Quantifying and Zoning Ecological Compensation for Cultivated Land in Intensive Agricultural Areas: A Case Study in Henan Province, China

Abstract

Cultivated land ecological compensation (CLEC) is an important way to solve regional development imbalance and cultivated land problems, and the scientific quantification of the ecological value of cultivated land is the key to CLEC. This study quantified the total amount and urgency of CLEC in China’s main grain-producing region using the cropland ecological footprint (EF) and ecosystem service value (ESV) methods. Furthermore, this study analyzed the comprehensive zoning of CLEC considering natural and economic development. The results showed that the spatial distribution of EFs and the ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land in Henan Province are similar, presenting the spatial characteristics of being high in the southeast and low in the northwest; the cultivated land in most of the counties and districts is in a state of ecological surplus, and the cultivated land resources are sufficient to support their own consumption needs. Henan Province as a whole is an ecologically compensated region, with a compensation amount of CNY 1.39 billion, and the total amount of compensation is in a positive value of 94.94%. The Southwest Yu and North Yu economic zone of Henan are the areas of high and low values of cultivated land compensation. The priority compensation region is the most extensive and widely distributed type in the five regions of Henan Province, accounting for 55% of the counties and districts. The degree of compensation is most urgent in the Huanghuai, Southwest Yu, and North Yu economic zones. This study’s findings provide new ideas for the development of differentiated ecological compensation policies, and provide references for the participation of multiple market participants and the diversification of compensation forms.

1. Introduction

Cultivated land is an indispensable medium for all kinds of production activities in human society and an important guarantee for human survival and sustainable socio-economic development [1,2]. Cultivated land not only has a productive function, but also assumes the ecological role of regulating the climate, providing biodiversity, purifying surface waste, and sequestering carbon [3,4]. The protection of cultivated land is essential to the problem of human food security [5]. However, there has been an increase in the proportion of high-quality cultivated land being substituted for construction land, a clear trend towards “de-fooding”, and a significant decline in cultivated land resources [6]. Although current cultivated land protection measures have had a significant effect in reducing the amount of cultivated land, they have had a significant negative impact on areas with a high amount of cultivated land. Not only does this limit regional economic development, but it exacerbates economic disparities [7]; farmers, as the economic main body of the use of cropland, to obtain more benefits under the idea of “high input, high output”, will be driven to increase the input of fertilizers, pesticides, and other products in the production process, thus obtaining more economic returns [8]. This excessive input that exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment not only destroys the ecological function of cropland, but also leads to a series of problems, such as soil sclerosis, soil acidification, the deterioration of the quality of cropland, and agricultural nonpoint source pollution [9].

How to coordinate regional economic development and the ecological protection of arable land is currently an important research topic [10]. In developing countries, the adoption of cropland protection policies alone, without corresponding economic compensation, is difficult to achieve in the long term [11]. Therefore, the protection of cropland cannot be separated from government control and economic compensation policies. Cultivated land ecological compensation (CLEC) refers to an institutional arrangement that regulates the interests of relevant parties, mainly by economic means [12,13,14]. It can motivate farmers to take the initiative to protect arable land, and is essentially an economic incentive to internalize the ecological “externalities” of cropland [8]. Therefore, as an important means of ecological protection, the scientific assessment of the standards of CLEC is not only the key to the synergistic development of regional ecosystems and economies, but also the core of the establishment of the ecological compensation mechanism for arable land and the efficiency of the compensation.

The ecological compensation of cultivated land has become a research hotspot of long-term academic interest [15]. At present, the study of CLEC mainly focuses on its theoretical mechanism [16], compensation standard [17], and compensation efficiency [18,19]. For the assessment of ecological compensation, the main methods are the conditional value (CVM) method [20,21], the ecosystem service value (ESV) method [22,23], and the opportunity cost method [24]. CVM considers the willingness to pay and accept both protectors and destroyers by means of a questionnaire [25], but the results are strongly influenced by subjective factors [26,27]. Furthermore, studies have shown that due to the variability of CVM results, their comparability is poor, consensus is difficult to reach, and they are not applicable to large-scale regional standardized assessments [8]. The ESV assessment identifies ecological compensation from the perspective of ecosystem service providers and is the foundation condition for the standards assessment of ecological compensation [28,29]. The ESV does not require complex data and has obvious advantages for ecological compensation rates in large regions [8]. However, ESV results tend to be high and are generally used as an upper limit for CLEC [27]. The opportunity cost approach provides the choice to forego the economy in favor of maximizing the benefits of ecological conservation [25]. Usually, the results of this method are more realistic and can be used to determine the lower limit of the CLEC [30,31]. However, the timeliness is poor, the vectors are different, the results are different [25], and whether the inputs and ecological outputs are equivalent can easily be overlooked [32].

