Not at the table but stuck paying the bill: perceptions of injustice in China’s Xin’anjiang eco-compensation program

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning Pub Date : 2021-11-25 DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2021.2008233
Xinhui Jiang, Sarah Eaton, Genia Kostka
{"title":"Not at the table but stuck paying the bill: perceptions of injustice in China’s Xin’anjiang eco-compensation program","authors":"Xinhui Jiang, Sarah Eaton, Genia Kostka","doi":"10.1080/1523908X.2021.2008233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A growing body of research highlights the decisive role that justice claims play in creating sustainable payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs. Employing Sikor et al.’s approach to the study of justice claims in ecosystem governance along three dimensions—distribution, procedure and recognition—we study the negotiation process behind China’s flagship interprovincial PES agreement: the Xin’anjiang River eco-compensation agreement between Huangshan (Anhui province) and Hangzhou (Zhejiang province) prefectures. We find that divergent claims between stakeholders on matters of distributive and procedural justice undercut one party’s commitment to the agreement. Local officials in the upstream locality (Huangshan) see themselves as having been disadvantaged in both procedural and distributive aspects of negotiation. They claim to have been insufficiently included in a bargaining process that involved not only the downstream locality (Hangzhou) but also the central government. Huangshan stakeholders also see themselves as largely excluded from the benefits of cleaner water and bearing too much of the pollution abatement cost. For their part, Hangzhou stakeholders have advanced a ‘polluters pay’ view of distributive justice and found partial support for this claim from Beijing. Our findings suggest that attending to environmental justice considerations should be given top priority in China’s design of PES schemes.","PeriodicalId":15699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","volume":"3 1","pages":"581 - 597"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2008233","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT A growing body of research highlights the decisive role that justice claims play in creating sustainable payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs. Employing Sikor et al.’s approach to the study of justice claims in ecosystem governance along three dimensions—distribution, procedure and recognition—we study the negotiation process behind China’s flagship interprovincial PES agreement: the Xin’anjiang River eco-compensation agreement between Huangshan (Anhui province) and Hangzhou (Zhejiang province) prefectures. We find that divergent claims between stakeholders on matters of distributive and procedural justice undercut one party’s commitment to the agreement. Local officials in the upstream locality (Huangshan) see themselves as having been disadvantaged in both procedural and distributive aspects of negotiation. They claim to have been insufficiently included in a bargaining process that involved not only the downstream locality (Hangzhou) but also the central government. Huangshan stakeholders also see themselves as largely excluded from the benefits of cleaner water and bearing too much of the pollution abatement cost. For their part, Hangzhou stakeholders have advanced a ‘polluters pay’ view of distributive justice and found partial support for this claim from Beijing. Our findings suggest that attending to environmental justice considerations should be given top priority in China’s design of PES schemes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们对中国新安江生态补偿项目不公正的看法,不是在谈判桌上,而是在付账
越来越多的研究强调了正义主张在创建可持续支付生态系统服务(PES)计划中的决定性作用。采用Sikor等人从分布、程序和承认三个维度研究生态系统治理中正义诉求的方法,我们研究了中国旗舰省际PES协议背后的谈判过程:安徽省黄山市和浙江省杭州市之间的新安江生态补偿协议。我们发现,利益相关者之间在分配和程序正义问题上的分歧主张削弱了一方对协议的承诺。上游地区(黄山)的地方官员认为自己在谈判的程序和分配方面都处于不利地位。他们声称,在不仅涉及下游地区(杭州),而且涉及中央政府的谈判过程中,他们没有得到充分的参与。黄山的利益相关者也认为,他们在很大程度上被排除在更清洁的水的好处之外,承担了太多的污染减排成本。而杭州的利益相关者则提出了“污染者付费”的分配正义观,并在一定程度上得到了北京的支持。我们的研究结果表明,在中国的PES方案设计中,应优先考虑环境正义因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Chiefs and floods: hybrid governance and co-production of flood risk adaptation in Tamale, Ghana. City-to-city learning: a synthesis and research agenda The nested hierarchy of urban vulnerability within land use policies fails to address climate injustices in Turkey Does multidimensional distance matter? Perceptions and acceptance of wind power Exploring the potential of city networks for climate: the case of urbact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1