IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i7p1455-d1199062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Township Industry Development under GEP Accounting—A Case Study of Hanwang Town in Xuzhou City

Author

Listed:
  • Shuai Tong

    (School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Jianjie Gao

    (Northwest Branch, China Academy of Urban Planning and Design, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Fengyu Wang

    (School of Architecture and Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

  • Xiang Ji

    (Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Building Energy Saving and Construction Technology, School of Mechanics and Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

Abstract

The protection and utilization of ecological environment are very important for urban and rural development. At present, a large number of relevant theoretical and practical explorations have been carried out, which confirms the important conclusion that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets. The sustainable development of ecological environments is based on coordination with human production and life. In this paper, by constructing an accounting system for the gross ecosystem product (GEP) applicable to Hanwang town, using the market value method, the alternative cost method, the travel cost method, the willingness to pay method and other technical methods, the GEP of Hanwang town is calculated from three aspects: product supply, regulation service and cultural tourism. Finally, the spatial distribution characteristics of value are used to guide the development and layout of ecological industry in Hanwang town. The results showed that the total ecosystem product value of Hanwang town in Xuzhou was relatively high, reaching 1.165 billion CNY, with per capita reaching 30 million CNY, which was 49.16% of the town’s GDP in 2020. The value of cultural tourism is 820 million CNY, the value of regulatory services is 239 million CNY, and the value of product provision is 106 million CNY. The ecological value of Hanwang town varies greatly in spatial distribution. On the whole, the price is low in the southwest, but high in the northeast. The high-value areas are mainly concentrated in three areas: Yudai River Riverside, Xuzhou Paradise in the north, Hanwang Scenic Spot in the middle and the Panaxi Valley tourist spot in the south. Based on the principle of ecological value transformation, combining with the spatial distribution characteristics of ecological value in Hanwang town, four modes of promoting ecological value transformation were proposed: ecological industrialization management, ecological governance and value promotion, ecological resource index trading and ecotourism. This paper preliminarily explores a method to calculate and transform the value of ecological space, which provides feasible concrete strategies for the protection of ecological space and the development of ecological industry in towns.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuai Tong & Jianjie Gao & Fengyu Wang & Xiang Ji, 2023. "Research on Township Industry Development under GEP Accounting—A Case Study of Hanwang Town in Xuzhou City," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1455-:d:1199062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1455/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1455/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hang Yu & Chaofeng Shao & Xiaojun Wang & Chunxu Hao, 2022. "Transformation Path of Ecological Product Value and Efficiency Evaluation: The Case of the Qilihai Wetland in Tianjin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Zheng Zang & Yuqing Zhang & Xu Xi, 2022. "Analysis of the Gross Ecosystem Product—Gross Domestic Product Synergistic States, Evolutionary Process, and Their Regional Contribution to the Chinese Mainland," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    3. Todd BenDor & T William Lester & Avery Livengood & Adam Davis & Logan Yonavjak, 2015. "Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Jason Hickel & Stéphane Hallegatte, 2022. "Can we live within environmental limits and still reduce poverty? Degrowth or decoupling?," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 40(1), January.
    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. Yahui Wang & Erfu Dai & Yue Qi & Yao Fan, 2023. "Study on the Ecosystem Service Supply–Demand Relationship and Development Strategies in Mountains in Southwest China Based on Different Spatial Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, November.

    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. Luying Wang & Kai Su & Xuebing Jiang & Xiangbei Zhou & Zhu Yu & Zhongchao Chen & Changwen Wei & Yiming Zhang & Zhihong Liao, 2022. "Measuring Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) in Guangxi, China, from 2005 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Kuifeng Wang & Paul Liu & Fengsheng Sun & Shengwen Wang & Gong Zhang & Taiping Zhang & Guodong Chen & Jinqiu Liu & Gangchao Wang & Songkun Cao, 2023. "Progress in Realizing the Value of Ecological Products in China and Its Practice in Shandong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-30, June.
    3. Langhans, Kelley E. & Schmitt, Rafael J.P. & Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca & Anderson, Christopher B. & Vargas Bolaños, Christian & Vargas Cabezas, Fermin & Dirzo, Rodolfo & Goldstein, Jesse A. & Horangic,, 2022. "Modeling multiple ecosystem services and beneficiaries of riparian reforestation in Costa Rica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    4. Zheng Zang & Qilong Ren & Yuqing Zhang, 2022. "Analysis of the Spatial Adaptability of Gross Ecosystem Production, Gross Domestic Production, and Population Density in Chinese Mainland," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Alex W. Ireland & Laura J. Napoli & Katherine A. Basiotis & Emily J. Voldstad & Kayhan Ostovar, 2020. "Potential conservation benefits of a voluntary corporate certification program," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 4889-4905, June.
    6. Etienne de L'Estoile & Mathilde Salin, 2024. "Who Takes the Land? Quantifying the Use of Built-Up Land by French Economic Sectors to Assess Their Vulnerability to the ‘No Net Land Take’ Policy," Working papers 941, Banque de France.
    7. Michael Manton & Evaldas Makrickas & Piotr Banaszuk & Aleksander Kołos & Andrzej Kamocki & Mateusz Grygoruk & Marta Stachowicz & Leonas Jarašius & Nerijus Zableckis & Jūratė Sendžikaitė & Jan Peters &, 2021. "Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River Basin as a Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-27, February.
    8. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Esmee D. Kooijman & Siobhan McQuaid & Mary-Lee Rhodes & Marcus J. Collier & Francesco Pilla, 2021. "Innovating with Nature: From Nature-Based Solutions to Nature-Based Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Ewelina Szałkiewicz & Szymon Jusik & Mateusz Grygoruk, 2018. "Status of and Perspectives on River Restoration in Europe: 310,000 Euros per Hectare of Restored River," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Angela Köppl & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2022. "Macroeconomic Effects of Green Recovery Programmes. Conceptual Framing and a Review of the Empirical Literature," WIFO Working Papers 646, WIFO.
    13. Naudé, Wim, 2023. "Melancholy Hues: The Futility of Green Growth and Degrowth, and the Inevitability of Societal Collapse," IZA Discussion Papers 16139, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Taylor Hanna & Barry B. Hughes & Mohammod T. Irfan & David K. Bohl & José Solórzano & Babatunde Abidoye & Laurel Patterson & Jonathan D. Moyer, 2024. "Sustainable Development Goal Attainment in the Wake of COVID-19: Simulating an Ambitious Policy Push," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Kimberley Anh Thomas, 2023. "Compelled to Compete: Rendering Climate Change Vulnerability Investable," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 54(2), pages 223-250, March.
    16. Christopher A. Kennedy & Martin Sers & Michael I. Westphal, 2023. "Avoiding investment in fossil fuel assets," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(4), pages 1184-1196, August.
    17. Xiansheng Xie & Shaozhi Chen & Rong Zhao, 2023. "A Preliminary Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ecological Product Value Realization in China Based on the DPSIR Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-26, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Cong Liu & Wenlai Jiang & Yang Liu & Yunfei Liu, 2023. "Evaluation for Water and Land Resources System Efficiency and Influencing Factors in China: A Two-Stage Network DEA Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Patrick Moriarty & Damon Honnery, 2023. "Are Energy Reductions Compatible with Economic Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.

    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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1455-:d:1199062. 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.