IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i3p1251-d490084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological Compensation Standard of Trans-Boundary River Basin Based on Ecological Spillover Value: A Case Study for the Lancang–Mekong River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Zhao

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

  • Feng-ping Wu

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

  • Fang Li

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

  • Xiang-nan Chen

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

  • Xia Xu

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

  • Zhi-ying Shao

    (School of Business, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    National Engineering Research Center of Water Resources Efficient Utilization and Engineering Safety, Nanjing 210098, China)

Abstract

Ecological compensation is an effective means to solve the conflict of interests among trans-boundary river basin countries. How to determine the ecological compensation standard is the core of ecological compensation. On the basis of the emergy synthesis method, we developed an emergy-water resources ecological footprint model for trans-boundary river basin countries. Based on the calculation of ecosystem service value and consumption ecological value of trans-boundary river basin countries, the ecological spillover value of each basin country is obtained. From the perspective of supply and consumption, the ecological compensation standard in basin countries is determined by judging the supply and consumption status of ecological services and combining with the willingness to pay for ecological compensation. Taking the Lancang–Mekong River Basin as an example, the results show that (1) the ecosystem service value of the Lancang–Mekong River Basin countries from high to low is Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and Myanmar; (2) in terms of ecosystem service value consumption, the order from high to low is Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Laos, and Myanmar; and (3) Thailand and Vietnam, located in the lower reaches of the basin, belong to the consumers of ecological services, and based on the actual willingness to pay, they need to pay $46.913 billion and $1.699 billion, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Zhao & Feng-ping Wu & Fang Li & Xiang-nan Chen & Xia Xu & Zhi-ying Shao, 2021. "Ecological Compensation Standard of Trans-Boundary River Basin Based on Ecological Spillover Value: A Case Study for the Lancang–Mekong River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1251-:d:490084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1251/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1251/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    2. Pham Thu Thuy & Campbell & Stephen Garnett, 2009. "Lessons for Pro-Poor Payments for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Projects in Vietnam," Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 117-133, December.
    3. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.
    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. Weidong Xiao & Liquan Qu & Kai Li & Chuanxu Guo & Jie Li, 2022. "An Assessment of the Rational Range of Eco-Compensation Standards: A Case Study in the Nujiang Prefecture, Southwestern China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Yubing Wang & Kai Zhu & Xiao Xiong & Jianuo Yin & Haoran Yan & Yuan Zhang & Hai Liu, 2022. "Assessment of the Ecological Compensation Standards for Cross-Basin Water Diversion Projects from the Perspective of Main Headwater and Receiver Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-31, December.
    3. Su, Dan & Cao, Yu & Wang, Jiayi & Fang, Xiaoqian & Wu, Qing, 2023. "Toward constructing an eco-account of cultivated land by quantifying the resources flow and eco-asset transfer in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    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. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    2. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    3. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Rosato, Paolo, 2014. "A ‘component-based’ approach to discounting for natural resource damage assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    5. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    6. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    7. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    8. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    9. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    10. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Junran Dong & Desheng Wu, 2020. "An Evaluation of the Impact of Ecological Compensation on the Cross-Section Efficiency Using SFA and DEA: A Case Study of Xin’an River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    14. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    15. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    16. Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson & H. Jo Albers & Razack Lokina & Charles Meshack, 2016. "Allocating Group-Level Payments for Ecosystem Services: Experiences from a REDD+ Pilot in Tanzania," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    19. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 141-160.
    20. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.

    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:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1251-:d:490084. 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.