Currently, the ecological compensation of cultivated land is considered more singular from the point of view of food security or ecological security, which is not consistent with the inherent requirements of sustainable development [33]. Moreover, most studies on ecological compensation ignore the ecological value of cropland [34]. The ecological value of cropland is the indirect value of the benefits of cropland use, and has significant externalities [35,36], which spill over to various other subjects in the economy [37]. To internalize the externality, there is an immediate need to establish a CLEC measurement methodology that balances the benefits between the main food-producing regions and the economically developed regions. Traditional ecological footprint (EF) approaches generally ignore the issue of the carbon footprint generated by production activities [38]. Considering regional differences, a single ESV or EF method is difficult for accurately reflecting the quality of the arable ecosystems and fails to meet the development needs of the age, and there is still room for improvement [39]. Some scholars have combined the EF and ESV methods to propose the ecological footprint-service value method [29], but there are still some shortcomings. Not only are the equivalence and yield factors ignored, but there is also no uniformity. Therefore, this study not only considered the carbon footprint in the EF model, but also adopted the ESV model corrected by a yield factor to construct the CLEC standard applicable to Henan Province, which is the main grain-producing area. This is important for the implementation of the ecological compensation system and the guarantee of food security.

Henan Province is one of China’s major grain-producing areas, with grain production accounting for more than 10% of national grain production. In particular, wheat production accounts for more than 25% of national production, and the total summer grain production and sown area rank first in the country. However, counties in Henan Province are economically weak, underfunded, relatively backward in development, and lack development opportunities and financial support. The configuration of cropland resources in Henan Province is not able to be adjusted in accordance with market demand, which greatly restricts economic development, and there is an urgent need to establish a scientific and reasonable CLEC to alleviate the problems between food security and economic development. Based on this, this study (1) used an open three-dimensional EF model for the cropland that considers its carbon footprint to estimate the biological resource footprint, the carbon footprint, and the ecological carrying capacity of the cropland, and to measure its ecological surplus/deficit, and to compare the spatial differences between the supply and demand sides of the cropland among counties in Henan Province; (2) estimated the ESV of the cropland in each county and district based on a yield factor-modified ESV model, and estimated the total CLEC and ecological compensation priorities; and (3) considered the natural and economic development of the region, while the ecological compensation for the cultivated land was comprehensively zoned. This study is crucial to the implementation of the ecological compensation system. A scientific and reasonable standard of ecological compensation is an important reference value for the establishment of a national marketized and diversified ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Henan Province is located in the central-eastern part of China and is one of the most important main grain-producing areas in the country (Figure 1). In recent years, the loss of cropland in Henan Province has been serious, and the trend of “non-food” cultivation has continued to expand. There are three main reasons for choosing Henan Province as the study area: first, there is a mismatch between economic development and grain production in Henan Province. In 2022, Henan Province ranked second and third for grain production and population, respectively, while the urbanization rate and per capita disposable income ranked twenty-sixth and twenty-third in the country. Food, economic, and population conflicts are prominent. Secondly, Henan Province is a large agricultural province, using one sixteenth of its arable land to produce one tenth of China’s grain, making it difficult to develop a large-scale economy and requiring the establishment of a suitable ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land. Third, Henan Province has sacrificed certain development opportunities to guarantee food security, leading to weaker economic development and smaller economies in most counties. In conclusion, Henan Province has more cropland and a wide range of cultivation, and its internal cropland ecological status is informative. It is necessary to quantify the ecological compensation standard of cultivated land in all counties and districts of Henan Province, to provide a reference for the diversification and marketisation of the ecological compensation mechanism of cultivated land in China.

