Next Article in Journal
Efficient Real-Time Row Detection and Navigation Using LaneATT for Greenhouse Environments
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Co-Optimization of Parameters for Sub-Models of Grain and Leaf Growth in Dryland Wheat via the DREAM-zs Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ecuadorian Littoral Musaceae Producers’ Typification Based on Their Production Systems, Agronomic Management, Biosecurity Measures, and Risk Level Against Foc TR4
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/agriculture16010108
agriculture-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:
Review

A Review of Research on the Responses of Agricultural Households to Eco-Compensation in China

by
Zhidong Li
1,2,
Lidan Xu
1,2,
Wangtengfei Teng
1,2,
Yuwei Teng
3,
Moucheng Liu
4 and
Xiaohong Zeng
1,2,*
1
Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences/Key Laboratory of Applied Research on Tropical Crop Information Technology of Hainan Province, Haikou 571101, China
2
Hainan Tang Huajun Academician Workstation, Haikou 571101, China
3
Tropical Crop Genetic Resource Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Haikou 571101, China
4
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2026, 16(1), 108; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16010108
Submission received: 14 November 2025 / Revised: 29 December 2025 / Accepted: 29 December 2025 / Published: 31 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Resilience of Smallholder and Family Farms)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The responses of agricultural households are the central link in China’s eco-compensation, which directly determines the efficiency and effectiveness of compensation. This article reviewed the connotation, influencing factors, and ultimate effectiveness of agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation in China. The results indicated that agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation mainly includes reducing production intensity, optimizing production methods, and changing livelihood types. On this basis, taking protected objects such as farmland, grassland, forests, and watersheds as examples, the specific connotation of the responses was explained. Subsequently, according to policy mechanisms, sustainable livelihood theory, and planned behavior theory, the factors that affect agricultural households’ responses have been sorted out, forming a systematic factor system framework. In addition, focusing on the policy objectives of eco-compensation, the research progress on the economic and ecological effects of agricultural households’ responses, and the final results were summarized. Finally, this article identifies four shortcomings in the current research, namely imbalanced research fields, incomplete contextual impact, nonspecific ecological effects, and immature improvement strategies. The future literature should strengthen research in key fields and areas, focus on the correlation between contexts and responses, integrate multiple disciplines to accurately evaluate ecological effects, and demonstrate the improvement mechanism of agricultural households’ responses.

1. Introduction

Since the second half of the 20th century, China’s economy has developed rapidly, but it also faces challenges in ecological sustainability [1]. In order to achieve higher yields, many agricultural systems have developed high-intensity and high-input farming practices, leading to ecological and environmental threats such as soil acidification [2], water pollution [3], massive emissions of greenhouse gases [4], and a decline in biodiversity [5]. In recent years, the Chinese government has placed great emphasis on ecological civilization construction, striving to build a modern society where humans and nature coexist in harmony. To coordinate the relationship between protection and development and internalize the externalities of the ecological environment, eco-compensation has emerged [6].
China’s eco-compensation is similar in connotation to the widely mentioned “Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)” internationally [7,8,9], and it has been implemented in many ecosystems such as forests [10,11,12], grasslands [13,14], watersheds [15,16], and farmland [17]. Agriculture, as one of the industries with the closest interaction between humans and nature [18], has become an important area for China’s industrial ecological transformation. The main mode of current agricultural eco-compensation practice in China is for the government to provide various supportive services and policies to agricultural households, stimulate them to make ecological responses, and indirectly restore the functions of the agricultural ecosystem [19,20]. The responses of agricultural households to eco-compensation are crucial. From a theoretical perspective, they are the key to interpreting the mechanism of agricultural eco-compensation and can serve as a policy reference. From a practical perspective, they are the central link in the compensation process, directly affecting the final efficiency and effectiveness.
With the deepening of academic research on agricultural households’ responses in the background of eco-compensation, more and more studies have shown that the connotation of the responses is rich. Firstly, the ways in which agricultural households respond are diverse. The general compensation policy not only imposes restrictions on agricultural production but also provides guidance for transformation, which brings choices to agricultural households [21]. Secondly, each response is often accompanied by a complex decision-making process. This process is influenced by various factors such as land endowment [22], household income [23], and education level [24]. Finally, when the production methods of agricultural households change, a series of ecological and socio-economic impacts may arise [25]. Achieving the goal of compensation by guiding agricultural households to respond is a continuous task. However, most of the current literature only focuses on a certain aspect of research and lacks systematicity. In terms of the entire compensation process, systematic research has the following three advantages: Firstly, it helps to clarify the mechanisms of each link and form a more complete research system; secondly, it helps to comprehensively summarize various factors that affect the effects of compensation, providing scientific references for policy makers; thirdly, it can discover the shortcomings of current research from a broader perspective and provide ideas for future research. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review the relevant research on agricultural households’ response under the background of China’s eco-compensation policy, including its connotation and types, influencing factors, and ultimate effects.

2. Research Framework on Agricultural Households’ Response to Eco-Compensation in China

2.1. Research Scope

The research object of this review was the responses of agricultural households in the context of eco-compensation in China. Broad agriculture includes four categories: crop cultivation, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery. Therefore, in this review, agricultural households covered various planting households and breeding households involved in land management (Figure 1). Regarding the background of this review, according to China’s Regulations on Ecological Protection Compensation, the scope of eco-compensation in China covers forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, oceans, watersheds, and farmlands, as well as other important ecological and environmental elements such as aquatic biological resources, terrestrial wildlife, and plant resources stipulated by laws, administrative regulations, and national stipulations. To match the production subject of agricultural households, this study focused on eco-compensation mechanisms and policies related to agricultural development, namely forests, grasslands, cultivated lands, watersheds, and aquatic biological resources. The reasons are as follows: Firstly, the compensation in these fields has provided varying degrees of ecological transformation support for agricultural households’ planting production [26] or breeding production [27,28]. This is consistent with the theme of this study. Secondly, these fields currently have complete policy mechanisms. Compared to other fields, their compensation theory and specific practices are more mature [29,30,31,32].

2.2. Core Contents

As mentioned earlier, the responses of agricultural households are the central link of eco-compensation. In order to systematically sort out the response of agricultural households, this study mainly focused on three aspects: Firstly, the most fundamental aspect is the connotation of the responses. Under the policy of eco-compensation, how do agricultural households respond? Subsequently, by reviewing a large amount of the literature, the “causes” and “results” of agricultural households’ responses were analyzed. “Causes” are the influencing factors of agricultural households’ response to compensation. This review systematically summarized the relevant basic theories, factor types, and analysis combinations, ultimately forming a factor indicator system. This provided a paradigm and reference for future research. “Results” are the diverse effects of agricultural households’ responses. This is a direct evaluation of the eco-compensation policy. Research has shown that eco-compensation is a public institutional arrangement that improves the ecological environment through socio-economic means, so the effects of compensation often have multiple aspects [33,34,35]. Therefore, this review summarizes the types of effects and practical results of agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation. Finally, based on the conclusion, the shortcomings of the current research were pointed out, and suggestions for future research directions were proposed.

