IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3184-d1063152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Assessment on the Supply and Demand for Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Zhuxi County

Author

Listed:
  • Junti Liu

    (Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Wenhui Chen

    (School of Economics & Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Aiying Li

    (Guangdong Forestry Survey and Planning Institute, Guangzhou 510520, China)

  • Chencheng Zhou

    (School of Economics & Management, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

A refined assessment of small-scale to medium-scale forest ecosystem services based on the unique geographical conditions of Zhuxi County provides a basis for decision-making to create a regional green development strategy for the county. The specifications for assessing forest ecosystem services (GB/T38582-2020) were followed to calculate the supply of forest ecosystem services in Zhuxi County using the physical quantity method and the value quantity method, and the demand was calculated using the standard value comparison method. The total supply value of forest ecosystem services in 2020 in Zhuxi County was 35,677,894,500 yuan · a − 1 . In terms of the value of each service, the value of water containment was the largest, accounting for 41.08%, and the value of forest recreation was the smallest, accounting for only 1.36%. The value per unit area of the local broadleaf–mixed forest in Zhuxi County was the largest, at 140,658.65 yuan · a − 1 , while the value of the fir forest was the smallest, at 89,181.32 yuan · a − 1 . The comprehensive supply–demand ratio of forest ecosystem services in Zhuxi County was 1.54, which means a moderate surplus; the supply–demand ratio of supply services was 1.27, which means a slight surplus; the supply–demand ratio of adjustment services was 1.34, which means a slight surplus; the supply–demand ratio of support services was 1.13, which means a slight surplus; and the supply–demand ratio of cultural services was 6.01, which means a high surplus. The supply–demand ratio of cultural services of forest ecosystem services in Zhuxi County was the largest and that of the support services was the smallest. From an overall perspective, the supply of forest ecosystem services in Zhuxi County in 2020 was relatively abundant and sufficient to meet local people’s demand for forest ecosystem services. In the future, some goals may include: (1) improving management capacity of forest resources and the quality of forest resources; (2) increasing the value of forest ecological services per unit area; (3) using mixed-forest planting to transform low-value tree species; (4) developing the supply capacity of forest ecological services; (5) enhancing the reprocessing industry of forest products; and (6) expanding the output of nonforest products. A good ecological defence must be established to achieve the sustainable management of forest resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Junti Liu & Wenhui Chen & Aiying Li & Chencheng Zhou, 2023. "Research Assessment on the Supply and Demand for Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Zhuxi County," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3184-:d:1063152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    7. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    8. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    9. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    10. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    13. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    14. Malte Grossmann & Ottfried Dietrich, 2012. "Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Assessment of Water Management Options for Regulated Wetlands Under Conditions of Climate Change: A Case Study from the Spreewald (Germany)," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(7), pages 2081-2108, May.
    15. Sean Burkholder, 2012. "The New Ecology of Vacancy: Rethinking Land Use in Shrinking Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    17. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    18. Rao, Nalini S. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Portela, Rosimeiry & Wang, Xuanwen, 2015. "Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 95-105.
    19. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Chang Liu & Mingshui Lin & Xinhua Qi & Wenjuan Zheng, 2021. "Estimating the Preservation Value of Wuyishan National Park from the Perspective of Bounded Rational Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, June.

    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:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3184-:d:1063152. 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.