2.2. Research Materials

The data required for this study include that pertaining to the production, consumption, sown area, and national average production of the main crops (rice, wheat, maize, soya bean, peanut, cotton, rapeseed, and vegetables); the pure consumption of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural films, and diesel fuel; the irrigated area; the area plowed over for agriculture; the resident population; the gross domestic product (GDP); the Gross Agricultural Product (GAP); the composite Engel’s coefficient for both urban and rural areas; per capita urban consumer spending; per capita urban food expenditures; per capita rural consumer expenditures; and per capita rural food expenditures. The main sources are the China Statistical Yearbook, the Henan Provincial Statistical Yearbook, and the statistical yearbooks of various cities. Grain imports, exports, and transfers in and out are derived from the Brickell Agricultural Database.

2.3. Research Methods

2.3.1. EF of Cropland

The EF of cropland includes the biological resource footprint and the carbon footprint of cropland. In this paper, eight crops, including rice, wheat, maize, soybean, peanut, cotton, rapeseed, and vegetables, were selected as indicators to measure the ecological status of cultivated land according to the agricultural production situation in Henan Province, and the carbon footprints brought about by the process of cultivated land utilization, such as pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural films, diesel fuel use, agricultural irrigation, and agricultural tilling, were also taken into account. The formula is as follows [40]:

$$\mathrm{G}={\mathrm{G}}_1+\mathsf{\delta }{\mathrm{G}}_2$$

(1)

where $\mathrm{G}$ is the EF of cropland, ${\mathrm{G}}_1$ is the biological resource footprint of cropland, ${\mathrm{G}}_2$ is the ecological carbon footprint of cropland, and $\mathsf{\delta }$ is the equilibrium factor; $\mathsf{\delta }$ is represented as 0.5 in this paper to maximize our own demand for cropland and to consider the importance of food security.

The biological resource footprint of cropland is the area of ecologically productive cropland required by the regional population to meet its own needs [41]. In order to reflect the true resource use in the study area, the study considered crop yields that were influenced by the combination of production, import, and export levels. Per capita consumption of food crops is allocated on the basis of production ratios using inter-provincial consumption data. The detailed calculation method is shown in the following formula:

$${\mathrm{G}}_1=\mathrm{P}\times {\mathrm{g}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\mathrm{P}\times {\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}}} \times {\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$$

(2)

$${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{E}}}_{\mathrm{j}}}{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{E}}}}$$

(3)

where $\mathrm{P}$ is the resident population; ${\mathrm{g}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the per capita biological resource footprint of cropland; $\mathrm{i}$ is the type of crop; ${\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the per capita consumption of crop $\mathrm{i}$; ${\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the national average production of crop $\mathrm{i}$; ${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ is the equilibrium factor; ${\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{E}}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ is the national average productivity of the land type $\mathrm{j}$; and $\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{E}}$ is the national average productivity for the various land types combined.

The carbon footprint of the cropland is the area of the cropland that is discounted for the adverse impacts of cropland use [40]. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{G}}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sum \left({\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{j}}{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{j}}\right)}{\mathrm{a}\times \mathsf{\beta }\times \left(\frac{44}{12}\right)\times \sum \left(\frac{{\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathsf{\theta }}_{\mathrm{i}}}\right)}}$$

(4)

where ${\mathsf{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{j}}$ and ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ are the carbon emission coefficients and inputs of the type $\mathrm{j}$ process; $\mathrm{a}$ is the correction coefficient; $\mathsf{\beta }$ is the conversion factor between biomass and carbon sequestration; $\mathrm{a}$ and $\mathsf{\beta }$ are represented as 0.05 and 0.45, respectively; 44/12 is the conversion coefficient between carbon and carbon dioxide; and ${\mathrm{m}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ and ${\mathsf{\theta }}_{\mathrm{i}}$ are the production of the crop and the economic coefficients, respectively.

2.3.2. Ecological Carrying Capacity of Cropland

The ecological carrying capacity of the cropland is the maximum biologically productive area that the cropland can provide while maintaining a favorable ecosystem [42]. To make the land in different regions comparable, the variability of the land was removed by a yield factor. The formula is as follows:

$$\mathrm{W}=\mathrm{P}\times {\mathrm{w}}_1=\mathrm{P}\times {\sum }_{i=1}^{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{n}}}{\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times {\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{j}}\times {\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{j}}$$

(5)

$${\mathrm{k}}_{\mathrm{j}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{M}}}_{\mathrm{j}}}{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{M}}}}$$

(6)

where $\mathrm{W}$ is the total ecological carrying capacity of the cropland; ${\mathrm{w}}_1$ is the ecological carrying capacity of the cropland per capita; ${\mathrm{a}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the per capita production area of the type $\mathrm{i}$ crop; ${\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{M}}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ is the average productivity of type $\mathrm{j}$ land; and $\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{M}}$ is the national average productivity.