3. The Connotation and Types of Agricultural Households’ Response to Eco-Compensation in China

Many countries and regions around the world have implemented practices of improving the ecological environment through economic incentives. PES directly corresponds to the concept of ecosystem services and is widely applied worldwide [36,37,38]. In practice, there are also some concepts that are similar to PES. One is the agri-environmental schemes (AES), which is regarded as a sub-type of PES, aiming to address Europe’s environmental and climate goals [39,40,41]. Another is the eco-compensation mentioned in this study, which is widely applied in China. Although the concepts are similar, the most crucial feature of eco-compensation is that it is large-scale, government-led, and has already issued regulations [42,43].
In the general PES research literature, internationally, scholars often use “participation” to express the behavior of agricultural households (considered participants) supporting PES [44,45,46]. This is because PES emphasizes motivation more, and participants have a higher degree of voluntariness when choosing whether to support PES. However, in China, although many studies also use PES to refer to China’s eco-compensation [47,48,49], it has certain characteristics in essence. The main differences between “response” in this study and “participation” in PES lie in two aspects. The first is the difference in responsibilities. In China, eco-compensation has always been promoted through large-scale institutional arrangements [50,51]. Some provisions in compensation policies are both incentives and obligations for agricultural households. Therefore, in this situation, using “response” to describe the support of Chinese agricultural households for eco-compensation could be more accurate. The second is the difference in connotation. “Participation” emphasizes more direct feedback to PES activities. The connotation of “response” in this study not only includes this kind of feedback but also encompasses other adaptive adjustments made by agricultural households in their production and livelihood in the context of eco-compensation.
This study divided the responses into two steps and three ways (Table 1). Firstly, the compensation policy clearly requires that when land resources such as farmlands, grasslands, forests, and watersheds are used for restrictive or protective purposes, agricultural households should take actions to comply with the policy requirements while receiving compensation support (funds, technology, and instruction). For example, in order to protect natural resources, fallow policies encourage agricultural households to stop long-term farming activities for a certain period of time [17]. The grassland ecological protection subsidy and reward policy encourages agricultural households to reduce grazing intensity in accordance with the requirements of grazing prohibition and grass-livestock balance [19]. The policy of grain for green encourages agricultural households to stop planting activities in specific areas [52]. The fishing ban policy encourages agricultural households to reduce fishing activities in key protected watersheds [53]. In the above situation, the most basic response of the compensated agricultural households is to reduce the corresponding production intensity according to policy regulations.
Subsequently, after reducing production intensity, agricultural households received compensation support and more working time. At this point, they can integrate these resources to make other responses. There are mainly two ways: Firstly, continue to engage in production activities related to the original according to the guidance of compensation (Figure 1). But this requires optimizing production methods according to policy requirements: that is, achieving protective use of land resources through ecological transformation. For example, the protective use of farmland can be manifested as optimizing agricultural inputs [54,55], promoting green manure planting [56], carrying out crop rotation [57], and comprehensive utilization of straw [58]. Protective grassland utilization can promote cross-regional grazing, popularize manual grass-cutting, and develop barn feeding [21]. Protective forest land use can develop agroforestry [59] and cultivate economic forests [60]. Protecting watersheds can promote the conversion of nearby paddy fields to dryland agriculture [61]. Secondly, agricultural households can change their livelihood types to expand new income channels. In this case, they may abandon their original agricultural production or continue to maintain low-intensity or ecological agricultural production.
In summary, by reviewing the research on agricultural households’ responses under the background of eco-compensation in China, this study categorized agricultural households’ responses into three types: reducing production intensity, optimizing production methods, and changing livelihood types. It should be emphasized that in actual production, these three types of responses are not mutually exclusive. Agricultural households may respond to eco-compensation in multiple ways simultaneously.
Table 1. Summary of types and measures of agricultural households’ responses to eco-compensation in China.
Table 1. Summary of types and measures of agricultural households’ responses to eco-compensation in China.
TypesProtecting ObjectsSpecific ChangesReferences
Reducing production intensityFarmlandsFallowXie et al., 2022 [17]
GrasslandsReduce grazingLi et al., 2022 [19]
ForestsStop farmingLu et al., 2025 [52]
Aquatic biological resourcesReduce fishingHe and Chen, 2022 [53]
Optimizing production methodsFarmlandsReducing chemical inputsLiu et al., 2020 [54]
Appling organic fertilizerYi et al., 2021 [55]
Planting green manureNtakirutimana et al., 2019 [56]
Crop rotationZhang et al., 2025 [57]
comprehensive utilization of crop strawJiang et al., 2025 [58]
GrasslandsManual grass-cuttingLi and Liu., 2023 [21]
Breed improvement
Cross-regional grazing
Barn feeding
ForestsAgroforestryZhu and Wang, 2015 [59]
Cultivating economic forestsLiu et al., 2025 [60]
WatershedsPaddy land to dry landHong et al., 2020 [61]
Changing livelihood typesMulti-fieldNon-farm livelihoodWen et al., 2022 [62]
Xu and Feng, 2025 [63]

