ArticleScientific reports2024
A comprehensive study on non-governmental actors in shaping grassland ecological compensation within legal frameworks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological compensation has emerged as a crucial institutional framework for managing the interplay between ecological preservation and economic development in China. This study focuses on the specific case of grassland ecological compensation to investigate the protection of rights and interests of non-governmental subjects. By utilizing data derived from questionnaire responses, this study examines the legal rights, obligations, and responsibilities associated with grassland ecological compensation. Statistical techniques such as Z-distribution, chi-square test, and non-parametric measures of correlation are employed to analyze the collected data, which are presented using tables and graphs. Furthermore, this research evaluates the current state of rights and interests of compensation subjects engaged in ecological compensation practices, aiming to enhance our comprehension and assessment of the extent to which the ecological compensation system safeguards the rights and interests of individuals. The findings show that a substantial number of respondents see current grassland ecological compensation methods in China as reasonable but insufficient, indicating a need for method diversification. There's a clear preference for a shared responsibility model over government-only funding, especially in regions with large grassland areas. This highlights the necessity for adaptable laws and a legal framework that accommodates diverse stakeholder needs. Additionally, the importance of clear property rights is emphasized for sustainable land use. The study suggests legislative reform towards a more equitable and effective approach to grassland conservation, providing valuable recommendations for refining and advancing the ecological compensation system.Author name 1 (Ziqi Liu) mismatch between ms and metadata. We have foolowed metadata. Kindly check and confirm.The metadata is right. Thank you.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.