2.3.3. Three-Dimensional EF Model

The traditional EF model estimates the human occupation of natural resources by treating the study area as a closed system. However, the fact that any area is characterized by openness often detracts from the true ecological situation. Niccolucci et al. [43] improved the model by introducing two indicators (Figure 2), ecological footprint size (${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{size}}$) and ecological footprint depth (${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{depth}}$). Ecological footprint size represents the appropriation of natural resource flows required by human activities, and ecological footprint depth characterizes the appropriation of natural resource stocks by human consumption [44]. The three-dimensional EF model that considers footprint size and footprint depth has spatial attributes that allow for easier horizontal comparisons between the regions. The ecological deficit/surplus, the breadth of the footprint, and the depth of the footprint of the cropland are calculated as follows:

$$\mathrm{GT}=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{GR}\left(\mathrm{W}-\mathrm{G}>0\right)\\ \mathrm{GD}\left(\mathrm{W}-\mathrm{G}<0\right)\end{array}$$

(7)

$$\mathrm{GR}=\mathrm{P}\times ({\mathrm{w}}_1-{\mathrm{g}}_1)$$

(8)

$$\mathrm{GD}=\mathrm{P}\times ({\mathrm{w}}_1-{\mathrm{g}}_1)$$

(9)

$${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{size}}=\mathrm{Min}\{\mathrm{G},\mathrm{W}\}$$

(10)

$${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{depth}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{G}}{\mathrm{w}}}$$

(11)

where $\mathrm{GD}$ is the total ecological deficit of the cropland; $\mathrm{GR}$ is the total ecological surplus of the cropland; ${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{size}}$ is the breadth of the EF of the cropland; and ${\mathrm{G}}_{\mathrm{depth}}$ is the depth of the EF of the cropland.

2.3.4. ESV of Cultivated Land

The impacts of cultivated ecosystems on their surroundings during production activities that have ecological effects, including the regulation of soil and water conservation, climate, and the improvement of atmospheric quality [29]. The equivalent factor method was used to calculate the ESV for each county and district, and the equivalent factor was corrected to consider regional differences. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{ESV}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{i}}}}\times \mathrm{f}\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{q}}{\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{q}}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{{\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{i}}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{-\mathrm{y}}}}$$

(12)

$$\mathrm{y}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{En}}} - 3$$

(13)

where ${\mathrm{ESV}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the ESV per unit area of cultivated land; ${\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the economic production of food; ${\mathrm{O}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the area planted with food; $\mathrm{f}$ is the ESV equivalent per unit area of farmland measured by Xie Gao Di et al. [45]; $\mathrm{q}$ is the current year’s crop yield for the region; $\stackrel{\mathrm{-}}{\mathrm{q}}$ is the national crop yield in the same year; ${\mathrm{B}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ and ${\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ are the per capita GDP of the region and the entire nation, respectively; and $\mathrm{En}$ is the Engel’s coefficient for the region.

2.3.5. Ecological Compensation for Cropland

Usually, in order to estimate the total amount of the CLEC, the consideration of the ecological differences and the willingness of the compensator is necessary [29]. In this study, the standard of CLEC was estimated by combining the ESV and the EF of the cultivated land considering the carbon footprint. The total amount of compensation needed to be adjusted due to large differences in the regional economic conditions and compensation capacity [40]. The formula is as follows:

$${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\mathrm{G}{\mathrm{T}}_{\mathrm{i}}\times \mathrm{ESV}\times {\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\left(\mathrm{G}-\mathrm{W}\right)\times \mathrm{ESV}\times {\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}$$

(14)

$${\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{En}}\times \mathrm{GD}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\left({\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{En}+1}\right)\times \mathrm{GDP}}}$$

(15)

where ${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the CLEC standard for region $\mathrm{i}$; ${\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the ecological compensation coefficient for the cropland; $\mathrm{GD}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the gross domestic product of region $\mathrm{i}$; and $\mathrm{GDP}$ is the total gross domestic product of the study area.