4. The Influencing Factors of Agricultural Households’ Response to Eco-Compensation in China

The enthusiasm of agricultural households in responding to policies directly affects the efficiency of compensation. This also makes its influencing factors one of the most prominent research hotspots in the field of eco-compensation in China. At present, academic research on the influencing factors of agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation generally includes two perspectives: The first is the influencing factors of response willingness, analyzing which factors affect agricultural households’ psychological acceptability [64]. The second is the response result, analyzing which factors drive the actual behaviors of agricultural households [65]. These two perspectives have their own advantages and disadvantages. The analysis of willingness helps eliminate interference from other contexts, allowing research to focus on agricultural households’ recognition and expectations of eco-compensation. But there are often varying degrees of differences between the willingness and the actual outcomes. The analysis of actual behavior focuses on factual results and has higher reliability. But some actual behaviors are formed by various contexts for a long time. It is difficult to clarify the relationship between the behaviors and eco-compensation in research. However, whether from the perspective of intention or outcome, this study classified the influencing factors into three categories, namely policy mechanism (PM), objective conditions (OCs), and subjective attitude (SA) (Figure 2).
The first is a policy mechanism. It is a combination of eco-compensation rules and implementation. The core rule of ecological compensation in China is the methods and standards [19]. The compensation methods generally include two types: transfusion type and hematopoietic [66], with specific paths including providing subsidies, training, and materials [67]. There are differences in agricultural households’ preferences for various methods [65,68]. The compensation standard represents the intensity of compensation in a specific method, typically expressed as the amount of compensation, and it also influences the livelihood choices of agricultural households [69]. In addition, the implementation of policies represented by supervision and contract duration [70,71], as well as the satisfaction and trust of agricultural households towards the entire compensation mechanism, is also an important factor that affects their responses [21,22]. Overall, the impact of the policy mechanism on agricultural households’ responses stems from their preferences and experiences regarding the rules and their implementation.
Under the influence of the policy mechanism, the final response of agricultural households is also constrained by their own factors, which include both objective factors and subjective factors. The specific indicators of these two types of factors can generally be covered by two theories, namely the theory of sustainable livelihoods and the theory of planned behavior (Table 2). And these two theories were also frequently mentioned in the literature and correspond to different research perspectives [21,72].
When analyzing objective factors, the theory of sustainable livelihoods is applicable. The relevant indicators reflect the capital and capabilities of agricultural households in responding to eco-compensation. This study, based on the analysis framework of sustainable livelihood theory, sorted out the relevant indicators that appeared in the literature. These indicators belong to vulnerability contexts [73,74], livelihood assets [71,75,76,77,78], transforming structures and processes [79], and livelihood outcomes [21]. Among them, indicators related to livelihood assets appeared frequently in previous studies. Livelihood assets reflect the resources and capabilities of agricultural households to resist shocks and transform their livelihood strategies [80,81]. The sustainable livelihood theory divides livelihood assets into five categories: human capital, social capital, natural capital, material capital, and financial capital. Some studies may also expand into information capital and cultural capital [81,82]. It is worth noting that the influencing factor indicator system constructed based on sustainable livelihood theory was often dominated by objective indicators.
When analyzing subjective factors, the theory of planned behavior provides an applicable framework. The relevant indicators capture agricultural households’ cognition and intentions regarding eco-compensation responses. The theory of planned behavior is a core theory in social psychology research. This theory suggests that behavioral intention is related to behavior, and behavioral intention can be predicted through attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [83]. In this type of research, scholars mostly construct indicator systems based on the above factor types and then analyze the factors that affect agricultural households’ responses through statistical methods.
In addition, in some empirical studies, scholars combined different types of factors to construct analytical frameworks for a comprehensive analysis of influencing factors. For example, research that combined sustainable livelihood theory with compensation mechanisms not only included the impact of policies but also reflected the conditions for agricultural households to respond, which belongs to a comprehensive analysis of objective factors [21]; research that combined the theory of planned behavior with compensation mechanisms not only reflected the subjective willingness of farmers to respond but also demonstrated their views of policy mechanisms, which belongs a comprehensive analysis of subjective factors [72]. Of course, subjectivity and objectivity are not completely separate, which usually manifests in two aspects. Firstly, some studies have integrated the theory of planned behavior and sustainable livelihood theory to establish econometric models, achieving a combination of subjectivity and objectivity [84]. Secondly, there are studies that independently construct a factor system that simultaneously includes both subjective and objective indicators [65].
Table 2. Summary of factors influencing agricultural households’ responses.
Table 2. Summary of factors influencing agricultural households’ responses.
Factor TypesSubclassesSpecific Indicators or Factor DescriptionsReferences
Compensation policy and mechanismCompensation methodsFund compensation
Technology compensation		Yang and Zheng, 2021 [65]
Compensation standardsSubsidy amountsQiu et al., 2022 [69]
Compensation implementationSupervision intensity
Contract duration		Pang and Jin, 2021 [70]
Giefer et al., 2021 [71]
Compensation recognitionSatisfaction
Level of trust in policy		Li and Liu., 2023 [21]
Xie et al., 2017 [22]
Theory of sustainable livelihoodVulnerability contextsLocation characteristic
Road infrastructure
Industrial structure
Economic growth		Démurger and Pelletier, 2015 [73]
Liu et al., 2024 [74]
Livelihood assetsHousehold size or number of agricultural workers
Education level
Farmland size
Farmland quality
Household income
Feasibility of loan
Possession of houses
Possession of livestock
Possession of agricultural machines
Possession of durable consumer goods
Social network
Energy structure		Giefer et al., 2021 [71]
Sheng et al., 2019 [75]
Wei et al., 2021 [76]
Liu et al., 2018 [77]
Shen et al., 2025 [78]
Transforming structures and processesIn addition to eco-compensation, it also includes related supporting systems such as social security and employment assistance.Chen, 2023 [79]
Livelihood outcomesIncome change
Food safety change
Disaster resilience change		Li and Liu., 2023 [21]
Theory of planned behaviorAttitudes toward the behaviorPositive/negative attitudes towards protecting/destroying the ecology
Perception of ecological and economic benefits of compensation policies		Deng et al., 2016 [85]
Peng et al., 2022 [64]
Subjective normsPressure from neighbors
Trust in the government and people around		Shi et al., 2019 [86]
Dai et al., 2025 [84]
Perceived behavioral controlCapacity
Policy perception		Shi et al., 2019 [86]
Jin et al., 2020 [72]
Behavioral intentionThe willingness of households to respondPang et al., 2021 [87]

5. The Effects of Agricultural Households’ Response to Eco-Compensation in China

As mentioned earlier, China’s eco-compensation has dual economic and ecological goals. Therefore, evaluating the effects of agricultural households’ responses should also be considered from both economic and ecological perspectives (Table 3). Firstly, in terms of the economy, scholars were concerned about the impact of eco-compensation policies on agricultural households’ income. Generally speaking, eco-compensation changes agricultural households’ income through two key points. The first is compensation funds provided by the government to agricultural households, which not only provide a stable source of income for agricultural households but also change their income structure [52,88]. The second is that after agricultural households optimize their production methods or expand their livelihood types, their economic benefits may change accordingly [89]. As research deepens, scholars’ focus has shifted from income levels to issues such as income inequality [90], cost–benefit ratio [91], livelihood asset index [92], and energy transition [93]. Overall, agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation not only helps improve their income level and optimize their income structure but also promotes social equity to a certain extent and drives the development of the industry.
As for ecological effects, unlike economic effects, it is difficult to conduct micro-level evaluations at the household scale. Scholars used to assess a certain area through remote sensing technology or monitoring data [94,95]. The strategy followed in this evaluation is often to compare the relevant ecological indicator values before compensation (agricultural households have not responded) and after compensation (agricultural households have responded) in the same region [91,96]. The advantage of this strategy is that it can directly quantify the ecological changes before and after compensation. But the disadvantage is that this change may be caused by multiple factors, making it difficult to separate the impact of factors other than compensation on the results. But overall, research showed that the ecological effects in various fields are often positive [91,94,95,96].
Although these ecological and economic effects are generally positive, some controversies are worthy of attention. The first is the balance between production and ecology. The limitations imposed by eco-compensation on resource utilization may lead to difficulties for related industries in maintaining raw material supply [97]. Research should not focus solely on the ecological effects while neglecting the necessary agricultural production. The balance between protection and development deserves attention. The second is the differences in effects among individuals. The overall positive effect does not mean that there are no differences among individuals [98]. For those agricultural households that benefited little from the compensation, differentiated policy measures are needed to motivate them. This is conducive to promoting social equity and enhancing the enthusiasm of agricultural households to respond. The third is the other externalities caused by eco-compensation. For example, studies have shown that although the paddy land-to-dry land program implemented in the Miyun Reservoir increased water yield, it also increased the application rates of nitrogen and phosphorus [91]. This might offset some of the ecological effects. The fourth is the challenge of achieving sustainable effects. Once compensation stops or funds decrease, agricultural households may resume their improper use of resources. To prevent this situation, efforts should be made to promote technological eco-compensation models and support agricultural households in establishing stable ecological industries.

