IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15624-d982765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Hainan Island’s 2010–2020 Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaozhen Zhou

    (The Academy of Digital China (Fujian), Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Qianfeng Wang

    (The Academy of Digital China (Fujian), Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
    College of Environment & Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Rongrong Zhang

    (College of Environment & Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Binyu Ren

    (The Academy of Digital China (Fujian), Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Xiaoping Wu

    (College of Environment & Safety Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China)

  • Yue Wu

    (College of Information Science and Engineering, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian 271018, China)

  • Jiakui Tang

    (University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) is a single currency to measure the contribution of an ecosystem to society. It is the sum of the value of products and services provided by the ecosystem to humans. Based on this, GEP characterizes the current situation of the ecological environment in a region and can measure the contribution index provided by ecosystems. Based on land use data, rainfall data, soil data, statistical yearbook, DEM and other data, this paper constructs the accounting framework of Hainan Island’s GEP, quantitatively evaluates Hainan Island’s GEP from 2010 to 2020 and analyzes the research results. The results are as follows: (1) The GEP of Hainan Island’s ecosystem rose from 596.404 billion CNY in 2010 to 1032.096 billion CNY in 2020, an increase of about 42.21% with an average annual growth rate of 6.3%. The overall GEP has shown an upward trend. Among them, the value of regulation service accounts for the largest proportion was up to 73–83%. (2) The overall distribution of GEP in Hainan Island is uneven, decreasing from the central mountainous areas to the eastern coastal areas around to the west. In particular, Danzhou City, Wenchang City and Haikou City have higher values, while Tunchang, Baoting County and Wuzhishan City have lower values, and Wuzhishan City has the lowest values. Hainan Island is rich in natural resources, which contain great value. Through the accounting of GEP, we can clearly determine the value of the ecosystem, which can help the relevant departments estimate the GEP of Hainan Island’s ecosystem. It can provide a reference for Hainan to formulate ecological protection and sustainable development policies, and for the GEP estimation of other islands.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaozhen Zhou & Qianfeng Wang & Rongrong Zhang & Binyu Ren & Xiaoping Wu & Yue Wu & Jiakui Tang, 2022. "A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Hainan Island’s 2010–2020 Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15624-:d:982765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15624/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15624/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuan Xiu & Ni Wang & Fangxu Peng & Quanxi Wang, 2022. "Spatial–Temporal Variations of Water Ecosystem Services Value and Its Influencing Factors: A Case in Typical Regions of the Central Loess Plateau," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    3. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    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. Qingping Hu & Chunyan Lu & Tingting Chen & Wanting Chen & Huimei Yuan & Mengxing Zhou & Zijing Qiu & Lingxin Bao, 2023. "Evaluation and Analysis of the Gross Ecosystem Product towards the Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Fujian Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.

    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. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    2. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    3. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    5. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    7. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    8. Sofía Monroy-Sais & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Francisco Mora & Margaret Skutsch & Alejandro Casas & Peter Rijnaldus Wilhelmus Gerritsen & David González-Jiménez, 2018. "Exploring How Land Tenure Affects Farmers’ Landscape Values: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Elaine Aparecida Rodrigues & Maurício Lamano Ferreira & Amanda Rodrigues de Carvalho & José Oscar William Vega Bustillos & Rodrigo Antonio Braga Moraes Victor & Marcelo Gomes Sodré & Delvonei Alves de, 2022. "Land, Water, and Climate Issues in Large and Megacities under the Lens of Nuclear Science: An Approach for Achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG11)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-19, October.
    11. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    12. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    13. Anca Ionascu & Costel Negrei & Marian Tudor, 2015. "Benefits of the ecosystems restoration in the Danube Delta – theoretical approach," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 4, pages 107-114.
    14. Xin Wang & Kangning Xiong & Meng Zhang & Xi Zhao, 2022. "The Aesthetic Value of World Heritage Karst: A Literature Review and Implication for Huangguoshu Scenic Area Outstanding Universal Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Laura Nahuelhual & Pablo Donoso & Antonio Lara & Daisy Núñez & Carlos Oyarzún & Eduardo Neira, 2007. "Valuing Ecosystem Services Of Chilean Temperate Rainforests," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 481-499, November.
    16. Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter, 2017. "Benefit Transfer for Ecosystem Services," Working Papers 2017-07, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    17. Brunetta, Grazia & Monaco, Roberto & Salizzoni, Emma & Salvarani, Francesco, 2018. "Integrating landscape in regional development: A multidisciplinary approach to evaluation in Trentino planning policies, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 613-626.
    18. Kadykalo, Andrew N. & Findlay, C. Scott, 2016. "The flow regulation services of wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 91-103.
    19. Campos, Pablo & Oviedo, José L. & Álvarez, Alejandro & Mesa, Bruno & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2019. "The role of non-commercial intermediate services in the valuations of ecosystem services: Application to cork oak farms in Andalusia, Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    20. Caparrós, Alejandro & Oviedo, José L. & Álvarez, Alejandro & Campos, Pablo, 2017. "Simulated exchange values and ecosystem accounting: Theory and application to free access recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 140-149.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15624-:d:982765. 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.