2.3.6. Priority of CLEC

The total CLEC measures the ecological compensation of the cultivated land from the perspective of efficiency. The priority of CLEC, however, was to consider the characteristics of regional economic development and living, and production differences; quantify the urgency of the ecological compensation of cultivated land; prevent the compensation amount from being too large, leading to the phenomenon of concentration and contiguity; and improve the efficiency of the ecological compensation of the cultivated land. Higher compensation priority indicates more backward economic development and correspondingly higher ESV. The formula is as follows:

$$\mathrm{ECP}{\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ES}{\mathrm{V}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathrm{GD}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}}}$$

(16)

where $\mathrm{ECP}{\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the CLEC priority; and $\mathrm{GD}{\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ is the GDP per unit area.

2.3.7. Zoning of CLEC

The total CLEC focuses on the natural endowment of cultivated land, while the CLEC priority focuses on the impact of socio-economic factors. Combining the spatial differences in cropland ecosystems and dividing the CLEC-integrated priorities, the results are scientifically reasonable [46]. The study area was divided into a priority payment region, a payment potential region, a priority compensation region, a compensation potential region, and an ecological balance region (

Table 1. Comprehensive classification of zoning criteria for CLEC.

Region	Standard
priority payment region	Medium and high total payment + low priority
payment potential region	Medium and high total payment + medium and high priority Low total payment + low priority
ecological balance region	Low total payment + medium and high priority Low total compensation + low priority
compensation potential region	Medium and high total compensation + low priority Low total compensation + medium and high priority
priority compensation region	Medium and high total compensation + medium and high priority

).

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of the EF and Ecological Carrying Capacity of Cropland

The spatial distribution of the EF and the ecological carrying capacity of the cultivated land is shown in Figure 3. The spatial distribution of the EF and the ecological carrying capacity of the cultivated land are similar, showing a high spatial characteristic in the southeast and a low one in the northwest. The total EF of the cropland is 19.96 million hm², the average is 0.13 million hm², and the per capita EF of the cropland is 0.21 hm². The highest EF of cultivated land is in Hua County, which is 50.94 million hm². This is mainly due to high food production and high population and the corresponding higher consumption and carbon footprint of cultivated land. Low-value regions are mainly located in the main urban areas of various cities, and the main urban area of Zhengzhou City, as the most developed area in Henan Province, has a generally low EF of cropland. The difference between the highest value in Hua County and the lowest value in Erqi District is more than 6000, indicating a significant gap in the EF of cultivated land in Henan Province. The ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land in Henan Province is 33.41 million hm², the average value is 0.21 million hm², and the ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land per capita is 0.35 hm². In particular, the carrying capacity of cultivated land in Tanghe County and Dengzhou City is higher than 0.70 million hm². This is because the region has a high ecological effect of cropland due to its large crop sowing area and relatively large population. The ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land is lower in the Laocheng District, Xigong District, and Zhongyuan District, all of which are less than five thousand hm². These districts have better economic development, high urbanization rates, obvious population agglomeration effects, and large urban built-up areas, further compressing the area of cropland and making the ecological carrying capacity of the cropland lower.

3.2. Analysis of Results of Ecological Surplus/Deficit on Cultivated Land

The spatial distribution of the ecological surplus and deficit of cropland is shown in Figure 4. Cultivated land in Henan Province is in ecological surplus, with an ecological surplus of 12.71 million hm² and an ecological surplus of 0.13 hm² per capita. Cultivated land resources are sufficient to support their own consumption needs, regional ecological pressures are low, and the ecological status of the cultivated land is better, but with large spatial variations. Specifically, there are only eight counties and districts with a negative amount of ecological deficit, mainly in Zhengzhou City. Dengzhou City, Tanghe County, Fangcheng County, and Zhengyang County have high ecological surpluses of cropland, all greater than 0.30 million hm². The ecological carrying capacity of cultivated land is relatively high in large grain-producing counties.

