (hereinafter referred to as “Sen”), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, introduced the capability approach in his seminal work Development as Freedom. Sen evaluates development and human well-being through the lens of human capabilities and substantive freedoms, establishing a set of measurable quality-of-life indicators. In Sen’s view, the capability approach is central to assessing individual well-being and evaluating whether societal conditions align with ideal developmental goals. The capability approach transcends the superficiality and one-sidedness of traditional economic perspectives that use income levels to define poverty, emphasizing individual rights, opportunities, and values. Traditional welfare economics often uses income or utility to measure welfare. However, this measurement has many shortcomings, primarily the following: ignoring the impact of goods and services not traded through the market on individual welfare; overlooking the heterogeneity of human beings; and focusing only on the results of choices while ignoring the choices themselves. The capability approach theory shifts the focus from goods and needs to individual capabilities and choices. From a methodological perspective, its strength lies in providing a more comprehensive and integrated framework. This framework takes into account not only the influence of the external environment but also the intrinsic capabilities and choices of individuals, which helps guide public policy design. In addition, capability approach theory, which is based on assessing the impact of policies on individual capabilities, emphasizes the concepts of substantive freedoms (capabilities) and outcomes (achievable functions), arguing that functioning determines an individual’s actual situation and, in particular, the actual life choices a person faces. It stresses that people should be given as many opportunities and resources as possible to realize their latent capabilities.

2.1.2. Core Connotation and Measurement Analysis of Capability Approach

The capability approach addresses and transcends the limitations of traditional economics. Its flexible conceptual framework supports the pluralistic evolution of the theory and establishes a more inclusive evaluation framework. Martha C. Nussbaum [7] offers an in-depth interpretation of the capability approach, categorizing capabilities into intrinsic and mixed types. She identifies 10 core elements—such as health, imagination, thinking, and practical rationality—to expand its conceptual framework. The central idea of viability theory is to adopt meaningful behaviors and gain meaning in life based on the individual’s ability [8]. From the above definition, it is clear that the concept of capability approach contains two core components, function and capability. First, function refers largely to the favorable effect of something or a particular way. According to Sen, a functional activity is a valuable and meaningful activity to achieve a certain state of life. The level of functional activity is the result of a person’s work, directly impacting the quality of his or her life. Next is “competence”, or “viability”, which refers to the overall quality of a person’s performance in a task. Sen defines “competence” in a broader sense, encompassing both what an individual is supposed to be able to do and a comprehensive consideration of the individual’s social context, such as competition for a position in a particular situation and the personal qualities required of the individual. Sen is therefore more concerned with the impact of the social context and public policy on competence. Functioning and capabilities are interrelated but distinct. From a relational perspective, an individual’s capabilities define the range of functional activities available to them; greater capabilities equate to greater freedom of choice. Functions are the external manifestation of talents and also reflect the strength or weakness of a person’s abilities. From the point of view of differentiation, the fact that an individual has a particular ability does not necessarily mean that he can fulfill the corresponding function. Therefore, functional activity is only a manifestation of ability, which does not comprehensively and truly reflect a person’s existence, and the only thing that can truly reflect the degree of freedom and the number of opportunities for choice is the ability of potential [9].
Numerous scholars both at home and abroad have been expanding and citing the theory, mainly analyzing economic and social issues from the following aspects: first, welfare measurement. The ultimate goal of human development is to enhance well-being. Grounded in dialogue with and critique of traditional welfare theories, the capability approach posits that the foundation of welfare measurement lies in an individual’s substantive freedom to choose a life they have reason to value, offering a new perspective for the study of social welfare [10]. Based on the capability approach and China’s “Five-in-One” strategic framework, a welfare evaluation system has been constructed to conduct in-depth research on overall characteristics, regional differences, spatial dynamics, and structural decomposition [11]. Based on Sen’s theory and combined with the practice of capital to the countryside, Li and Huang [12] examined the functional activities that make up the welfare of farm households from five aspects: economic status, social security, living conditions, landscape environment, and psychological factors. The results show that the welfare status of farm households improved to a certain extent after capital to the countryside, approaching the intermediate level of welfare. Second is poverty governance. With the elimination of absolute poverty in China, “post-poverty eradication era”, “relative poverty”, and “viable capacity poverty” have become key words. Sen’s capability approach analysis framework is suitable for analyzing sustainable and solid poverty eradication, and it is clear that the “resource endowment–production capacity–capability approach” is an effective way to achieve sustainable and stable poverty eradication [13]. Based on Sen’s capability approach theory, ref. [14] constructed a multidimensional urban relative poverty indicator system that includes 15 indicators on economic conditions, political rights and interests, social opportunities, protective safeguards, and transparent guarantees of the income and welfare dimensions, proposing a targeted path for the governance of relative poverty in China’s cities and towns. Third is community governance capacity building. Residents are the main force of community governance. Based on the perspective of the capability approach, we chose two core variables, namely participation opportunities and autonomy, and analyzed participation affairs, participation projects, participation teams, and participation systems to put forward the “evergreen tree” path of residents’ participation in response to the problem of residents’ “weak participation”. Through analyzing the two core variables of participation opportunities and autonomy, we proposed the “evergreen tree” path of residents’ participation to address the problem of residents’ weak participation and encourage community residents to become participants in community governance [15].