6. Discussion

This review presented China’s eco-compensation experience to scholars worldwide, particularly focusing on the incentives for agricultural households’ responses and their effects. Although most of the cases are from China, many of its research conclusions have reference value for the PES worldwide.
In terms of theory, the research framework presented in this review is also applicable to PES. In PES and AES research, the participation of agricultural households and the final ecological and economic outcomes also hold a significant position [99,100]. The multi-response of this study could provide new ideas for PES research. Regarding the influencing factors of agricultural households’ response/participation, the research on agricultural households’ participation in the PES or AES also focuses on mechanism design, as well as the subjective attitudes and objective conditions of agricultural households [101,102,103]. The indicator system of the influencing factors derived from this study involves the theory of sustainable livelihood and the theory of planned behavior, both of which are universal academic theories. They are applicable in general PES or AES scenarios [104]. As for the effects, this study involved macroscopic ecological effects, which could be used as a reference for large-scale PES projects.
In terms of practice, China’s eco-compensation is a large-scale public institutional arrangement, emphasizing government leadership. While PES places greater emphasis on market-based approaches, the apparent gap between the two frameworks is narrowing in practice. In China, the market mechanism for eco-compensation is developing rapidly, and it has achieved success, particularly in watershed horizontal compensation [105,106]. Furthermore, new market mechanisms such as forest ecological banks and tourism eco-compensation possess the same flexibility as small-scale PES [107,108]. At the same time, due to the advantages in fundraising, management, and promotion, the government also plays an important role in PES and AES [39,46]. Therefore, the market-oriented development of the eco-compensation and the significance of government support for PES have made the connection between the two increasingly close. During the compensation/payment process, particularly regarding the motivation of agricultural households, the experiences from both approaches offer valuable lessons for mutual learning.
In the context of China’s rural revitalization agenda, large-scale eco-compensation serves as a driver of economic development. Consequently, scholars have paid particular attention to changes in agricultural households’ income and livelihood strategies [109,110]. For PES and AES programs, achieving economic benefits may be a less urgent priority compared to eco-compensation schemes. Nevertheless, numerous studies have examined their economic effects [99,111]. This might be carried out to achieve multiple goals or to promote the continuous participation of agricultural households.

7. Conclusions

This article reviewed the connotation, influencing factors, and ultimate effects of agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation in China. The results indicated that agricultural households’ response to eco-compensation mainly includes reducing production intensity, optimizing production methods, and changing livelihood types. These three types of responses are not mutually exclusive. On this basis, taking protected objects such as cultivated lands, grasslands, forests, watersheds, and aquatic biological resources as examples, the specific connotation of agricultural households’ response was explained. Subsequently, according to policy mechanisms, sustainable livelihood theory, and planned behavior theory, the factors that affect agricultural households’ responses have been sorted out, forming a systematic factor indicator system framework. Finally, focusing on the policy objectives of eco-compensation, the research progress on the economic and ecological effects of agricultural households’ responses and the final results were summarized.
Although current research on eco-compensation in China is increasingly emphasizing the response of agricultural households, there are still some shortcomings specifically manifested in the following four aspects.
Firstly, there is an imbalance in research fields. China’s Regulations on Ecological Protection Compensation cover forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, oceans, watersheds, and farmland, as well as other important ecological and environmental elements such as aquatic biological resources, terrestrial wildlife, and plant resources stipulated by laws, administrative regulations, and national stipulations. Obviously, there is a lack of research on agricultural households’ responses in areas such as deserts, oceans, and terrestrial wildlife resources. Meanwhile, the proportion of research on the responses of agricultural households in important protected areas represented by national parks is relatively small.
Secondly, the impact of context is not comprehensive. Sustainable livelihoods is one of the most fundamental theories for studying agricultural households’ responses. However, current research often focuses more on the impact of livelihood assets on responses, and the understanding of the impact from vulnerability contexts is not comprehensive enough. Factors such as policies, markets, and culture have a significant impact on agricultural households’ livelihood decisions, but currently, research tends to focus on surveys within households, with limited understanding of external contexts.
Thirdly, the ecological effects are not specific. As mentioned earlier, current research on ecological effects is mostly conducted from a macroperspective. This perspective weakens the role of agricultural households’ responses, which is reflected in two aspects: The first issue is that the effects of natural factors are difficult to separate, resulting in the inability to accurately extract the compensation effects. The second is that the effectiveness of various responses from agricultural households is integrated together, making it difficult to distinguish the roles of each response.
Fourthly, the strategies for improvement are not detailed enough. Existing agricultural household response studies have proposed related strategies for improving mechanisms. But these strategies are always limited to simple policy recommendations and ideas. Many compensation improvement mechanisms still require scientific verification; otherwise, they cannot support policy improvements.