The depth of the EF in Henan Province is 0.63, which indicates that the time required for the cultivated land production to meet the consumption needs of the entire population of Henan Province for one year is 0.63 years. The spatial differentiation of the footprint depth in Henan Province is different from the EF, the ecological carrying capacity of the cultivated land, with the footprint depth presenting Zhengzhou City as the center, and the ecological pressure on the cultivated land in the east-central region. Zhengzhou’s Erqi and Huiji districts have the largest EF depths of cropland at 1.69 and 1.28, respectively, showing that cropland resources are not able to support actual consumption demand. Except for the counties in Zhengzhou City, all other counties have a footprint depth of less than 1. There are 44 counties with a footprint depth of less than 0.5, accounting for 27.8% of the counties in Henan Province, mostly in the western part of Henan Province; 93 counties with a footprint depth of more than 0.5 and less than 0.8, accounting for 58.9% of the counties in Henan Province, mostly in the Huanghuai economic zones; and 14 counties with a footprint depth of more than 0.8 and less than 1, accounting for 8.86% of the counties in Henan Province.

3.3. ESV Analysis of Cultivated Land

The spatial distribution of the total ESV, and the ESV per unit area of cultivated land were similar (Figure 5), showing a high distribution in the center and a low distribution in the north and south. The total ESV in Henan Province was CNY 317.30 billion, with Tongxu and Qi counties having the highest at CNY 11.91 billion and CNY 10.71 billion, respectively. The lowest total ESV was in the Jiefang District, with CNY 0.23 million. The total value of Qixian County was about 51,552 times higher than that of Jiefang District, which was a significant difference. High ESV is concentrated in high “eco-export” regions. The low ESV regions of the cultivated land are mainly concentrated in the main urban area of Zhengzhou City and the main urban areas of various cities, which are often the more economically developed areas, with less cultivated land and more land for construction. Moreover, there are 17 counties and districts with an ESV per unit area higher than CNY 0.10 million per hm², accounting for 10.76% of the counties and districts in Henan Province. There are large differences in the ESV per unit area among the counties and districts in Henan Province. Seeing as Henan Province is a large production province in China, farmers in Henan Province are increasingly aware of the need to protect the cultivated land.

3.4. Analysis of Total CLEC

The total amount of CLEC in Henan Province is positive at CNY 1.39 billion, which belongs to the ecological compensation area. Henan Province is the main grain-producing region in China, and in order to contribute to the overall development of the nation, the allocation of cultivated land resources revolves around the goal of grain production and it is not possible to adjust the economic structure in full accordance with the principle of optimal factor inputs, which restricts economic development, and, so, Henan Province is an ecological compensation area. From the spatial distribution of total CLEC in Henan Province (Figure 6), it can be seen that the western and southwestern regions of Henan Province are high value regions of cultivated land compensation, and the northern economic zone of Henan Province is a low-value region of cultivated land compensation. Most counties and districts in Henan Province have positive CLEC totals, with only eight counties and districts having negative values. There are 11 counties and districts where the total amount of compensation exceeds CNY 0.03 billion, and they have the same characteristics, high agricultural output value, high food production, and high ESV of cultivated land, making the total amount of ecological compensation for the cultivated land high. In particular (Figure 7), Zhaoling District and Shihe District have the highest total CLEC, of CNY 67.71 million and CNY 61.64 million, respectively. The county with the highest CLEC payment is Xingyang City, with CNY 13.9575 million. This is mainly because higher populations, less food area, and higher food consumption make for higher CLEC payments. Addressing the large gap between the total CLEC payments in Henan Province cannot simply rely on mutual compensation between counties and districts, but also requires continued compensation from the government and other ecological payment provinces.

3.5. Analysis of CLEC Priority

From Figure 8, the CLEC priority in Henan Province shows a high distribution in the southwest and a low distribution in the northeast. The ecological compensation of the cultivated land in the Southwest Yu economic zone and the Huanghuai economic zone has a higher priority, and the urgency of CLEC is high. They are not only major ecological value exporting areas, but also have lower levels of economic development and should be prioritized for CLEC. The Central Plains economic zone is mostly in the low-value area of CLEC priority in Henan Province. Although its total CLEC is high, its small area of cultivated land and high level of economic development make its CLEC priority low. Similarly, the CLEC in the North Yu economic zone has a lower priority. Xixia County, Shihe District, Luanchuan County, Lushi County, and New County, have CLEC priorities over 1, mainly caused by their lower GDP per unit areas. The Longan, Weidong, and Hongqi districts have CLEC priorities below 0.1 and high levels of economic development, making their compensation urgency lower.