2.1.3. Application of Capability Approach

As early as 2005, the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) reported that 63% of ecosystem services were in serious decline globally, a trend expected to continue over the next 50 years, posing significant threats to human well-being. These threats also directly affect people’s well-being [16]. According to the report, human well-being is defined as people’s experiences, including access to basic material necessities, freedom of choice and movement, good health, strong social relationships, cultural identity, and personal and environmental security. Ecosystem services are defined as the services provided by ecosystems, comprising four primary functions: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. Human well-being is described in terms of five dimensions: security, basic material needs, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice and action. This framework, centered on ecosystem services and human well-being, was developed to assess the global and regional loss of ecosystem services and their impacts on human well-being, with significant and lasting implications. However, this broad yet ambiguous definition in the MA framework can lead to confusion and varying interpretations in practical applications, thereby affecting the measurement of ecosystem services. Wallace [17] argues that the MA framework confuses ends (services) and means (processes) in its categorization of ecosystem services. The criteria for categorizing provisioning services should be based on the outcomes of the services that ecosystems provide to human well-being. That is, the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being should be the object of measurement (the end), whereas ecosystems as providers of services (the means), as well as natural processes and assets, should not be regarded as services perse.
On the basis of the MA framework, since 2010, valuation assessment methods for ecosystem services have been continuously developed, including frameworks such as TEEB, ESPA, and SEEA-EEA, which explore the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being from different perspectives and have been practically applied in countries such as the Netherlands and South Africa, as well as in regions such as Scotland, etc., while international organizations such as IPBES and CICES have continued to optimize the assessment indicator system and methods. With the in-depth research on ecosystem services and the deepening of their understanding, scholars are increasingly concerned about how to explore them qualitatively and analyze them quantitatively to understand the inherent logical relationships and interactions between ecosystem services and people’s well-being [18]. In recent studies, combining capability approach with ecosystem services has been recognized as a highly regarded and promising approach that expands research thinking [19,20]. The capability approach research framework was developed by Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize winner in economics, to propose a new method to measuring well-being based on traditional welfare economics. Sen defines well-being as a function of capability approach, referring to the combination of functional activities that a person may achieve. He emphasizes that welfare is created not by the goods themselves, but by the opportunities and activities they bring. A person’s ability approach refers to his freedom to make choices in different areas of life [21,22]. This approach places functioning and capabilities at the core of the concept, emphasizing that the most important goal of development is to “expand people’s capabilities”, not just economic growth. Based on this conceptualization, Sen proposes five instrumental freedoms for development: political freedoms, economic conditions, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective safeguards [21,23]. This innovative conceptual understanding of well-being provides an operational research framework for empirical and normative studies of well-being measurement in welfare economics [23]. Sen’s research framework has also been widely applied abroad to the study of human development, resource allocation, and environmental and sustainable development issues. In China, scholars have combined the mechanisms of welfare change, the magnitude of influencing factors, and exploratory studies of different groups based on the capability approach research framework, which is characterized by a high degree of openness [24,25].

2.2. Progress of Research on Ecosystem Services and Value Assessment of Cultivated Land

As a complex combination of semi-natural ecosystems and socio-economic subsystems, cropland ecosystems are the natural ecosystems most closely linked to human activities, providing immense value to human society. On the one hand, they play an important role in food and raw material supply, biodiversity conservation, climate regulation, environmental purification, and culture, aesthetics, and life security [26]. In addition to the traditional functions of private goods and services (crop production), arable land also involves some “non-private” functions, such as soil conservation, water conservation, gas regulation, biodiversity conservation, provision of recreation and tourism, transmission of agricultural civilization, protection of basic human needs, and other externalities and public goods. On the other hand, the externalities and public goods provided by cropland ecosystems are challenging to measure accurately. This leads to imbalances such as an imbalance between supply and demand for cropland ecosystem services, tightening resource constraints, and ecological degradation, necessitating the need for precise valuation of multifunctional services.
During the period of agriculturalization, the production of agricultural products and raw materials was the primary function of arable land [27,28]. As socio-economic and agro-technological developments have significantly increased crop yields from cropland, the demand for multifunctional uses of cropland has also risen [29]. Commodities and products from cropland are marketed as commodity crops, providing economic value and benefits to farmers [30,31]. In addition to supplying agricultural products and raw materials, cropland plays a vital role in climate regulation, water conservation, and biodiversity protection. The support services of cropland ecosystems differ from other service functions by having indirect or long-term impacts on people, while other categories exert relatively direct and short-term effects. As social systems develop and material needs for cultivated land are met, people place greater emphasis on non-material benefits, such as spirituality and culture. The non-material benefits derived from cropland ecosystems, such as spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences, have led to the development of another type of cropland function: cultural landscape functions [32,33]. Such functions are seen as “secondary products” of the interaction between cropland systems and social systems. An example is farmers’ perceptions of their connection to arable land, clan spirituality, and religious values, or even knowledge systems and educational concepts developed by different cultures through traditional agrarian thinking [34], social relations established with specific cultures, cultural landscapes [35], architectural inspirations [36,37], and with eco-agricultural tourism [38], the desire of urban dwellers far from the countryside to enjoy idyllic scenery and experience rural culture [39], and so on. Based on this, accurately assessing cropland ecosystem services and providing a scientific basis for enhancing the sustainable management of cropland is the focus of this paper.

