Evaluating Land Stewardship with Ecological Compensation Schemes in Upstream Rural Households
Keywords:
Ecological Compensation, Land Stewardship, Difference Analysis, Upstream Households, Environmental SustainabilityAbstract
The degradation of watershed ecosystems presents a profound challenge to global environmental sustainability, necessitating effective policy interventions to align the incentives of upstream land users with the provision of downstream ecological services. Ecological compensation schemes, widely implemented as a variant of payments for ecosystem services, aim to bridge this incentive gap by financially rewarding rural households for adopting sustainable land stewardship practices. This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of such schemes by employing difference analysis to assess their impact on the agricultural and environmental behaviors of upstream rural households. By analyzing cross-sectional and retrospective panel data through a rigorous counterfactual framework, the study isolates the causal effects of compensation programs on indicators of land stewardship, including the reduction of agrochemical inputs, the adoption of organic fertilizers, and the implementation of soil and water conservation measures. The findings indicate that ecological compensation significantly enhances pro-environmental land management, although the magnitude of this effect exhibits substantial heterogeneity based on household socioeconomic characteristics, off-farm employment opportunities, and land tenure security. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that financial incentives must be complemented by technical extension services and robust community monitoring to sustain long-term behavioral changes. The results provide critical evidence for policymakers seeking to optimize the design, targeting, and conditionality of environmental compensation programs to achieve durable ecological outcomes while supporting rural livelihoods.References
1. Nyanghura, Q.M.; Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Börner, J. Incentives for biodiversity conservation under asymmetric land ownership. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 219, 108152.
2. WaterCard. Real Water Conservation Starts Here; Watercard: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.watercard.org/# (accessed on 5 November 2025).
3. Deutz, A.; Heal, G.M.; Niu, R.; Swanson, E.; Townshend, T.; Zhu, L.; Delmar, A.; Meghji, A.; Sethi, S.A.; Tobinde la Puente, J. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. 2020. Available online: https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/conservation/financing-nature-report/ (accessed on 5 November 2025).
4. Rosegrant, M.W.; Sulser, T.B.; Wiebe, K. Global investment gap in agricultural research and innovation to meet Sustainable Development Goals for hunger and Paris Agreement climate change mitigation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 965767.
5. Bramwell, B.; Lane, B. Critical research on the governance of tourism and sustainability. J. Sustain. Tour. 2011, 19, 411–421.
6. Koppelaar, R.H.; Pamidi, S.; Hajósi, E.; Herreras, L.; Leroy, P.; Jung, H.Y.; Concheso, A.; Daniel, R.; Francisco, F.B.; Parrado, C.; et al. A digital product passport for critical raw materials reuse and recycling. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1405.
7. Börner, J.; Wunder, S.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; Tito, M.R.; Pereira, L.; Nascimento, N. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1272–1282.
8. Neuhofer, B. Experience design. In Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 179–182.
9. Wang, P.; Guo, B.; Sun, Z. Sustainable Urban-Rural Symbiosis in China: A Study from the Symbiosis Theory Perspective on Level Measurement and Spatial Difference Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2790.
10. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22–49.
11. Tao, J.; Xie, X.; Peng, R.; Bei, N. Digital Economy and Environmental Pollution in the Manufacturing Sector: Emission Reduction Effects and Mechanisms. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2024, 96, 103737.
12. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The Share of Sustainable Wood: Data on FSC’s Presence in Global Wood Production. Forest Stewardship Council, 2018. Available online: https://fsc.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Global%20Volume%20of%20FSC-certified%20Wood%20-July%202018.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2025).
13. Barbier, E.B. Water and Economic Growth in Developed and Developing Countries. Water Econ. Policy 2024, 10, 243002.
14. Sravan, C.; Mishra, P.P. Bridging the gap between finance and conservation biology: How derivatives can help in conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 78, 126550.
15. Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Economics of Water Scarcity and Efficiency. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8550.
16. Nureen, N.; Nuţă, A.C. Envisioning the Invisible: Unleashing the Interplay Between Green Supply Chain Management and Green Human Resource Management: An Ability-Motivation-Opportunity Theory Perspective Towards Environmental Sustainability. J. Compr. Bus. Adm. Res. 2024, 1, 55–64.
17. Barbier, E.B. Capitalizing on Nature: Ecosystems as Natural Assets; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
18. Barbier, E.B. Greening Agriculture for Rural Development. World Dev. 2025, 191, 106974.
19. United Nations (UN). The Future of Sustainable Trade—Due Diligence Initiatives, Voluntary Sustainability Standards and Developing Countries; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2025.
20. Fares, N.; Islam, M.S.; Jauhar, S.K.; Kucukaltan, B. Towards an International Digital Product Passport: The New Paradigm of a Worldwide Circular Economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2025, 5, 5475–5495.
21. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 44 Sustainability Certifications for Businesses and Sustainability Professionals; Forest Stewardship Council: Bonn, Germany, 2024; Available online: https://fsc.org/en/blog/sustainability-certifications# (accessed on 5 November 2025).
22. Barbier, E.B. Reform economics of managing global water supplies. Nature 2023, 617, 252.
23. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The Marine Stewardship Council Annual Report 2020–2021; Marine Stewardship Council: London, UK, 2022; Available online: https://www.msc.org/about-the-msc/reports-and-brochures (accessed on 5 November 2025).
24. Willer, H.; Trávníček, J.; Schlatter, B. (Eds.) The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2025. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL and IFOAM—Organics International, Frick and Bonn. 2025. Available online: https://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2025.html (accessed on 9 October 2025).
25. Delacote, P.; L’horty, T.; Kontoleon, A.; West, T.A.; Creti, A.; Filewod, B.; LeVelly, G.; Guizar-Coutiño, A.; Groom, B.; Elias, M. Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 706–713.
26. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023—Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023.
27. Lapworth, D.J.; Baran, N.; Stuart, M.E.; Ward, R.S. Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: A review of sources, fate and occurrence. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 163, 287–303.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.