8. Future Directions

Based on the above shortcomings, this study proposes the following suggestions for future research (Figure 3).
  • Strengthening research in key areas and protected areas
Systematic research on compensation mechanisms and agricultural household responses in fields such as wetland, ocean, and desert should be given due attention in the future. In addition, China’s Regulations on Ecological Protection Compensation not only clarify the classification of eco-compensation fields but also propose to establish an ecological protection compensation mechanism for natural protected areas with national parks as the main body. National parks are important protected objects with extremely high ecological value worldwide. Guiding agricultural households to scientifically respond to eco-compensation is one of the important paths to coordinate the protection and development of national parks. It is necessary to focus on the collaborative strategy between agricultural households’ responses and national park protection goals.
2.
Focusing on the correlation between contexts and agricultural households’ responses
Many external context factors deserve attention, including at least the following four points: The first is policy synergy. Against the backdrop of China’s vigorous promotion of rural revitalization, in addition to eco-compensation, there are many policies and subsidies that benefit agriculture. They may all have certain impacts on the production and life of agricultural households. Future research could focus on how to improve the efficiency of policy resource utilization by promoting policy synergy. The second is the influence of culture. China has a rich traditional culture. Many cultural customs contain the connotation of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. How to use the value of these cultures to empower agricultural ecological transformation is worth considering. The third is the impact on the natural environment. The impact of the natural environment on agricultural households’ livelihoods is evident, and in some ecologically fragile areas, the impact of factors such as climate change and natural disasters on their response should be given priority consideration. The fourth is the development of the economy. The level of regional economic development may be one of the important factors affecting the response of agricultural households in different regions of the same ecosystem, and this impact could become an important basis for formulating differentiated policies.
3.
Multidisciplinary integration for precise evaluation of ecological effects
As mentioned earlier, eco-compensation is the process of indirectly restoring ecological functions by incentivizing agricultural households to respond through economic means. Therefore, from the perspective of policy mechanisms, the ecological effects of compensation belong to the interdisciplinary field of ecology and economics. Only through the integration of disciplines can more accurate evaluations be made. The following aspects could be referred to: Firstly, conduct micro-level ecological effect research through long-term positioning observation and combine digital management technology to analyze the effects of agricultural households’ responses in nearby areas using the control variable method, which can help eliminate the influence of natural factors. Secondly, quantify the economic value of ecological effects through ecological economics theory. This brings the possibility of calculating the cost-benefit of compensation. The results not only contribute to the establishment of market mechanisms but also provide decision-makers with feedback on compensation outcomes. Thirdly, strengthen ecological baseline surveys. Fully consider the marginal benefits of ecological restoration and set appropriate ecological protection goals based on different ecological conditions and background situations.
4.
Studying the improvement mechanism of agricultural households’ responses
After discovering numerous factors that affect agricultural households’ responses, we believe that future research on mechanism improvement can be carried out in the following three aspects: The first is how to optimize the response. Since agricultural households’ responses are diverse, it is necessary to study how to identify and guide them to make the optimal response that is suitable for their current family situation and meets their compensation needs. This is of great significance for improving compensation efficiency and ensuring the livelihood security of agricultural households. The second concerns how to enhance household responses. Based on the analysis of influencing factors, study the path to improve agricultural households’ response and conduct a feasibility analysis. How to overcome the long-term behavioral inertia of agricultural households and build an efficient supervision and management system deserves special attention. The third is how to continuously respond. In cross-sectional studies, it is difficult to identify interruptions in agricultural households’ responses. Long-term tracking research could be conducted on agricultural households to identify the key reasons for the interruption of their responses and explore long-term mechanisms to support sustained responses.
Finally, from a global perspective, this study suggests that future work should focus on experience sharing and efficiency improvement. For instance, effective government management is one of the distinctive features of China’s eco-compensation. This is of great help in achieving the multiple benefits of compensation, especially in income growth. However, the efficiency of the compensation might be relatively low. PES places greater emphasis on market-oriented approaches. This helps enhance the accuracy and efficiency. But it also poses challenges for large-scale activities and the stability of funds. Whether it is eco-compensation or PES, how to integrate the advantages of both and better leverage the roles of the government and the market is what future research needs to explore. This is of vital importance for improving the response and achieving the final benefits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.L., M.L. and X.Z.; methodology, Z.L., L.X., W.T. and M.L.; software, Z.L. and Y.T.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L., L.X., W.T. and Y.T.; writing—review and editing, Z.L., L.X., W.T. and Y.T.; project administration, Z.L., L.X. and X.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.L. and X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research and the APC were jointly supported by the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund (No. 1630012025504) and the Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences for Science and Technology Innovation Team of National Tropical Agricultural Science Center (No. CATASCXTD202528).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bryan, B.A.; Gao, L.; Ye, Y.; Sun, X.; Connor, J.D.; Crossman, N.D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Wu, J.; He, C.; Yu, D.; et al. China’s response to a national land-system sustainability emergency. Nature 2018, 559, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhang, W.; Wei, C.; Li, J.; Zhou, Q.; Ma, J.; Li, Y.; He, Y.; Zou, Y.; Luo, Y.; Yao, Y. Stabilization of acidification in China’s cropland soils. Nat. Geosci. 2025, 18, 1125–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Liang, H.; Wu, H.; Liu, Z.; Xie, Z.; Zhu, J.; Zheng, B.; Wan, W. Application of a comprehensive framework to estimate the risk of agricultural non-point source pollution in China since 2000. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 509, 145581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, H.; Jin, X.; Zhao, R.; Han, B.; Liang, X.; Sun, R. Decoding the spatiotemporal dynamics of cropland carbon emission drivers in China: A machine learning-based analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 526, 146675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zabel, F.; Delzeit, R.; Schneider, J.M.; Seppelt, R.; Mauser, W.; Václavík, T. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Mayr, S.; Pokorny, B.; Montero-de-Oliveira, F.-E.; Reinecke, S. Scaling agroforestry through payments for ecosystem services: A scoping review. Clim. Policy 2025, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Diswandi, D.; Fadliyanti, L.; Afifi, M.; Busaini, B.; Dakwah, M.M. Harmonizing tourism and conservation through payment for ecosystem services: A case study of Gili Matra, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. 2025, 55, 101184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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. 2021, 5, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Qiu, L.; Kant, S.; Zeng, W. Modeling willingness to continue participation in payments for ecosystem services programs: A case of China’s second phase of the grain for green program in indigenous communities. For. Policy Econ. 2025, 174, 103489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, Q.; Zander, P. Resilience building of rural livelihoods in PES programmes: A case study in China’s Loess Hills. Ambio 2019, 49, 962–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Liang, Y.; Li, S.; Feldman, M.W.; Daily, G.C. Does household composition matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 75, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Behrendt, K.; Brown, C.; Qiao, G.; Zhang, B. Assessing the opportunity costs of Chinese herder compliance with a payment for environmental services scheme. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 193, 107313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jiang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Jin, L. Herdsmen’ s satisfaction and support to grassland eco-compensation policy: A SEM test based on CSI logic model. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sheng, J.; Cheng, Q.; Wu, Y. Payment for watershed services and the coordination of interests in transboundary rivers: China’s Xin’an River Basin Eco-compensation pilot. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 328, 116670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ren, Y.; Lin, F.; Fu, L.; Ren, D. The impact of ecological compensation in the Xin’an river basin on rural residents’ livelihood strategies—The moderating role of livelihood capital. J. Anhui Norm. Univ. (Hum. Soc. Sci.) 2025, 53, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xie, X.; Cui, Y.; Yao, L.; Ni, Q.; Khan, S.U.; Zhao, M. Does fallow policy affect rural household income in poor areas? A quasi-experimental evidence from fallow pilot area in Northwest China. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Campbell, B.M.; Beare, D.J.; Bennett, E.M.; Hall-Spencer, J.M.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jaramillo, F.; Ortiz, R.; Ramankutty, N.; Sayer, J.A.; Shindell, D. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, Z.; Su, B.; Liu, M. Research Progress on the Theory and Practice of Grassland Eco-Compensation in China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. Li, Z.; Liu, M. Herder households’ livelihood strategies as a response to payments for grassland ecosystem services in China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023, 34, 1375–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xie, H.; Cheng, L.; Lv, T. Factors Influencing Farmer Willingness to Fallow Winter Wheat and Ecological Compensation Standards in a Groundwater Funnel Area in Hengshui, Hebei Province, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xue, R.; Faye, B.; Zhang, R.; Gong, X.; Du, G. Farmers’ Willingness to Engage in Ecological Compensation for Crop Rotation in China’s Black Soil Regions. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, J. An Empirical Research on Eco-Compensation Strategy for Handling Non-Point Source Pollution of Water Bodies. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 4823–4838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ti, J.; Yang, Y.; Pu, L.; Wen, X.; Yin, X.; Chen, F. Ecological compensation for winter wheat fallow and impact assessment of winter fallow on water sustainability and food security on the North China Plain. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Y.; Ma, Y. Areal research and development compensation efficiency and influencing factors in grain core area. Areal Res. Dev. 2022, 41, 153–158. [Google Scholar]
  27. Han, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, R. A review and prospect of grassland ecological compensation and its impact on herders’ behavior. Resour. Sci. 2024, 46, 1447–1459. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, J.; Li, M.; Ji, H. Relationship among eco-compensation policy, income impact and life quality of herdsmen: Case of Qinghai province. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2022, 36, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, J.; Chen, Y. Intrinsic logic and implementation path of grassland ecological compensation. Grassl. Prataculture 2024, 36, 58–62. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yang, Q.; Wang, W.; Zhou, L.; Li, Y.; Lu, J. Progress and prospects of research on compensation for arable land protection. J. Southwest Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2024, 46, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sun, X.; Wang, B.; Dong, Z. Watershed Ecological Compensation: Theoretical Basis and Model Innovation. Reform 2021, 145–155. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chen, J.; Hong, Y.; Huang, G.; Yang, X.; Lin, X.; Liu, Y. Research progress on the effect of forest ecological compensation policy and its influencing factors. Issues For. Econ. 2022, 42, 477–489. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ren, L.; Li, J.; Li, S.; Li, C.; Daily, G.C. Does China’s major Payment for Ecosystem Services program meet the “gold criteria”? Targeting strategies of different decision-makers. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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]
  35. Tian, T.; Zhu, S.-Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, X.-Z.; Zhao, L.; Ullah, F.; Li, M.-Y.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Xiong, Y.-C. Livelihood-environment trade-off under the payment for ecosystem services (PES) at decadal scale in northwest China. Ecol. Front. 2025, 45, 98–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Diendéré, A.A.; Kaboré, D. Preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program to control forest fires in Burkina Faso: A choice experiment. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 151, 102973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vorlaufer, T.; Engel, S.; de Laat, J.; Vollan, B. Payments for ecosystem services did not crowd out pro-environmental behavior: Long-term experimental evidence from Uganda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2215465120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Waruingi, E.; Mbeche, R.; Ateka, J. Determinants of forest dependent household’s participation in payment for ecosystem services: Evidence from Plantation Establishment Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) in Kenya. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 26, e01514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wunder, S.; Fraccaroli, C.; Varela, E.; Bruzzese, S.; Termansen, M. Examining innovative designs of agri-environmental schemes in Europe: A case comparison of impact pathways. Ecosyst. Serv. 2025, 73, 101728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pérez-Sánchez, C.; Pierri-Daunt, A.B.; Villamayor-Tomas, S. Unraveling spatial agglomeration patterns in agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from the improvement of steppe habitats in the Natura 2000 network in Catalonia (Spain). Land Use Policy 2024, 142, 107145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wittstock, F.; Paulus, A.; Beckmann, M.; Hagemann, N.; Baaken, M.C. Understanding farmers’ decision-making on agri-environmental schemes: A case study from Saxony, Germany. Land Use Policy 2022, 122, 106371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, W.; Liu, M. Serveral Strategic Thoughts on China’s Eco-compensation Mechanism. Resour. Sci. 2010, 32, 791–796. [Google Scholar]
  43. Moioli, C.; Shrestha, A.; Roeser, D.; Wang, G.; Sunderland, T.; Zerriffi, H. Reforestation, livelihoods and income equality: Lessons learned from China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023, 34, 2838–2848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blanco, E.; Moros, L.; Pfaff, A.; Steimanis, I.; Velez, M.A.; Vollan, B. No crowding out among those terminated from an ongoing PES program in Colombia. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2023, 120, 102826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moros, L.; Vélez, M.A.; Quintero, D.; Tobin, D.; Pfaff, A. Temporary PES do not crowd out and may crowd in lab-in-the-field forest conservation in Colombia. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 204, 107652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tanaka, K.; Hanley, N.; Kuhfuss, L. Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome-based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 73, 720–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hu, Y.; Kuhn, L.; Zeng, W.; Glauben, T. Who benefits from payments for ecosystem services? Policy lessons from a forest carbon sink program in China. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 214, 107976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Howell, A. Socio-economic impacts of scaling back a massive payments for ecosystem services programme in China. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 1218–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, H.; An, L.; Bilsborrow, R.; Chun, Y.; Yang, S.; Dai, J. Neighborhood impacts on household participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in a Chinese nature reserve: A methodological exploration. J. Geogr. Sci. 2021, 31, 899–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, Z.; Rao, D.; Liu, M. The Impact of China’s Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy on the Income Gap between Herder Households? A Case Study from a Typical Pilot Area. Land 2021, 10, 1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, S.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X. Sustainable livelihood of retired fishing households in China’s Yangtze River during the 10-year fishing ban. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2025, 46, 131–143. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lu, Y.; Kong, F.; Xu, C. The impact of China’s grain for green program on farmer’s income: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ecol. Front. 