2.3. Research Synthesis

To sum up, scholars at home and abroad have conducted extensive research into the capability approach, the coupling relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services, indicators for measuring cropland ecosystem services, value evaluation, and methodological optimization. The literature reveals the following characteristics and trends: first, the existing research framework on the value of cropland ecosystem services has conducted a series of studies focusing on the reasons for the formation of the value, the mechanisms influencing it, the classification and the construction of the indicators, and so on. The research primarily uses the MA framework and gradually expands its value connotation. In the future, greater emphasis will be placed on studying the complex interaction mechanism between ecosystem service value and human well-being, and the capability approach framework, as an important means of well-being research, has broadened the new horizons of the research. Secondly, the measurement of the ecosystem service value of cropland has changed from material value to multifunctional cropland ecosystem service valuation research that emphasizes both material and immaterial value. It gradually focuses on how to improve the accuracy of immaterial value measurement with various modern technologies, and the cross-fertilization of multidisciplinary methods is becoming increasingly evident.
Through comparison and sorting, we see that domestic and foreign scholars still need to explore the following aspects of changes in farmers’ welfare and the capability approach, as well as the methodology and framework of arable land ecosystem service valuation and dynamic simulation and response to ecological compensation policies.
First, the welfare analysis framework for the value of cropland ecosystem services is not yet clear, and the multidimensional well-being aspects of cropland ecosystems, the indicator system, and the quantification methods still require further improvement. This requires a comprehensive analysis of the core connotations of cropland ecosystem services, human well-being (capability approach), various direct and indirect transmission paths interacting between the characteristics, and the forms of expression; according to the existing literature and the characteristics of the research object, we can select the indicators that are operable, quantifiable, and empirically verifiable to set up the indicator system. Secondly, in the empirical research on the value of ecosystem services of cultivated land, there are more qualitative studies on non-material values. Quantitative studies need to be strengthened, and the use of quantitative results to guide macro and micro scientific decision-making needs to be further explored. In view of the shortcomings of the above studies, this paper tries to use multidisciplinary theories and technical means and methods to establish a framework based on capability approach theory that meets the needs of human well-being for assessing the value of cropland ecosystem services. It also conducts empirical tests so as to provide a scientific decision-making basis for proposing implementable paths for cropland ecosystem services and realizing the goal of ecological civilization construction.

3. Theoretical Framework Construction and Research Methodology

As a semi-natural, semi-artificial ecosystem with complex resource utilization, diverse functions, and dynamic development, the study of cultivated land ecosystems intersects with multiple disciplines, such as management, economics, and geographic science. With the advancement of ecological civilization, there is an urgent need to explore the coupling relationship between cultivated land ecosystem services and human well-being in depth. This paper attempts to introduce Sen’s capability approach to comprehensively analyze and evaluate the value of cultivated land ecosystem services, which is significant for optimizing and achieving sustainable development of cultivated land ecosystems in the future. On the basis of sorting out the research context of cultivated land ecological protection, this chapter follows the current realistic needs of high-quality development of agriculture and rural revitalization, incorporates the characteristics of cultivated land ecosystems, and constructs a theoretical framework for the assessment of cultivated land ecosystem service value under the perspective of capability approach in terms of conceptual integration, connotation definition, and functional classification.

3.1. Theoretical Framework Construction

3.1.1. Conceptual Integration: Capability Approach and Ecosystem Services

Conceptual integration is essential for theoretical research, as it provides a coherent foundation for analysis. Clear definitions of the capability approach and ecosystem services provide a foundation for analyzing their value assessment and mechanisms of their realization. This section explores the core elements of the capability approach framework in detail, further clarifying its multidimensionality, applicability, and necessity as a new perspective in ecosystem service research. Sen’s capability approach provides an analytical framework that critiques standard welfare economics and proposes an alternative approach to policy assessment. Traditional neoclassical welfare economics, grounded in utilitarianism, fails to sufficiently address values such as freedom and justice. It also neglects the dimension of human agency in development and is more suited to analyzing static social efficiency. However, there is a complex and uncertain relationship between ecosystem services and well-being on multiple scales. Most existing research focuses on conceptual frameworks, mechanisms of action, and other related factors, but lacks a multidimensional, systematic, and comprehensive evaluation. The performance and capacity of ecosystem services depend on their functioning, with complex interactions among internal elements and various ecosystem services. A given ecosystem service can impact multiple dimensions of human well-being, while trade-offs among different services significantly influence overall well-being [40]. Therefore, integrating the capability approach with ecosystem services facilitates multidimensional analysis and provides new insights.
Existing studies on ecosystem services and human well-being overlook various factors, including different types of values, population aggregation and preferences, regulation of rights, focus on a single land use type, and insufficient attention to changes and their drivers across scales [41]. Starting from the main features of the capability approach, the traditional resource endowment theory, utility theory, happiness theory, and pleasure theory used to evaluate human well-being are inadequate and incomplete. The capability approach, based on a liberal perspective on well-being, shifts the focus of measuring well-being from income to the constituent elements of life. It proposes replacing the traditional utility view of well-being with the “capability” approach, which emphasizes the individual’s ability to survive and develop. The “good life” within the feasible framework consists of a series of functions or multidimensional combinations of “behaviors” and “existence” that people have reasons to value, such as “access to education” and “participation in community life” [42]. The freedom to choose one’s life contributes immensely to human well-being. At the same time, this freedom has intrinsic significance, empowering individuals with autonomy and the ability to make decisions freely across a wide range of choices and actions. A key aspect of human life is the ability to make decisions through rational thought and choice. However, the reality is that we do not just pursue our personal well-being but instead choose what we have reason to pursue [43].

