Payment bases and performance logic in China’s subnational compensation for cultivated land protection in the context of ecological and environmental law codification: a two-tier content analysis of 155 legal and policy documents

Introduction China’s policy framework calls for integrated protection of cultivated land quantity, quality, and ecological functions, but how this objective is reflected in subnational compensation rules remains unclear. Methods From 650 initial records, this study constructed a two-tier corpus of 155 legal and policy documents: 108 dedicated compensation documents and 47 containing embedded provisions. Content analysis distinguished payment bases, performance logic, and institutional linkages. An independent assessment of coding covered 46 documents from the original corpus (29.7%), and a separate screening assessment covered 61 records. The 2013–2020 and 2021–2026 issuance cohorts were compared across all documents and among 124 historical rule-setting instruments. Corpus coverage ended on 30 June 2026, with only two documents from 2026. Results Agreement varied by indicator, with weaker chance-corrected agreement for rare ecological and institutional-linkage categories. Area-based allocation and administrative-compliance linkages appeared in 98 documents (63.2%) and 97 documents (62.6%), respectively. Cultivated land quality informed payment standards or allocation in 26 documents (16.8%), while 48 documents (31.0%) linked payment consequences to quality, maintenance, or environmental conditions. A supplementary assessment identified specified quality-linked financial consequences in three of the 26 quality-related documents; details on measurement and verification were limited. No dedicated payment for ecological outcomes was identified; one document used ecological outcomes to allocate broader ecological protection compensation. Institutional linkages appeared in seven documents (4.5%), all in the embedded-provision corpus. Among rule-setting instruments, quality-related allocation occurred in 13.9% of the earlier cohort and 26.9% of the later cohort, with the contrast concentrated in Zhejiang. Under the primary definition, condition- or outcome-linked provisions occurred in 38.9% and 36.5%, respectively; the direction of this contrast reversed under an extended definition. Discussion Because Zhejiang contributed 85 documents (54.8%), pooled frequencies describe the assembled corpus rather than nationwide prevalence. The limited institutional linkages do not establish a substantial trend toward coordination between the two compensation systems. The evidence supports geographically uneven institutional layering, combining fiscal allocation and administrative accountability with selectively incorporated quality and environmental conditions. It does not establish a system-wide transition toward result-based compensation or demonstrate that proposed reforms improve agricultural or environmental outcomes.