Objectives: In the implementation of agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation policies, it will have positive effects on strengthening the pertinence of ecological compensation standards setting if farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) can be combined and its influencing factors are fully considered. This article tries to acquire new information and cognition by means of quantitative study, and then solves the following key problems: 1. Revealing farmers’ WTP for the welfare gains of agricultural waste resource utilization; 2. Identifying key influencing factors of farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation; 3. Exploring effective paths of improving agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation policies.

Methods: The first thing was to build a theory frame of agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation. Based on the survey data collected from rural areas in Hubei province, descriptive statistical analysis method was used to study farmers’ WTP for the welfare gains of agricultural waste resource utilization. Secondly, we employed Binary Logistic to analyze the key factors influencing famers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation and discussed the differences of influencing factors under different restriction. Then we put forward some corresponding policy suggestions.

Results: 1. Most of farmers believe that agricultural waste resource utilization can gain their own welfare, and up to 73.4% of them will pay for it. Among them, 75.5% of male farmers have the willingness to pay, compared with 52.8% of female farmers. It shows that the externalities of agricultural waste resource utilization are objectively existed. 2. The key influencing factors of farmers’ WTP are followed by the contribution levels: gender, dependence on environment, the value identity of agricultural waste resource utilization being conducive to people’s health, agricultural income ratio, the value identity of agricultural waste resource utilization being conducive to rural development, the agricultural economic scale, evaluation on the state of environment and understanding level of environment knowledge. 3. From the view of influencing factors, they have something both in common and difference under diverse restrictions. The common ground is that understanding level of environment knowledge and dependence on environment are the inherent reasons of farmers’ WTP. The differences display in three domains: (1) Male farmers pay more attention to the influence of agricultural waste resource utilization to human health; (2) The improvement of education level will increase the WTP of farmers who have ordinary agricultural income ratio. However, farmers who have higher education level but general environment knowledge have no higher WTP; (3) Farmers who have a good evaluation on the state of environment hold that maintaining environment is more important than improving it. Their WTPs are restricted by their environment awareness and agricultural economic scale.

Conclusions: (1) Agricultural waste resource utilization is conducive to the welfare gains on human health and environmental protection and even resource safety. Farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation indirectly reflects their welfare gains. However, the fees for waste resource utilization are just used to make up costs in labor and transport etc. in most areas in China. Therefore, this part of welfare should be included into cost accounting in the formulation of ecological compensation standards. (2) Farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation is restricted by economic factors, and farmers’ environment knowledge. This indicates that enhancing ecological environmental training will improve farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation. It is worth mentioning that current female farmers’ environmental cognition is lower in general and they have lower level of WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation (compared with male farmers). Thus, female farmers should be encouraged to actively participate in related training. (3) The differences under different restrictions show that formulating differentiated ecological compensation policies will be conducive to increase farmers’ WTP. On one hand, it needs more attention on the diversity of ecological compensation. For those families which have relative lower agricultural income ratio, they could be encouraged to “pay money”. For those families which have relative more labors, they could be encouraged to “go to work”. On the other hand, the objects of ecological compensation should be clear. We should follow the principle of “polluters pay, beneficiaries compensate”, and define the beneficiaries of agricultural waste resource utilization externalities so as to establish a long-term mechanism for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation.

Objectives: In the implementation of agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation policies, it will have positive effects on strengthening the pertinence of ecological compensation standards setting if farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) can be combined and its influencing factors are fully considered. This article tries to acquire new information and cognition by means of quantitative study, and then solves the following key problems: 1. Revealing farmers’ WTP for the welfare gains of agricultural waste resource utilization; 2. Identifying key influencing factors of farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation; 3. Exploring effective paths of improving agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation policies.

Methods: The first thing was to build a theory frame of agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation. Based on the survey data collected from rural areas in Hubei province, descriptive statistical analysis method was used to study farmers’ WTP for the welfare gains of agricultural waste resource utilization. Secondly, we employed Binary Logistic to analyze the key factors influencing famers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation and discussed the differences of influencing factors under different restriction. Then we put forward some corresponding policy suggestions.

Results: 1. Most of farmers believe that agricultural waste resource utilization can gain their own welfare, and up to 73.4% of them will pay for it. Among them, 75.5% of male farmers have the willingness to pay, compared with 52.8% of female farmers. It shows that the externalities of agricultural waste resource utilization are objectively existed. 2. The key influencing factors of farmers’ WTP are followed by the contribution levels: gender, dependence on environment, the value identity of agricultural waste resource utilization being conducive to people’s health, agricultural income ratio, the value identity of agricultural waste resource utilization being conducive to rural development, the agricultural economic scale, evaluation on the state of environment and understanding level of environment knowledge. 3. From the view of influencing factors, they have something both in common and difference under diverse restrictions. The common ground is that understanding level of environment knowledge and dependence on environment are the inherent reasons of farmers’ WTP. The differences display in three domains: (1) Male farmers pay more attention to the influence of agricultural waste resource utilization to human health; (2) The improvement of education level will increase the WTP of farmers who have ordinary agricultural income ratio. However, farmers who have higher education level but general environment knowledge have no higher WTP; (3) Farmers who have a good evaluation on the state of environment hold that maintaining environment is more important than improving it. Their WTPs are restricted by their environment awareness and agricultural economic scale.

Conclusions: (1) Agricultural waste resource utilization is conducive to the welfare gains on human health and environmental protection and even resource safety. Farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation indirectly reflects their welfare gains. However, the fees for waste resource utilization are just used to make up costs in labor and transport etc. in most areas in China. Therefore, this part of welfare should be included into cost accounting in the formulation of ecological compensation standards. (2) Farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation is restricted by economic factors, and farmers’ environment knowledge. This indicates that enhancing ecological environmental training will improve farmers’ WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation. It is worth mentioning that current female farmers’ environmental cognition is lower in general and they have lower level of WTP for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation (compared with male farmers). Thus, female farmers should be encouraged to actively participate in related training. (3) The differences under different restrictions show that formulating differentiated ecological compensation policies will be conducive to increase farmers’ WTP. On one hand, it needs more attention on the diversity of ecological compensation. For those families which have relative lower agricultural income ratio, they could be encouraged to “pay money”. For those families which have relative more labors, they could be encouraged to “go to work”. On the other hand, the objects of ecological compensation should be clear. We should follow the principle of “polluters pay, beneficiaries compensate”, and define the beneficiaries of agricultural waste resource utilization externalities so as to establish a long-term mechanism for agricultural waste resource utilization ecological compensation.

agricultural waste utilization;　willingness to pay;　ecological compensation;　farmers;　hubei province