3.1.2. Connotation Definition: Characteristics and Core Essence of Cultivated Land Ecosystem Services Under the Feasible Capability Framework

The cultivated land ecosystem is a complex human–land coupling system based on natural ecosystems, characterized by multiple economic, ecological, and social functions, along with dual attributes of nature and society. As such, it often has ambiguous and gradual boundaries. Scholars offer various insights into the structure, process, and function of cultivated land ecosystem services, leading to ambiguities in defining the concept. The reason for this is that, on the one hand, cultivated land ecosystems exhibit multifaceted and intertwined complexities, and the functions, structural characteristics, and coupling relationships among the elements directly affect the development of the system. Compared with natural ecosystems, cultivated land ecosystems are characterized by a high degree of purposefulness, openness, efficiency, vulnerability, dependence, etc., and thus their ecological service functions are special [44,45], and their connotations have been studied in depth and developed continuously along with their structures, functions, and ecological processes. On the other hand, human activities alter cultivated land resources and their structure, which in turn changes the type, quantity, and quality of land use, leading to shifts in the structure and function of the cultivated land ecosystem [46]. Therefore, the theoretical complexity and practical diversity make it difficult to establish a clear and unified definition and classification system for cultivated land ecosystem services.
As research on the structure, processes, and service mechanisms of cultivated land ecosystems remains insufficient, rapid urbanization and intensified agricultural activities have led to the overexploitation and unsustainable use of cultivated land resources. These issues have contributed to an ongoing decline in cultivated land area, which in turn has led to a deterioration in its ecosystem services. Within the complex “nature–economy–society” interaction, cultivated land ecosystems are closely linked to cultivated land utilization activities, and the former is dependent on the latter’s artificial inputs, such as fertilizers, irrigation, and agricultural machinery [47]. Using GIS spatial analysis and SketchUp models, Bian et al. [48] studied the spatial distribution pattern of ancient cultivated land, elements of cultivated land, and cultivation behaviors to explore the characteristics of ancient cultivated land ecosystems; Wu [49] explored scientific ways to solve the difficulties of the sustainable use of cultivated land by carrying out a study on the spatial and temporal evolution of the ecosystem services of cultivated land and the prediction of multiscenarios. From a conceptual perspective, the “cultivated land ecosystem” referred to in this paper is a complex human–land coupling system based on natural ecosystems. It consists of interrelated elements and interactions with various economic, social, ecological, and cultural functions, as well as dual attributes of nature and society. It is classified as a semi-natural, semi-artificial cultivated land composite system. The artificial cultivated land composite system, with its complex and diverse structure, regional differences, and dynamic evolution of the characteristics of the concept, and the cultivated land ecosystem structure, both its function and its ecological process, have undergone in-depth study and gradual conceptual development.

3.1.3. Functional Classification: Establishing a Classification System for Cultivated Land Ecosystem Services Under the Capability Approach

In the study area, this section focuses on the functional characteristics, classification, and value of cultivated land ecosystem services (Figure 1). First, we embedded the core elements of the capability approach into the MA framework to clarify how ecosystem services contribute to human multidimensional well-being. Second, we integrated the natural and artificial characteristics of cultivated land ecosystems and drew on international assessment systems such as TEEB and IPBES to categorize the multifunctionality of cultivated land ecosystems. Finally, we developed a preliminary classification system for cultivated land ecosystem services under the capability approach. Under the capability approach, economic services correspond to provisioning services in the MA framework and ecological services correspond to regulating and supporting services, while cultural services remain unchanged. To emphasize individuals’ substantive freedom to pursue a valued life within cultivated land ecosystems and to link ecosystem services to human well-being, a new “social services” function was introduced into the MA framework, resulting in four primary functional classifications: economic, social, ecological, and cultural services.
In this paper, the ecosystem services of cultivated land are categorized. The economic service of the cultivated land ecosystem refers to the production of agricultural products and raw materials. It satisfies the growing demand for ecological products, making it the most fundamental function of cultivated land. From the perspective of the use of physical products, these services can be categorized into food supply function and raw material supply function. Cultivated land ecosystems provide essential food for survival, cash crops, and raw materials for light industries, forming the core of their economic service function. The social service function of cultivated land includes social security (basic life, old age, employment, and medical care), social stability (food security), and freedom of choice. Unlike the human well-being analysis framework, the capability approach emphasizes individuals’ substantive freedom to pursue lives they have reason to value. Therefore, the valuation framework for cropland ecosystem services should fully account for the social service function of farmers’ freedom of choice. The ecological service function of cultivated land involves interactions between cropland ecosystems and the ecological environment through processes of material, energy, information, and economic flows. These processes help maintain ecological balance and support a healthy environment. The ecological service value of cultivated land, including climate regulation, water conservation, soil protection, and biodiversity maintenance, is predominantly indirect; the cultural service function of cultivated land refers to the non-material benefits people derive from cultivated land ecosystems, such as spiritual enrichment, knowledge acquisition, subjective perception, recreation, and aesthetic appreciation. These benefits include cultural and scientific research values. These include but are not limited to recreation, cultural value, and scientific research value. These ecosystem service values directly or indirectly affect the valuation of cultivated land ecosystem services.

3.2. Research Methods

3.2.1. Research Objectives

This study aimed to build a theoretical analytical framework for the valuation of cultivated land ecosystem services from the perspective of the capability approach, conduct an in-depth analysis of the coupled relationship between cultivated land ecosystem services and human well-being, and explore its intrinsic connections and underlying mechanisms. Through this innovative theoretical framework, we will further explore practical and feasible pathways to achieve the sustainable utilization of cultivated land ecosystems and ecological compensation, aiming to provide a scientific and practical basis for addressing the severe challenges of decreasing land area, declining quality, and ecological degradation faced by cultivated land today.