3.6. CLEC Comprehensive Zoning Analysis

Natural and economic development were taken into account for the comprehensive zoning of the CLEC (Figure 9). Henan Province has 1 priority payment region, 6 payment potential regions, 87 priority compensation regions, 32 compensation potential regions, and 32 ecological balance regions (Figure 10). In particular, Gongyi City is the priority payment region, and this city should take the lead in paying the CLEC amount to balance the ecological status of the region’s cultivated land. Payment potential regions, such as the Zhongyuan, Erqi, and Shangjie districts, have lower total CLEC because of their limited amount of cultivated land. The priority compensation regions are the regions with the largest number and widest distribution of CLEC-comprehensive zoning in Henan Province, accounting for 55.1% of the total. The main reason for this is that these regions are rich in cultivated land resources and have high food production, but are relatively poorly developed economically. The Huiji, Yuwantai and Laocheng districts, which are potential compensation regions, have high degrees of urgency for compensation, but the amount of compensation is relatively low and the demand for agricultural technology and value-added services for agricultural products is high. The other potential compensation regions are economically developed, which makes the compensation less urgent and can lead to the transition to ecologically balanced regions.

The proportions of comprehensive zoning in the economic zones of Henan Province are shown in Figure 11. The priority compensation region of the Huanghuai economic zone accounted for 94.8% of the zone, and the compensation potential region accounted for 5.2%. The priority compensation region of the Southwest Yu economic zone accounted for 94.7% of the total. The North Yu economic zone accounted for 25% of the priority compensation region and 25% of the compensation potential region. The Central Plains economic zone accounted for 33.75% of the priority compensation region and 31.25% of the compensation potential region. Generally, the degree of compensation is urgent in the Huanghuai economic zone and the Southwest Yu economic zone, followed by the North Yu economic zone. The ecologically balanced region has relatively moderate conflicts between economic development and cultivated land ecology, and is mainly located in the Central Plains economic zone and the North Yu economic zone.

4. Discussion

The heavy reliance on cultivated land resources in China’s main grain-producing areas has severely depleted the stock of natural resources and constrained economic development [47,48]. Therefore, determining CLEC standards and reasonable zoning is important for the sustainable use of cultivated land resources, not only considering the volume of food imported and exported under trade openness, which breaks the closed nature of the cropland ecosystems [49,50], but also considering the ‘by-products’ of cropland utilization, and the ecosystem services of the cultivated land [40]. It is clear that the improved three-dimensional footprint model has obvious advantages in assessing the consumption of natural assets and quantifying the ecological compensation value of cultivated land [46]. Compared to the traditional estimation model [51,52], the measurement results of this study are low, but the consideration is more comprehensive, consistent with the characteristics of the cultivated land in the study area, and the results are operable.

The high EF of regions with larger populations and economies in Henan Province is consistent with previous studies [29,53,54]. In the process of development, Henan Province has seriously depleted its natural capital stock, contrary to the concept of sustainable development, and it is necessary to implement ecological compensation to alleviate regional economic and ecological pressure. With the market mechanism, the market value of ESV contributes to regional economic development in the form of money [55]. Compared to other regions, Henan Province has a higher ESV per unit of the cultivated ecosystem, highlighting the contradiction between the economy and the environment [56]. The main factors affecting the ESV of the cultivated land are natural and economic [57,58]. The ecological carrying capacity and ESV of the cultivated land is high, and higher in agricultural production areas, but lower in economically developed areas [59]. The priority of compensation for cropland in Henan Province is inversely proportional to the GDP, which is consistent with Chen et al [55]. Agriculture restricts regional development, which is consistent with our theoretical expectations that regions with faster economic development do not have the pressures of agriculture and should give back to agricultural development regions with funds. The high total of the CLEC amount in the southwestern region of Henan Province is mainly due to the fact that its cropland resource allocation is centered around the goal of food production, which restricts the development of the economy [60]. Priority compensation regions are the most widely distributed regions and represent the most significant type of ecological compensation comprehensive zoning for cropland in Henan Province, with a proportion of 55.1%, which highlights the contradiction between agriculture and development in Henan Province, and demonstrates the urgency of solving the imbalance between the ecological environment and economic development. In the future, the protection of cropland resources is crucial to agricultural production. Although economic development causes serious human–land conflicts, it compensates for the ESV of cultivated land to a certain extent. In the future, coordinating the conflict between economic development and cultivated land resource protection can effectively solve the imbalance between cultivated land protection inputs and cultivated land ecosystem benefits, thus improving the quality and quantity of cultivated land and cultivated land protection incentives.