2025, 45, 1165–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. He, Y.; Chen, T. Does the 10-Year Fishing Ban Compensation Policy in the Yangtze River Basin Improve the Livelihoods of Fishing Households? Evidence from Ma’anshan City, China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, M.; Chen, C.; Yang, L.; Min, Q.; Xiong, Y. Agricultural eco-compensation may not necessarily reduce chemical inputs. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 139847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yi, X.; Yu, L.; Chang, S.-H.-E.; Yin, C.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z. The effects of China’s Organic-Substitute-Chemical-Fertilizer (OSCF) policy on greenhouse vegetable farmers. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ntakirutimana, L.; Li, F.; Huang, X.; Wang, S.; Yin, C. Green Manure Planting Incentive Measures of Local Authorities and Farmers’ Perceptions of the Utilization of Rotation Fallow for Sustainable Agriculture in Guangxi, China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, R.; Du, G.; Faye, B.; Liu, H. Analysis of Farmers’ Crop Rotation Intention and Behavior Using Structural Equation Modeling: Evidence from Heilongjiang Province, China. Land 2025, 14, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jiang, Z.; Li, W.; Gao, Y. Eco-compensation policy to promote households’ behavior for comprehensive utilization of crop straw: Do the positive effects last? Sustain. Futures 2025, 9, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhu, C.; Wang, S. The conversion of cropland to forest, cropland constraint and farmer household economic behaviors. Econ. Probl. 2015, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, H.; Su, X.; Guan, J.; Zhang, H. Implementation effects of China’s forest ecological compensation policy——Literature analysis from CNKI and other databases. China For. Econ. 2025, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hong, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, F.; Yang, Y.; Dong, C. Assessment on environmental benefit of agro-ecological compensation under “Paddy Land to Dry Land” policy. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wen, Q.; Fang, J.; Li, X.; Su, F. Impact of Ecological Compensation on Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies in Energy Development Regions in China: A Case Study of Yulin City. Land 2022, 11, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xu, X.; Feng, X. Does Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy Really Promote Herders’ Collective Action in Community-Based Grassland Conservation? Evidence from Northern China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2025, 36, 6455–6468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peng, J.; Lü, H.; Qiao, R.; Yu, S.; Xu, Z.; Wu, J. Farm households’ willingness to participate in China’s Grain-for-Green Program under different compensation scenarios. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 139, 108890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yang, F.; Zheng, X. Impact of ecological compensation methods on farmers’green production behaviors from the perspective of value perception. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2021, 31, 164–171. [Google Scholar]
  66. Liu, M.; Bai, Y.; Ma, N.; Rao, D.; Yang, L.; Min, Q. Blood transfusion or hematopoiesis? how to select between the subsidy mode and the long-term mode of eco-compensation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 094059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liu, M.; Rao, D.; Yang, L.; Min, Q. Subsidy, training or material supply? The impact path of eco-compensation method on farmers’ livelihood assets. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, W. Research on Wetland Protection Behavior Decision Simulation and Optimization Strategy of Coastal Farmers—Based on CE and ABM model. Master’s Thesis, Guangxi University, Nanning, China, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  69. Qiu, H.; Su, L.; Tang, J. Effects of environmental regulation on rural livelihood diversification: Evidence from pastoral China. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 95, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pang, J.; Jin, L. Wetland ecological compensation mechanism: A case study of the Poyang Lake. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2021, 37, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Giefer, M.M.; An, L.; Chen, X. Normative, livelihood, and demographic influences on enrollment in a payment for ecosystem services program. Land Use Policy 2021, 108, 105525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jin, L.; Xu, K.; Pang, J. Impact of ecological cognition on farmers’willingness and behavior of participating sloping land conversion program: Based on survey data from two poverty-stricken counties in yunnan province. J. Agro-For. Econ. Manag. 2020, 19, 716–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Démurger, S.; Pelletier, A. Volunteer and satisfied? Rural households’ participation in a payments for environmental services programme in Inner Mongolia. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Liu, G.; Zhou, Y.; Ge, Y. The impact of diversified ecological compensation on rural households’ livelihood strategy choices: A case study of rural households in ecological protection redline zones. Rural Econ. 2024, 120–131. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sheng, J.; Qiu, H.; Zhang, S. Opportunity cost, income structure, and energy structure for landholders participating in payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from Wolong National Nature Reserve, China. World Dev. 2019, 117, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wei, X.; Khachatryan, H.; Zhu, H. Poyang lake wetlands restoration in China: An analysis of farmers’ perceptions and willingness to participate. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 125001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, M.; Yang, L.; Bai, Y.; Min, Q. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood endowments on their participation in eco-compensation policies: Globally important agricultural heritage systems case studies from China. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shen, X.; Dong, J.; Grilli, G.; Pagliacci, F.; Gatto, P. Should I stay or should I go? Farmers’ choices to remain in a PES program when policy design changes. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 384, 125552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chen, H. Research on the Mechanism of the Impact of Fishing Ban Compensation Policy in the Yangtze River Basin on the Livelihood of Fishermen. Master’s Thesis, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  80. Liu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, H.; Li, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wan, L.; Yang, S.; Liu, G.; Su, X. The role of livelihood assets in livelihood strategy choice from the perspective of macrofungal conservation in nature reserves on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2023, 44, e02478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tora, T.T.; Degaga, D.T.; Utallo, A.U. Impacts of livelihood assets on livelihood security in drought-prone Gamo lowlands of southwest Ethiopia. Geogr. Sustain. 2022, 3, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yang, L.; Liu, M.; Lun, F.; Min, Q.; Zhang, C.; Li, H. Livelihood Assets and Strategies among Rural Households: Comparative Analysis of Rice and Dryland Terrace Systems in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dai, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Hu, J.; Xu, W. Impact of ecological compensation modes on the ecological protection behavior of farmers. Econ. Geogr. 2025, 45, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Deng, J.; Sun, P.; Zhao, F.; Han, X.; Yang, G.; Feng, Y. Analysis of the ecological conservation behavior of farmers in payment for ecosystem service programs in eco-environmentally fragile areas using social psychology models. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 550, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Shi, H.; Wang, Z.; Yan, L. The influence of ecological cognition on farmers’ grain for green behavior: Based on TPB and multi-group SEM. China Land Sci. 2019, 33, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pang, J.; Qiu, S.; Jin, L. Effect of Eco-compensation Policy on Farmers’ Willing and Behavior of Wetlands Ecological Protection: Based on Poyang Lake. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021, 30, 2982–2991. [Google Scholar]
  88. Sheng, J.; Wang, H. Participation, income growth and poverty alleviation in payments for ecosystem services: The case of China’s Wolong Nature Reserve. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Li, H.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Yang, X. Impact of a cross-jurisdictional Payment for Ecosystem Services program on the participants’ welfare in North China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, J.; Feldman, M.W.; Li, S.; Daily, G.C. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 7721–7726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. 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]