3.2.2. Specific Research Methods

(1)
Literature research method: Through a comprehensive search of authoritative academic databases at home and abroad, such as Web of Science and China Knowledge, we extensively reviewed the Chinese and English literature on the valuation of ecosystem services of cultivated land, the application of the feasible capability approach in the ecological field, and ecological compensation mechanisms in recent years. By reviewing, summarizing, and critically analyzing this body of literature, we can gain a deeper understanding of the current research status, key issues, and development trends in related fields, thereby laying a solid theoretical foundation for this study.
(2)
Interview method: In-depth interviews were conducted in representative areas such as sugarcane planting regions, eco-agriculture project zones, and mountainous terraced ecosystems to understand farmers’ perceptions and practical needs regarding cultivated land ecosystem services through face-to-face exchanges. Additionally, discussions with government officials were held to identify key challenges in policy formulation and implementation, thereby providing a practical basis for subsequent research.

4. Exploring Diversified Paths to Enhance the Ecosystem Services of Cultivated Land in the New Era

Cultivated land, as one of the most important public natural resources, possesses multiple value attributes. Human demand for cultivated land is diverse, stratified, and regional. The value of cultivated land adjusts according to the changing demands of different entities, requiring these factors to be fully considered when exploring practical pathways for its utilization. Based on the previous theoretical framework, this study has systematically explained the complexity of the classification of ecosystem services of cultivated land and its internal logic, and it has laid a solid theoretical foundation for subsequent practical research and policy formulation. Building on this, this chapter explores ways to integrate diversified contexts and challenges in the new era to enhance the ecosystem services of cultivated land.

4.1. Enhancement Paths Based on the Theoretical Framework of Multivalue Assessment

Protecting cultivated land resources and maintaining their quality is not only fundamental to guaranteeing national food security and promoting sustainable agricultural development but also essential for developing sustainable ecological compensation policies. In practice, it is necessary to establish and improve the cultivated land compensation system based on scientific standards for cultivated land compensation to fully realize the social and ecological functions of cultivated land. Given the evolving understanding of the value of cultivated land ecosystems, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive and unified understanding of cultivated land and fully recognize both its market and non-market values, as well as its short-term and long-term values, when building a new framework for cultivated land protection. Based on the capability approach framework and taking into account the characteristics of cultivated land ecosystems, it is important to comprehensively consider the values of economic, social, ecological, and cultural services. We should introduce both market and non-market values into the evaluation system of cultivated land ecosystem services to make the evaluation results more objective and reliable. Additionally, services that have a key impact on social stability and ecological security should be prioritized by ranking them based on the importance of their service function and the urgency of demand. Priority should be given to enhancing service functions that significantly impact social stability and ecological security. At the same time, pathways for synergistic development among governments, farmers, enterprises, and other stakeholders should be established. From the perspective of the capability approach, there are differences in the perception and demand for the ecosystem service value of cultivated land among different subjects. For farmers, they are more concerned about the service functions related to economic returns and basic livelihood security, such as the market value of agricultural products and agricultural subsidies. The government, by contrast, focuses more on service values related to ecological security and social equity, such as the protection of the ecological diversity of cultivated land and the safeguarding of vulnerable groups. Enterprises may focus more on the commercial development potential of cultivated land resources.

4.2. Establishing a Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Policy Based on Farmers’ Welfare Capacity and Preferences

Cultivated land ecosystem services evolve over time under the influence of natural evolution and stages of socio-economic development. Notably, human activities play a key role. As an integral part of the cultivated land ecosystem, humans interact dynamically with other elements of the ecosystem. Specifically, this is mainly manifested in the direct or indirect impacts of human activities on cultivated land ecosystems.
This, in turn, leads to changes in human well-being. Therefore, in the management of cultivated land ecosystems, the factor of human activities cannot be ignored. As the users and beneficiaries of cultivated land ecosystems, humans actively engage in ecosystem protection and bear the responsibility of appropriately regulating ecosystems to maintain ecological benefits. Therefore, ecological compensation policies for cultivated land should adopt a people-oriented approach to meet human needs and achieve well-being goals. People’s choices largely determine the content of protection, management, and utilization of cultivated land ecosystems, and the choices people make are based on judgments of needs, values, and interests. Therefore, in the process of optimizing the compensation policy for cultivated land ecosystems, it is crucial to balance and properly deal with conflicting needs and subjective preferences among various interest groups. While adhering to the people-centered approach, we also need to weigh the various alternatives available in order to realize the goal of humans living in harmony with nature.

4.3. Enhancing the Value and Protection of Cultivated Land Ecosystem Services Through Dynamic Policy Adjustment

With socio-economic development and technological progress, the framework for assessing the value of cultivated land ecosystem services needs to be continuously adjusted. Current policy support for cultivated land ecosystems is insufficient, and the systematic implementation, precision, and integration of classification policies must be improved. Policymakers should adjust policies promptly in response to new needs and circumstances, establish a policy feedback mechanism, gather feedback from various stakeholders, and redefine policy objectives based on these changing demands. This will help motivate diverse stakeholders to protect cultivated land and promote the realization of its ecological product value. For example, while ensuring food security, policies should promote the development of leisure agriculture for cultivated land around cities. For traditional agricultural production areas, policies should focus on increasing the added value and market competitiveness of agricultural products, effectively enhancing the comprehensive value of cultivated land ecosystem services. Meanwhile, scientific and technological innovation is an important driving force in enhancing the value of cultivated land ecosystem services. Increasing investment in R&D related to cultivated land ecosystem services, fostering collaboration between research institutions and enterprises, and accelerating the application of technological advancements will dynamically enhance the value of these services.

