Individual participation and incentive coordination in watershed ecological compensation project: Insights from China's Xin'an River Basin pilot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The success or failure of executing the watershed ecological compensation (WEC) policy is primarily contingent on incentive designs. How do different contractual designs influence the actions of micro-individuals in WEC? How may individuals be enticed to engage in WEC project? Taking the first inter-provincial WEC pilot - Xin’an River Basin (XRB) in China as a case, this study investigates the impacts of government-oriented, market-oriented and incentive-cooperation contracts on individuals’ behavior based on the framework of Stackelberg games. Subsequently, differences in efforts and profits of diverse individuals are compared and analyzed for each contract. The case-specific numerical example is then utilized to validate theoretical outcomes and to support subsequent key insights. First, the government-oriented contract exhibits effectiveness in bolstering the efforts and interests of micro-individuals, whereas it also places the government under tremendous financial strain. Second, the market-oriented contract formed by the output contribution rate assists in overcoming deficiencies of excurrent government-oriented contract. But it remains controversial if, in the absence of government inspection, investors that devote more cooperative efforts are not rewarded with further dividends, ultimately diminishing their enthusiasm for the WEC-XRB project. Lastly, the incentive-cooperation contract reinforced by market dominance is advantageous for improving the efficacy of water resource management under the existing government-oriented policy relying on command-and-control instruments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".