  92. He, Y.; Chen, T.; Liu, Z.; Li, Q. Impact of fishing ban compensation policy on retired fishing households’ livelihoods in Yangtze River. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2023, 32, 311–323. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wang, Y.; Niu, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, X. Pathways from payments for ecosystem services to household energy transition. Ecol. Front. 2025, 45, 950–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hou, L.; Xia, F.; Chen, Q.; Huang, J.; He, Y.; Rose, N.; Rozelle, S. Grassland ecological compensation policy in China improves grassland quality and increases herders’ income. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Tao, S.; Bilsborrow, R.E.; Qiu, T.; Liu, C.; Sannigrahi, S.; Li, Q.; Song, C. Divergent socioeconomic-ecological outcomes of China’s conversion of cropland to forest program in the subtropical mountainous area and the semi-arid Loess Plateau. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 45, 101167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhao, Q.; Shen, R.; Teng, Y.; Li, X. Pilot progress and countermeasures on farmland rotation and fallow system in the groundwater funnel area of China. Soils 2018, 50, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Li, Z.; Liu, M.; Xu, L.; Teng, W.; Fang, J. Construction of Eco-Compensation Policy Framework for Natural Rubber with Production and Ecological Win–Win. Land 2025, 14, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gao, Y.; Bi, Y.; Yu, L. Understanding the impacts of ecological compensation policy on rural livelihoods: Insights from forest communities of China. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 374, 123921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Simpson, K.; Armsworth, P.R.; Dallimer, M.; Nthambi, M.; de Vries, F.P.; Hanley, N. Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions. Land Use Policy 2023, 130, 106688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jayachandran, S. The inherent trade-off between the environmental and anti-poverty goals of payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 025003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lapierre, M.; Le Velly, G.; Bougherara, D.; Préget, R.; Sauquet, A. Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 203, 107610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Bednář, M.; Biffi, S.; Domingo-Marimon, C.; Mesaroš, M.; Schüßler, C.; Šarapatka, B.; Tarčak, S.; Václavík, T.; et al. Adoption and potential of agri-environmental schemes in Europe: Cross-regional evidence from interviews with farmers. People Nat. 2023, 5, 1610–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wąs, A.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Zavalloni, M.; Viaggi, D.; Kobus, P.; Sulewski, P. In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes—Does only money matter in Poland? Land Use Policy 2021, 101, 105190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sander, A.; Ghazoul, J.; Finger, R.; Schaub, S. Participation in individual and collective agri-environmental schemes: A synthesis using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 107, 103255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Huang, W.; Yang, B. Ecological compensation policy of Xin’an River Basin on efficiency of green water resources utilization. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2024, 33, 1969–1981. [Google Scholar]
  106. Lv, W.; Fan, P.; Wang, W. Semi market-oriented environmental incentives and ecological restoration: Evidence from horizontal ecological compensation in the Xin’an River Basin. Financ. Trade Econ. 2025, 46, 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  107. Chen, X.; Ma, L.; Zhuang, D.; Zhang, L. The impacts and transmission mechnisms of “forest eco-bank” on rural households’ livelihoods—An analysis based on micro-survey data of farmers in Shunchang County. Issues For. Econ. 2025, 45, 203–215. [Google Scholar]
  108. Xu, X.; Li, L.; Zhang, F. Configurations of Market-Oriented Tourism Ecological Compensation: A csQCA Approach. J. China Tour. Res. 2023, 20, 356–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wang, B.; Lin, Y.; Ren, L.; Sun, G.; Gao, J. The impact of ecological compensation policies for public welfare forests on the livelihood strategies and income of forest farmers. Issues For. Econ. 2023, 43, 200–208. [Google Scholar]
  110. Pang, J.; Xu, K.; Jin, L. Research on the impact of wetland eco-compensation on farmers’ livelihood strategies and income: An empirical analysis of Poyang Lake. China Land Sci. 2021, 35, 72–80+108. [Google Scholar]
  111. Benjamin, E.O.; Ola, O.; Buchenrieder, G. Does an agroforestry scheme with payment for ecosystem services (PES) economically empower women in sub-Saharan Africa? Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 16 00108 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the research framework.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the research framework.
Agriculture 16 00108 g001
Agriculture 16 00108 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the types of influencing factors for agricultural households’ responses.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the types of influencing factors for agricultural households’ responses.
Agriculture 16 00108 g002
Agriculture 16 00108 g003
Figure 3. Future research suggestions on eco-compensation.
Figure 3. Future research suggestions on eco-compensation.
Agriculture 16 00108 g003
Table 3. Summary of typical studies on the ecological and economic effects of compensation.
Table 3. Summary of typical studies on the ecological and economic effects of compensation.
Effect TypesStudy AreasEvaluation ObjectsKey ConclusionsReferences
EconomyWolong nature reserve in SichuanIncome growthIncreased PES participation can promote income growth. And PES participation was more beneficial to small and medium farmers than large farmers.Sheng and Wang, 2022 [88]
Miyun reservoir in Beijing and HebeiTotal household incomeThe paddy land-to-dry land program had a positive but somewhat limited effect on total household income (increase of 2171 CNY/person).Li et al., 2018 [89]
Nationwide
(meta-analysis)		Income with different sourcesThe Grain for Green Program had a significant positive impact on total income (including subsidies) and off-farm income.Lu et al., 2025 [52]
Zhouzhi county, in ShaanxiIncome inequalityOverall, income inequality was less among households participating in the Sloping Land Conversion Program than among those that did not after 7 y of the PES program.Li et al., 2011 [90]
Miyun reservoir in Beijing and HebeiBenefit–cost ratioThe paddy land-to-dry land program has an overall benefit–cost ratio of 1.5, and both downstream beneficiaries and upstream providers gain from the program.Zheng et al., 2013 [91]
The middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze RiverLivelihood assetsThe total index of livelihood assets of retired fishery households has significantly increased, and the coupling coordination degree index of livelihood assets of retired fishery households has significantly increased.He et al., 2023 [92]
Black river basin in ShaanxiEnergy transitionThe Grain-to-Green Program promoted energy transition both directly and indirectly by increasing non-farm income.Wang et al., 2025 [93]
EcologyNationwideGrassland ecologyNDVI increased by 1.2% in grassland eco-compensation regions from the pre-program period (2006–2010) to the program period (2011–2015).Hou et al., 2021 [94]
Checheng and Jichang in ShanxiForest
ecology		During 2002–2014, the proportion of the study area in forest cover increased from 57.9% to 63.2%.Zhang et al.,2020 [95]
Heilonggang low plain area in HebeiFarmand ecologyIn the past two years since the implementation of the crop rotation and fallow system, the soil organic matter in the demonstration zone has increased by 8.6%, and the average content of total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium in the soil has increased by 15.8%.Zhao et al., 2018 [96]
Miyun reservoir in Beijing and HebeiWatershed ecologyThe paddy land-to-dry land program increased water yield by 1.82 × 107 m3 per y and reduced total nitrogen and total phosphorus by 10.36 and 4.34 tons per y, respectively. And the increase in water yield is 5% of the average runoff in Miyun Reservoir between 2000 and 2009.Zheng et al., 2013 [91]
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

Li, Z.; Xu, L.; Teng, W.; Teng, Y.; Liu, M.; Zeng, X. A Review of Research on the Responses of Agricultural Households to Eco-Compensation in China. Agriculture 2026, 16, 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16010108

AMA Style

Li Z, Xu L, Teng W, Teng Y, Liu M, Zeng X. A Review of Research on the Responses of Agricultural Households to Eco-Compensation in China. Agriculture. 2026; 16(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16010108

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhidong, Lidan Xu, Wangtengfei Teng, Yuwei Teng, Moucheng Liu, and Xiaohong Zeng. 2026. "A Review of Research on the Responses of Agricultural Households to Eco-Compensation in China" Agriculture 16, no. 1: 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16010108

APA Style

Li, Z., Xu, L., Teng, W., Teng, Y., Liu, M., & Zeng, X. (2026). A Review of Research on the Responses of Agricultural Households to Eco-Compensation in China. Agriculture, 16(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16010108

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