5. Discussion

Developing a scientific and effective classification system for ecosystem services is a crucial aspect of ecosystem service research and serves as the foundation for a comprehensive and objective evaluation of their value. In his 1997 Nature paper, The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, ecologist Robert Costanza was the first to classify natural ecosystem services into 17 categories on a global scale. This classification objectively revealed the market and non-market values of global ecosystems, marking a crucial step toward a comprehensive analysis of the services provided by Earth’s ecosystems to humanity. In 2001, the United Nations launched the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), which focuses on analyzing ecosystem services in four categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural. It examines the relationships between ecosystem changes and human well-being. This definition and classification scheme is now widely recognized globally and has had a significant impact. This categorization demonstrates a highly systematic approach and provides the necessary foundation for subsequent research. Building upon the MA framework, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in 2010 further advanced the valuation of ecosystem services and divided them into four major categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and habitat services, with a total of 22 subcategories. However, the TEEB assessment results have not been widely accepted, which has limited the practical application of this framework. Meanwhile, the Ecosystems Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) program in 2010 adopted an ecological network assessment approach based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and conducted several practical case studies. These studies have demonstrated that effective ecosystem management requires full consideration of socio-economic factors and can have a positive impact on poverty reduction. In 2014, the United Nations and other international organizations collaboratively released the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA). At the national level, the Netherlands has developed a detailed ecosystem value accounting report based on the SEEA-EEA standards. Meanwhile, South Africa has compiled a detailed and region-specific ecological product inventory considering the unique characteristics of its ecosystems and regularly publishes regional ecosystem value accounting reports. In 2015, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reconstructed the system of indicators for evaluating nature’s contributions to human well-being. It categorized these contributions into 18 subcategories under three main categories: regulation of environmental processes, material and supporting, and non-material. Additionally, it emphasized the role of socio-cultural factors and local knowledge in shaping these contributions. However, this framework is still being optimized, and its assessment tools and methodologies require further refinement. The 2017 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) introduced a hierarchical model of “ecosystem structure and processes—functions—services—benefits—values”. The 2017 CICES framework constructs a hierarchical model of “ecosystem structure and processes—functions—services—benefits—values”, further investigating the relationships among ecosystem functions, services, well-being, and values.
Compared with existing frameworks, this study builds on the MA framework by systematically evaluating the characteristics and advantages of various ecosystem service classification frameworks, such as TEEB, ESPA, IPBES, SEEA, and CICES. It clarifies the objectives, indicator selection, and development trends of these frameworks, enhances the understanding of cultivated land ecosystem services, integrates insights from domestic and international value assessment studies, and ensures a comprehensive and systematic approach to ecosystem service classification. This approach enhances existing theories on the value of cultivated land ecosystem services, expands the scope of multifunctional land value theory, and addresses the limitations and ambiguities in value assessment and welfare analysis. Additionally, it ensures that the classification system remains comprehensive and systematic. It is expected to contribute to new advancements in both theoretical and practical research on land value.
Due to both subjective and objective factors, existing research still has limitations that require further refinement in future studies. First, further empirical validation of the theoretical framework is needed. The relationship between cultivated land ecosystem services and human interests is complex and dynamic, involving multiple influencing factors at various levels. This study develops a theoretical framework for valuing cultivated land ecosystem services under the capability approach, broadening the concept of farmers’ welfare in the context of cultivated land ecological protection. However, the factors affecting the value of cultivated land ecosystem services remain diverse and complex, and the existing framework is not yet capable of comprehensively accounting for all potential influences. Future research should further refine the conceptual framework of cultivated land ecosystem services and aim to conduct empirical validation across scales by building a long-term panel dataset to address multidimensional and multilevel challenges.
Second, the spatial scale needs to be expanded. This study primarily focuses on assessing ecosystem services in a specific region or type of cultivated land. Although a relatively comprehensive theoretical framework has been developed, its applicability to other regions or different types of cultivated land ecosystems may be constrained. Future research should consider cross-regional comparative studies in various geographic regions, agricultural production methods, and ecological contexts. Additionally, practical validation should be broadened to enhance the framework’s generalizability and applicability. The interactions between cultivated land ecosystem services, climate change, and land use changes should also be further explored. Additionally, the effects of various environmental policies on ecosystem services warrant further study.
Third, the research methodology requires further refinement. The applicability of different methods for valuing cultivated land ecosystem services varies significantly. Among the mainstream methods for valuing cultivated land ecosystem services, the parameter calculation rules in the Equivalent Factor Method, the Ecosystem Service Function Assessment Method, and the Energy Value Method require urgent clarification. Additionally, the applicability and substitutability of these parameters should be examined across different accounting scales and evaluation objectives. Further clarification is needed on the conditions under which different valuation methods for cultivated land ecosystem services apply, as well as the rules for parameter selection, to enhance the accuracy of these valuation methods.

