Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in agricultural ecological compensation

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agricultural ecological compensation has drawn an increasingly broad range of interest since early 1990s. In recent years, the volume of the literature grows rapidly. As a result, a systematic review of the diverse research field and its current trends becomes essential. This paper surveys the literature of agricultural ecological compensation between 1990 and 2016. Specifically, by employing CiteSpace information visualization software, we firstly identified the research hotspots and evolution path and then illustrated the frontier and developing trend of the domain in core and broader perspectives. It is found that the focus of the academic community has always been researches on the theoretical policy and application of the payment for agro-ecosystem services, agricultural ecological compensation based on contingent valuation method, and ecological compensation of farmland landscape and organic food production as well as willingness to accept/pay for land use and ecological protection. Meanwhile, we also found that, in recent years, qualitative research has received more and more attention in the field of agricultural ecological compensation, since global warming, agricultural carbon emissions, and other emerging environmental issues have aroused widespread concern of the people around the world. Moreover, we believed that more and more scholars will employ case study methodology to analyze agricultural ecological compensation in specific systems, regions, or circumstances in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams DC, Salois MJ (2010) Local versus organic: a turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay. Renew Agr Food Syt 25:331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asrat S, Yesuf M, Carlsson F, Wale E (2010) Farmers’ preferences for crop variety traits: lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption. Ecol Econ 69:2394–2401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf H S (2010) Economics at the fringe: Non-market valuation studies and their role in land use plans in the United States. J Environ Manage 91(3):592–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RJ (2010) Social and environmental impacts of payments for environmental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern Costa Rica. Int J Sust Dev World 17:208–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65:663–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer A, Tsur Y (2000) Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. Eur Rev Agric Econ 27:385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao SB, Zhang KQ, Fang F, Zhou QW (2011) Sustainable agriculture and ecological compensation. China Agriculture Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • He K, Zhang JB, Feng JH, Hu T, Zhang L (2016a) The impact of social capital on farmers’ willingness to reuse agricultural waste for sustainable development. Sust Dev 24(2):101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He K, Zhang JB, Zeng YM, Zhang L (2016b) Households’ willingness to accept compensation for agricultural waste recycling—taking biogas production from livestock manure waste in Hubei, P. R. China as an example. J Clean Prod 131(10):410–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecken GV, Bastiaensen J (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ Sci Pol 13:785–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee YC, Chen C, Tsai XT (2016) Visualizing the knowledge domain of nanoparticle drug delivery technologies: a scientometric review. Appl Sci 6(1):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Chen CM (2016) Citespace: text mining and visualization in scientific literature. Capital University of Economics and Business Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Nan RA (2017) Bibliometric analysis of eutrophication literatures: an expanding and shifting focus [J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(20):17103–17115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Ma E, Qu H (2017a) Knowledge mapping of hospitality research−a visual analysis using CiteSpace. Int J Hosp Manag 60:77–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Wu K, Wu JA (2017b) Bibliometric analysis of research on haze during 2000-2016. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(32):24733–24742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling LJ (2015) Study on the development of American rural tourism. World Agri (10):60–63

  • Liu Y, Sun T, Yang L (2017) Evaluating the performance and intellectual structure of construction and demolition waste research during 2000-2016. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(23):19259–19266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol Soc 15:634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narloch U, Pascual U, Drucker AG (2011) Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environ Conserv 38:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson F, Foley C, Foley LS, Leposo A, Loure E, Peterson D, Peterson M, Peterson T, Sachedina H, Williams A (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for community-based conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conserv Biol J Soc Conserv Biol 24:78–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyburn M, Puzacke K, Halstead JM, Huang JC (2016) Sustaining and enhancing local and organic agriculture: assessing consumer issues in New Hampshire. Agroecol Sust Food 40:69–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su Q (2007) A study on rural tourism and rural tourism development in China. J Anhui Normal Univ (Nat Sci) 30:395–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26:13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan LD, Tian M, He DC, Yuan H, Deng YJ (2013) Progress and prospect in research of ecological compensation for agriculture. Sci Agric Sin 46:3615–3625

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang WH, Bryan BA, Macdonald DH, Ward JR, Wells G, Grossman ND, Connor JD (2010) A conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Econ 69(4):680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng M, Fu HZ, Ho YS (2017) Research trends and hotspots related to ammonia oxidation based on bibliometric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(25):20409–20421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y, Zhou QB, Zhou XY (2015) Research progress of contingent valuation method for application to agricultural ecological compensation. Acta Ecol Sin 35:7955–7964

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ms. Li Fenni, Ms. Wang Xuan, and Mr. Zhou Yibo for their help. The authors are very grateful to Dr. Philippe Garrigues and the anonymous reviewers of Environmental Science and Pollution Research who provided very valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

Funding

Support for this research is provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71703051 and 71333006), the National Social Science Fund of China (15CGL039), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2662017QD009), the Key Program of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education of China (15JZD014), and the Soft Science Research Project of Technology Innovation in Hubei Province (2018ADC036).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics & Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, 1 Shizishan Street, Hongshan, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Ke He, Junbiao Zhang, Xueting Wang, Yangmei Zeng & Lu Zhang

  2. Hubei Rural Development Research Center, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Ke He, Junbiao Zhang, Xueting Wang, Yangmei Zeng & Lu Zhang

Authors
  1. Ke He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junbiao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xueting Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yangmei Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ke He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, K., Zhang, J., Wang, X. et al. A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in agricultural ecological compensation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 16522–16532 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2160-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2160-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation