IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p3078-d1371635.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study on the Ecological Compensation Standard in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China under the Perspective of Natural Capital Supply and Demand

Author

Listed:
  • Jinli Shi

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Tuodi Wang

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Liping Xu

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Zhiyu Gao

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Cui Cao

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yutian Luo

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yunyun Xi

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

  • Yu Zhang

    (College of Science, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China)

Abstract

The fundamental component of the ecological compensation system, as well as the crucial basis for its efficient functioning, is calculating the ecological compensation amount and establishing the ecological compensation standard. This study integrates the ecological footprint with natural capital monetization and other methods by introducing a natural capital accounting system. From the standpoint of natural capital supply and demand, it also builds an accounting framework for ecological compensation standards that is standardized, dynamic, and regionally differentiated while taking local socioeconomic aspects into account. We determined the amount of ecological compensation by using Xinjiang as the research object and calculating and analyzing the features of regional and temporal changes in the monetary and physical quantities of natural capital in Xinjiang from 2010 to 2020. The findings show that from 2010 to 2020, Xinjiang’s ecological footprint increased by 1.26 times in physical terms and 1.21 times in monetary terms and that its ecological carrying capacity increased by 4.13% in physical terms and 9.42% in monetary terms. The ecological deficit continues to grow in physical and monetary terms, with a per capita ecological deficit in 2020 of 19.92 s-nha/cap and 70,100 CNY/cap in physical and monetary terms, respectively. The amount of ecological compensation required to be paid in Xinjiang increased from CNY 5659 million to CNY 10,259 million, and the per capita ecological compensation payment standard increased from 259.42 CNY/cap/yr to 396.11 CNY/cap/yr. In summary, Xinjiang’s natural capital supply is insufficient to meet the demand for consumption, and the ecological deficit is growing with time, necessitating the payment of ecological compensation. The study’s results lay the foundation for formulating and implementing ecological compensation policies in Xinjiang and provide theoretical support for constructing ecological civilization in Xinjiang. In addition, the ecological compensation accounting framework constructed in this study organically integrates natural capital theory, ecosystem services, and socioeconomic influencing factors, which enriches the methodology of accounting for ecological compensation standards, and, at the same time, can be used as a paradigm of a dynamic and equitable ecological compensation accounting framework to further promote its use at different scales and regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinli Shi & Tuodi Wang & Liping Xu & Zhiyu Gao & Cui Cao & Yutian Luo & Yunyun Xi & Yu Zhang, 2024. "Study on the Ecological Compensation Standard in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China under the Perspective of Natural Capital Supply and Demand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:3078-:d:1371635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/3078/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/3078/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
    2. Browne, David & O’Regan, Bernadette & Moles, Richard, 2009. "Use of carbon footprinting to explore alternative household waste policy scenarios in an Irish city-region," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 113-122.
    3. Li Ma & Danbo Pang & Jie Gao & Wenbin Wang & Ruoxiu Sun, 2023. "Ecological Asset Assessment and Ecological Compensation Standards for Desert Nature Reserves: Evidence from Three Different Climate Zones in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Negasi Solomon & Alcade C. Segnon & Emiru Birhane, 2019. "Ecosystem Service Values Changes in Response to Land-Use/Land-Cover Dynamics in Dry Afromontane Forest in Northern Ethiopia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-15, November.
    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. Alcott, Blake, 2008. "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 770-786, February.
    2. Karen Turner, 2006. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 347-364.
    3. Martin C. Whitby & W. Neil Adger, 1997. "Natural And Reproducible Capital And The Sustainability Of Land Use In The Uk: A Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 454-458, January.
    4. Korhonen, Jouni & Snakin, Juha-Pekka, 2005. "Analysing the evolution of industrial ecosystems: concepts and application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 169-186, January.
    5. Suranjan Sinha & Surajit Chakraborty & Shatrajit Goswami, 2017. "Ecological footprint: an indicator of environmental sustainability of a surface coal mine," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 807-824, June.
    6. Prudence Dato, 2018. "Investment in Energy Efficiency, Adoption of Renewable Energy and Household Behavior: Evidence from OECD Countries," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    7. Chang You & Hongjiao Qu & Shidong Zhang & Luo Guo, 2024. "Assessment of Uncertainties in Ecological Risk Based on the Prediction of Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Evolution," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Xin Yang & Fan Zhang & Cheng Luo & Anlu Zhang, 2019. "Farmland Ecological Compensation Zoning and Horizontal Fiscal Payment Mechanism in Wuhan Agglomeration, China, From the Perspective of Ecological Footprint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Timo Busch, 2020. "Industrial ecology, climate adaptation, and financial risk," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(2), pages 285-290, April.
    10. Ang, Frederic & Van Passel, Steven & Mathijs, Erik, 2011. "An aggregate resource efficiency perspective on sustainability: A Sustainable Value application to the EU-15 countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 99-110.
    11. Hezri, Adnan A. & Dovers, Stephen R., 2006. "Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 86-99, November.
    12. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "The roles of human values and generalized trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints: Insights from Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 84-91.
    13. Jouni Korhonen & Thomas P. Seager, 2008. "Beyond eco‐efficiency: a resilience perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(7), pages 411-419, November.
    14. Ye-Ning Wang & Qiang Zhou & Hao-Wei Wang, 2020. "Assessing Ecological Carrying Capacity in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Based on a Three-Dimensional Ecological Footprint Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Lijing Tang & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang & Qing Wei, 2022. "Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    16. Siche, J.R. & Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. & Romeiro, A., 2008. "Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 628-637, July.
    17. Hanna Safwat H. Shakir & Kendall T. Harris & Irvin W. Osborne-Lee & Gian Paolo Cesaretti & Rosa Misso & Magdy T. Khalil, 2013. "Global Ecological Footprint, Climate Change Impacts and Assessment," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(2), pages 9-38.
    18. Herring, Horace, 1999. "Does energy efficiency save energy? The debate and its consequences," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 209-226, July.
    19. Emily Grubert, 2023. "Yellow, red, and brown energy: leveraging water footprinting concepts for decarbonizing energy systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7239-7260, July.
    20. Niccolucci, V. & Galli, A. & Reed, A. & Neri, E. & Wackernagel, M. & Bastianoni, S., 2011. "Towards a 3D National Ecological Footprint Geography," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(16), pages 2939-2944.

    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:16:y:2024:i:7:p:3078-:d:1371635. 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.