Compared to other studies [16,27,29,40], this study mainly assessed county-level CLEC in Henan Province and provided the comprehensive zoning of ecological compensation for cultivated land, rather than a simple rough assessment. Considering that the county is the basic unit of ecological compensation policy application practice and governance, it is scientific and reasonable to consider ecological imbalances by county [61]. Furthermore, this study considered the total amount of CLEC, focusing on natural factors, the priority of CLEC, economic and social factors, and comprehensive CLEC zoning, which provides a new idea for the participation of multiple market parties and the diversification of forms of compensation, and provides a reference for the formulation and improvement of ecological compensation policies. This study focused on the construction of a government-based CLEC mechanism, with the government playing a leading role in compensation, and this method is applicable to the current Chinese national conditions. However, to ensure the sustainability of ecological compensation for cropland, it is necessary to actively transition to market allocation as the main body of the ecological compensation system, let the resource market become a bridge between ecological value and ecological compensation, and gradually establish a market-based and diversified ecological protection mechanism [62].

However, this study still has some shortcomings. This study only used 2020 data to estimate the total amount of CLEC in Henan Province, which lacks the dynamic changes from a spatio-temporal perspective. Exploring its spatial and temporal change patterns is important for the formulation of differentiated development policies. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a more comprehensive and precise mechanism to quantify the ecological compensation of cultivated land. Furthermore, the estimation of ESV only considered the value of ecological services and negative impacts generated by cropland, without considering the ESV of forests, grasslands, and pastures, which underestimate the ecological capacity of agricultural production regions [63]. The ESV of various land use types should be considered in the future. Additionally, individually restricted data do not reflect spatial heterogeneity, causing some uncertainty in the results, which can be combined with field surveys in the future to improve the estimation methodology. In the future, it is important to explore, in depth, the differences in the input costs, scarcity, and balanced matching of the cultivated land, and to consider the contribution of cropland resources to securing livelihoods and production, and maintaining social stability.

5. Conclusions

This study used a three-dimensional EF model based on carbon footprint, combined with the ESV method corrected for yield factors, to estimate the total amount and urgency of CLEC in the counties and districts of Henan Province, and presented comprehensive CLEC zoning. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) the spatial distribution of the EF and ecological carrying capacity of the cultivated land in Henan Province are similar, showing a high spatial characteristics in the southeast and a low one in the northwest; the cultivated land in of the most counties and districts of Henan Province are in a state of ecological surplus, and cultivated land resources are sufficient to support their consumption demands. (2) Henan Province, overall, is an ecologically compensated region with a compensation amount of CNY 1.39 billion, and the total amount of compensation is in a positive value of 94.94%, with the western and southwestern regions of Henan Province being high value areas for cropland compensation, and the northern economic zone of Henan Province being a low-value area for cropland compensation. (3) The priority compensation region is the most numerous and widely distributed type in Henan Province, accounting for 55% of the province. The Huanghuai economic zone and the Southwest Yu economic zone are in urgent need of compensation, followed by the North Yu economic zone.

The establishment of a scientific and reasonable ecological compensation mechanism for cultivated land is beneficial for solving the problems of internalizing the externality of cultivated land protection, improving the efficiency of cultivated land utilization, and reflecting the ecological value of the cultivated land. With the allocation of cultivated land resources in major grain-producing areas failing to be adjusted in accordance with market demand, which to some extent restricts economic development, it is urgent to establish a scientific and reasonable mechanism for the ecological compensation of cultivated land to alleviate the problems between food security and economic development. Based on this, this study establishes the ecological compensation standard for cultivated land applicable to the main grain-producing area in Henan Province, aiming to provide scientific references and policy recommendations for the whole country. Moving forward, it is crucial to explore the impacts of cultivated land protection and ecological compensation on societies and ecosystems, considering the input costs, scarcity, and equilibrium-matching of cultivated land. Furthermore, the contribution of cultivated land resources to safeguarding production and life and maintaining social stability should also be considered. Finally, it is important to consider the effects and driving mechanisms of compensation in different economic zones to ensure the sustainability of ecological compensation for cultivated land.