Should I stay or should I go? Farmers' choices to remain in a PES program when policy design changes.

Clicks: 96
ID: 282156
2025
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #270 of 276 articles by views in Journal of environmental management

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 276 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) have been increasingly applied worldwide to reduce environmental degradation, provide ecosystem services and enhance biodiversity in forests. However, some PES programs in forestry promote monoculture planting, which results in lower biodiversity and fewer ecosystem services compared with mixed-species forests. To address the issue of policy design change while maintaining participation to the program, we investigate participants' willingness to accept a follow-up program featured with mixed-species planting. We use a choice experiment applied to the Grain for Green Program (GFGP) in China. Results suggest that majorities of farmers are willing to stay. Using mixed logit models, we explain farmers' preference heterogeneity for contracts. Results indicate that participants who choose to leave are likely to have smaller cropland area, larger household size, lower total income, and higher non-agricultural income. They tend to have lower institutional trust towards local institutions and perceive insufficient economic benefits and increased land tenure insecurity from their previous experience with GFGP. Willing-to-stay respondents can be divided into two groups. Those who are young, male and perceive increased economic benefits from their past experience, prefer to enter contracts featured with mixed trees with economic value, and to receive moderate or high level of technical support. Other respondents prefer contracts characterized with mixed ecological-economic tree planting, longer contract duration and moderate technical support. Our findings suggest that policy design should shift from merely increasing forest areas to actively promoting more biodiversity, and such policy changes do not lower farmers' participation.
Reference Key
shen2025should Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Shen, Xinran; Dong, Jiayun; Grilli, Gianluca; Pagliacci, Francesco; Gatto, Paola
Journal Journal of environmental management
Year 2025
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125552
URL
Keywords
land use contract design incentives market-based instruments wta

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.