首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
【2h】

‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution

机译:获取鱼类与获取捕鱼技能:农民控制农业面源污染的首选补偿方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Ecological compensation is an important means for controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and compensation methods comprise an essential part of the compensation policy for mitigating this form of pollution. Farmers’ choice of compensation methods affects their response to compensation policies as well as the effects of pollution control and ecological compensation efficiency. This study divides ecological compensation methods into two distinct philosophies—the “get a fish” method (GFM) and “get a fishing skill” method (GFSM)—based on policy objectives, to determine farmers’ choice between the two methods and the factors influencing this choice. Furthermore, by analyzing survey data of 632 farmers in the Ankang and Hanzhong cities in China and using the multivariate probit model, the study determines farmers’ preferred option among four specific compensation modes of GFM and GFSM. The three main results are as follows. (1) The probability of farmers choosing GFM is 82%, while that of choosing GFSM is 51%. Therefore, GFM should receive more attention in compensation policies relating to agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. (2) Of the four compensation modes, the study finds a substitution effect between farmers’ choice of capital and technology compensations, capital and project compensations, material and project compensations, while there is a complementary relationship between the choice of material and technology compensations. Therefore, when constructing the compensation policy basket, attention should be given to achieving an organic combination of different compensation methods. (3) Highly educated, young, and male farmers with lower part-time employment, large cultivated land, and a high level of eco-friendly technology adoption and policy understanding are more likely to choose GFSM. Hence, the government should prioritize promoting GFSM for farmers with these characteristics, thereby creating a demonstration effect to encourage transition from GFM to GFSM.
机译:生态补偿是控制农业面源污染的重要手段,补偿方法是减轻这种污染形式的补偿政策的重要组成部分。农民选择补偿方式会影响他们对补偿政策的反应以及污染控制和生态补偿效率的影响。这项研究根据政策目标将生态补偿方法分为两种截然不同的哲学:“养鱼”方法(GFM)和“养鱼技能”方法(GFSM),以确定农民在两种方法和因素之间的选择影响这一选择。此外,通过分析中国安康市和汉中市的632位农民的调查数据,并使用多元概率模型,在GFM和GFSM的四种特定补偿模式中确定了农民的首选方案。三个主要结果如下。 (1)农民选择GFM的概率为82%,而选择GFSM的概率为51%。因此,在与农业面源污染控制有关的补偿政策中,GFM应引起更多关注。 (2)在四种补偿方式中,研究发现农民在选择资本和技术补偿,资本和项目补偿,物质和项目补偿之间存在替代效应,而物质和技术补偿的选择之间存在互补关系。因此,在构建补偿政策篮子时,应注意实现不同补偿方法的有机结合。 (3)高学历,年轻和男性农民,兼职工作较少,耕地面积大,对生态友好的技术采用程度高,对政策的了解程度较高,因此更可能选择GFSM。因此,政府应优先考虑向具有这些特征的农民推广GFSM,从而产生示范效应,鼓励从GFM过渡到GFSM。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号