6. Conclusions

Due to the complexity, uncertainty, and interdependencies associated with human well-being and cultivated land ecosystem services, traditional theories and methods struggle to scientifically assess these impacts. Therefore, multidisciplinary approaches are needed to innovate key theories and methods, thereby reducing analytical bias. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relevant concepts, definitions, and implications of cultivated land ecosystem services, the capability approach to well-being, and their boundaries, among other aspects. By integrating the capability approach into the MA framework while considering the characteristics of cultivated land ecosystem services, this study yields the following conclusions.
(1)
Multiple values of cultivated land ecosystem services. Research indicates that cultivated land ecosystems not only provide direct food and resources for humans but are also essential for soil and water conservation, climate regulation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity protection. The ecological services of cultivated land are multidimensional; they not only affect agricultural production but also have a significant influence on ecosystem health and human well-being. Therefore, the diversity and complexity of cultivated land ecosystem services should be carefully considered when formulating agricultural and environmental policies.
(2)
Innovation in the theoretical framework for the valuation of cultivated land ecosystem services. This study proposes an innovative theoretical framework for the valuation of cultivated land ecosystem services from the perspective of the capability approach, providing new theoretical insights for the field. Theoretical innovations in valuing cultivated land ecosystem services are advanced through conceptual integration, the definition of key concepts, and functional categorization. The study shows that the value of cultivated land ecosystem services is directly and closely related to human well-being. Incorporating human well-being into the valuation framework of cultivated land ecosystem services enables a more effective analysis of the relationship between ecological protection and economic development. In particular, the impacts of cultivated land ecosystem services on farmers’ quality of life and social well-being vary significantly across regions and under different modes of agricultural production. Therefore, policies should be tailored to the specific needs of different regions, balancing ecological protection and social well-being.
(3)
Cultivated land ecological compensation policy optimization. Considering the concept of farmers’ welfare capacity, policies should aim to achieve the sustainable development of cultivated land. As the primary stakeholders directly benefiting from and participating in cultivated land ecological compensation, farmers’ willingness plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of compensation policies. This theoretical framework enables the precise identification of key values and determinants of cultivated land ecosystem services across different regions, providing scientific references for formulating differentiated protection policies and ecological compensation mechanisms to address human needs and enhance farmers’ welfare capacity. A sound assessment of cultivated land ecosystem service values can help guide the rational allocation of resources, foster a positive interaction between land protection and economic development, and achieve a synergy of ecological, economic, and social benefits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.T.; Methodology, Z.C.; Validation, Z.C.; Formal analysis, Y.T. and J.L.; Investigation, Y.T.; Data curation, Y.T. and J.L.; Writing—original draft, Y.T. and Z.C.; Writing—review & editing, Y.T.; Visualization, J.L.; Funding acquisition, Y.T. and Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China (24YJC630024), the Guangxi Annual Research Projects in Philosophy and Social Sciences (24SHC003), and the Open Fund Project of the Guangxi Industrial High-Quality Development Research Center (23GXGY31).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Su, J.; Li, Z. Research on Sustainable Utilization of Cultivated Land in Yunnan Province Based on Improved Ecological Footprint Model. J. Yunnan Agric. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2021, 36, 124–131. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  2. Lescourret, F.; Magda, D.; Richard, G.; Adam-Blondon, A.-F.; Bardy, M.; Baudry, J.; Doussan, I.; Dumont, B.; Lefèvre, F.; Litrico, I.; et al. A Social-Ecological Approach to Managing Multiple Agro-Ecosystem Services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bielski, S.; Marks-Bielska, R.; Novikova, A.; Vaznonis, B. Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments. Agriculture 2020, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bussel, L.G.J.V.; Haan, N.D.; Remme, R.P.; Lof, M.E.; De Groot, R. Community-Based Governance: Implications for Ecosystem Service Supply in Berg en Dal, the Netherlands. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Negash, E.; Getachew, T.; Birhane, E.; Gebrewahed, H. Ecosystem Service Value Distribution Along the Agroecological Gradient in North-Central Ethiopia. Earth Syst. Environ. 2020, 4, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Langerwisch, F.; Václavík, T.; von Bloh, W.; Vetter, T.; Thonicke, K. Combined Effects of Climate and Land-Use Change on the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Rice Agro-Ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 13, 015003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nussbaum, M.C. Frontiers of Justice; Zhu, H.; Xie, H.; Chen, W., Translators; Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2016; p. 195. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lu, B. An Analysis of Development from the Perspective of Capability: A Study on Amartya Sen’s Development Thoughts. J. Yunnan Adm. Coll. 2006, 12–15. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yao, J. A New Perspective on Welfare Research: Theoretical Starting Point, Connotation, and Evolution of Capability Approach. Foreign Soc. Sci. 2018, 2, 53–67. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, W.; Wang, Y. Regional Disparities, Dynamic Evolution, and Structural Decomposition of Welfare Levels in China from the Perspective of Capability Approach. Quant. Tech. Econ. 2021, 38, 45–66. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, Y.; Huang, K. Research on Welfare Changes of Farmers During Capital Investment in Rural Areas: Based on the Capability Analysis Framework of Amartya Sen. Contemp. Econ. Manag. 2018, 40, 40–47. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  13. Yan, L.; Zhu, Y. Research on the Path to Sustainable Poverty Alleviation Based on Sen’s Capability Theory. J. Gansu Adm. Coll. 2018, 4, 119–125. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  14. Peng, X.; Zhang, C. Identification Standards and Governance Pathways for Urban Relative Poverty from the Perspective of Capability Enhancement. Seek. Truth 2022, 68–80+111. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, B. The “Evergreen Tree” Path: Building Residents’ Community Governance Capabilities from the Perspective of Capability Approach. J. Cent. China Norm. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023, 62, 73–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  16. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Phys. Teach. 2005, 34, 534. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wallace, K.J. Classification of Ecosystem Services: Problems and Solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Costanza, R.; De Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Grasso, M. Twenty Years of Ecosystem Services: How Far Have We Come and How Far Do We Still Need to Go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martins, N.O. Ecosystems, Strong Sustainability and the Classical Circular Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 129, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chaigneau, T.; Brown, K.; Coulthard, S.; Daw, T.M.; Szaboova, L. Money, Use and Experience: Identifying the Mechanisms through Which Ecosystem Services Contribute to Wellbeing in Coastal Kenya and Mozambique. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 38, 100957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, A.S. Capital Humanoy Capacidad Humana Human Capital and Human Capacity. Cuad. De Econ. 1998, 17. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuklys, W.; Robeyns, I. Sen’s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics. In Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 9–30. [Google Scholar]
