IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6795-d575774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Internal Relationship between Ecological Value and Economic Value Based on the Forest Resources in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jianxin Geng

    (School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100000, China)

  • Chengzhi Liang

    (School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100000, China)

Abstract

In this study, we applied gross ecosystem product (GEP) theory in a case study to analyze and explain the natural resource asset value and ecosystem service value of forest resources in Jiaokou County, Shanxi Province, Northern China, in 2018. GEP refers to the total value of various final material products and services provided by ecosystems. In this paper, six service functions of a forest system, including water conservation, soil conservation, carbon fixation and oxygen release, forest nutrients, purification of atmospheric environment, and biodiversity, are valued by three calculation methods: the alternative cost method, market value method, and control cost method. The study revealed the following: (1) There is a parallel relationship between the value of natural resource assets and the value of ecosystem services. GEP includes the market value of natural resource assets, but it is mostly the value of ecosystem services. (2) The measurement of the physical quantity of forest ecosystem services depends on parameter data, and the monetary calculation often has no mature pricing basis, which leads to the large scale and uncertainty surrounding the evaluation results of ecosystem services. (3) The ecosystem service value and natural resource asset value have different practical significance, as well as alternate theoretical bases. The value of natural resource assets can be used as the asset valuation basis of economic transactions, which plays a role in macroeconomic management. The value of ecosystem services can be used as the basis of ecological compensation, providing information for the preparation of the balance sheet of natural resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianxin Geng & Chengzhi Liang, 2021. "Analysis of the Internal Relationship between Ecological Value and Economic Value Based on the Forest Resources in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6795-:d:575774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6795/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6795/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Schmidt & Ameur M Manceur & Ralf Seppelt, 2016. "Uncertainty of Monetary Valued Ecosystem Services – Value Transfer Functions for Global Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Wu, JunJie & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2003. "The influence of public open space on urban spatial structure," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 288-309, September.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    4. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    5. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
    6. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    7. repec:eid:wpaper:7/09 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    9. Boumans, Roelof & Roman, Joe & Altman, Irit & Kaufman, Les, 2015. "The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 30-41.
    10. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    11. Mitsch, William J. & Gosselink, James G., 2000. "The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 25-33, October.
    12. Cabana, David & Ryfield, Frances & Crowe, Tasman P. & Brannigan, John, 2020. "Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    13. Tim Taylor & A Longo, 2009. "Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Threshold Effects: Application of Choice Experiments to Value Algal Bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria," Department of Economics Working Papers 7/09, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chenxi Li & Zhihong Zong & Haichao Qie & Yingying Fang & Qiao Liu, 2023. "CiteSpace and Bibliometric Analysis of Published Research on Forest Ecosystem Services for the Period 2018–2022," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Jingyu Wang & Wei Liu & Fanbing Kong, 2023. "Research on Forest Ecological Product Value Evaluation and Conversion Efficiency: Case Study from Pearl River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Pan, Xianyou & Song, Malin & Wang, Yuqing & Shen, Zhiyang & Song, Jinbo & Xie, Pinjie & Pan, Xiongfeng, 2022. "Liability accounting of natural resource assets from the perspective of input Slack—An analysis based on the energy resource in 282 prefecture-level cities in China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Juan Wu & Fangmiao Hou & Wenjing Yu, 2021. "The Effect of Carbon Sink Plantation Projects on Local Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis of County-Level Panel Data from Guangdong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Hualin Xie & Zhe Li & Yu Xu, 2022. "Study on the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) and Regional Economic System: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    2. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    3. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Xuan Thi Dan Huynh & Tien Dung Khong & Adam Loch & Huynh Viet Khai, 2023. "Solid waste management program in developing countries: contingent valuation methodology versus choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(11), pages 12395-12417, November.
    5. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    6. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Ewa Zawojska & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2020. "Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 1-24.
    7. Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & José Gómez-Limón, 2008. "Reconsidering Heterogeneity and Aggregation Issues in Environmental Valuation: A Multi-attribute Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 551-570, August.
    8. Norinder, Anna & Hjalte, Krister & Persson, Ulf, 2001. "Scope and scale insensitivities in a contingent valuation study of risk reductions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 141-153, August.
    9. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    10. Siikamki, Juha, 2001. "Valuing Benefits of Finnish Forest Biodiversity Conservation: Fixed and Random Parameter Logit Models for Pooled Contingent Valuation and Contingent Rating/Ranking Survey Data," Western Region Archives 321696, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    11. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    12. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    13. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    14. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    15. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    16. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    17. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    18. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    19. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    20. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6795-:d:575774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.