  23. Robeyns, I. Ethics of Global Development: Agency, Capability, and Deliberative Democracy. In Ethics & International Affairs; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nie, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, A. Research on the Factors Influencing the Multidimensional Well-Being of Land-Lost Farmers During Urbanization. China Rural Surv. 2013, 86–93. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bao, H.; Ye, Q. Human-Centered Scale and Welfare Balance in the Transformation of Urban Villages: Based on Amartya Sen’s Capability Theory. China Land Sci. 2015, 29, 25–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Costanza, R.; Adrge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Van Den Belt, M. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Critchley, C.N.R.; Fowbert, J.A.; Sherwood, A.J.; Pywell, R.F. Vegetation Development of Sown Grass Margins in Arable Fields under a Countrywide Agri-Environment Scheme. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duro, J.A.; Lauk, C.; Kastner, T.; Erb, K.-H.; Haberl, H. Global Inequalities in Food Consumption, Cropland Demand and Land-Use Efficiency: A Decomposition Analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 64, 102124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, C.H.; Wu, L.; Lin, H.L. Analysis of Total-Factor Cultivated Land Efficiency in China’s Agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2010, 56, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Y.; Li, X.; He, H.; Xin, L.; Tan, M. How Reliable Are Cultivated Land Assets as Social Security for Chinese Farmers? Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chan, K.M.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Balvanera, P.; Klain, S.; Satterfield, T.; Basurto, X.; Bostrom, A.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Gould, R.; Halpern, B.S.; et al. Where Are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. BioScience 2012, 62, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.A.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; et al. Contributions of Cultural Services to the Ecosystem Services Agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 8812–8819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Schmitz, M.F.; Herrero-Jauregui, C.; Gutiérrez-Angonese, J.; Pineda, F.; Montes, C. Identifying Socio-Ecological Networks in Rural-Urban Gradients: Diagnosis of a Changing Cultural Landscape. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Beilin, R.; Lindborg, R.; Stenseke, M.; Pereira, H.M.; Llausàs, A.; Slätmo, E.; Cerqueira, Y.; Navarro, L.; Rodrigues, P.; Reichelt, N.; et al. Analysing How Drivers of Agricultural Land Abandonment Affect Biodiversity and Cultural Landscapes Using Case Studies from Scandinavia, Iberia and Oceania. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Van Zanten, B.T.; Zasada, I.; Koetse, M.J.; Ungaro, F.; Häfner, K.; Verburg, P.H. A Comparative Approach to Assess the Contribution of Landscape Features to Aesthetic and Recreational Values in Agricultural Landscapes. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 17, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Amo DG, D.; Montes, C. Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles Through Social Preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, J.; Lin, Y.; Zhai, T.; He, T.; Qi, Y.; Jin, Z.F.; Cai, Y.M. The Role of Human Activity in Decreasing Ecologically Sound Land Use in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 446–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Knook, J.; Turner, J.A. Reshaping a Farming Culture Through Participatory Extension: An Institutional Logics Perspective. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 78, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Alberti, M.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Ostrom, E.; Pell, A.N.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Ambio A J. Hum. Environ. 2007, 36, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dawson, N.; Martin, A. Assessing the Contribution of Ecosystem Services to Human Wellbeing: A Disaggregated Study in Western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yao, J. Beyond the Welfare State: Reflections on the Concept of Free Development. Zhongzhou Acad. J. 2016, 6, 65–71. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Yuan, Z. The Dialectical Relationship Between “Capital Logic” and “Labor Happiness” from the Perspective of Practical Rationality: Based on Amartya Sen’s Theory of Freedom and Capability. J. Shanghai Norm. Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2020, 49, 24–35. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Yin, F.; Mao, R.; Fu, B.; Liu, G. Functions and Formation Mechanisms of Agro-Ecosystem Services. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 929–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Xie, G.; Xiao, Y. Advances in the Study of Agro-Ecosystem Services and Their Values. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2013, 21, 645–651. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhen, L.; Xie, G.; Yang, L.; Chen, C.; Guo, G.; Liu, X. The Impacts and Conflicts of Human Activities on Village-Scale Land Use Patterns in the Jinghe River Basin. Resour. Sci. 2007, 201–207. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Song, X.; Wang, X.; Hu, S.; Xiao, R.; Scheffran, J. Functional Transition of Cultivated Ecosystems: Underlying Mechanisms and Policy Implications in China. Land Use Policy 2022, 119, 106195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bian, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Guo, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Jin, W.; Wang, C.; Yu, M. Identification of Ancient Cultivated Land Ecosystems in China Based on Ancient Poetry. Soils Bull. 2023, 54, 549–558. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  49. Wu, S. Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Multi-Scenario Prediction of Cultivated Land Ecosystem Services in the Yangtze River Economic Belt; China University of Geosciences: Wuhan, China, 2022. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Land 14 00464 g001
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this paper.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this paper.
Land 14 00464 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, Z. How Can the Capability Approach Contribute to a New Perspective on the Value of Cropland Ecosystem Services? Land 2025, 14, 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030464

AMA Style

Tang Y, Liu J, Chen Z. How Can the Capability Approach Contribute to a New Perspective on the Value of Cropland Ecosystem Services? Land. 2025; 14(3):464. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030464

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tang, Yi, Junzhu Liu, and Zhoupeng Chen. 2025. "How Can the Capability Approach Contribute to a New Perspective on the Value of Cropland Ecosystem Services?" Land 14, no. 3: 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030464

APA Style

Tang, Y., Liu, J., & Chen, Z. (2025). How Can the Capability Approach Contribute to a New Perspective on the Value of Cropland Ecosystem Services? Land, 14(3), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14030464

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop