IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i10p1860-d115709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value Assessment of Artificial Wetland Derived from Mining Subsided Lake: A Case Study of Jiuli Lake Wetland in Xuzhou

Author

Listed:
  • Laijian Wang

    (School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
    Xuzhou Environmental Supervision Detachment, Xuzhou 221018, China)

  • Lachun Wang

    (School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China)

  • Pengcheng Yin

    (Bureau of Land and Resources of Xuzhou, Xuzhou 221018, China)

  • Haiyang Cui

    (ASEAN Research Center, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Longwu Liang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Zhenbo Wang

    (Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

Abstract

Mining subsided lakes are major obstacles for ecological restoration and resource reuse in mining regions. Transforming mining subsided lakes into artificial wetlands is an ecological restoration approach that has been attempted in China in recent years, but a value assessment of the approach still needs systematic research. This paper considers Jiuli Lake wetland, an artificial wetland derived from restoration of a mining subsided lake in plain area, as a case study. A value assessment model for the artificial wetland was established based on cost–benefit analysis by means of field monitoring, social surveys, GIS geostatistics, raster calculation methods, etc. Empirical analysis and calculations were performed on the case study region. The following conclusions were drawn: (1) after ecological restoration, ecosystem services of Jiuli Lake wetland which has become a national level wetland park yield positive values; (2) the improved environment of the Jiuli Lake wetland has a spillover effect on the price of surrounding land, resulting in land price appreciation; (3) using GIS geostatistics and raster calculation methods, the impact range, strength, and value of the spillover effect can be explicitly measured; (4) through the establishment of a value assessment model of the artificial wetland, incomes of the ecological restoration was found to be sufficient to cover the implementation costs, which provides a research foundation for economic feasibility of ecological restoration of mining subsided lakes.

Suggested Citation

  • Laijian Wang & Lachun Wang & Pengcheng Yin & Haiyang Cui & Longwu Liang & Zhenbo Wang, 2017. "Value Assessment of Artificial Wetland Derived from Mining Subsided Lake: A Case Study of Jiuli Lake Wetland in Xuzhou," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1860-:d:115709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1860/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1860/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. A D Cliff & J K Ord, 1975. "The Comparison of Means When Samples Consist of Spatially Autocorrelated Observations," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 7(6), pages 725-734, September.
    3. Xiuqing Zou & Arie J. Oskam, 2007. "New Compensation Standard for Land Expropriation in China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 15(5), pages 107-120, September.
    4. Armbrecht, John, 2014. "Use value of cultural experiences: A comparison of contingent valuation and travel cost," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 141-148.
    5. Stephen Gibbons & Susana Mourato & Guilherme Resende, 2014. "The Amenity Value of English Nature: A Hedonic Price Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 175-196, February.
    6. Qu, Song & Heerink, Nico & Xia, Ying, 2015. "Farmers' satisfaction with compensation for farmland expropriation in China--Evidence from micro-level data," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212702, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Costanza, Robert & Chichakly, Karim & Dale, Virginia & Farber, Steve & Finnigan, David & Grigg, Kat & Heckbert, Scott & Kubiszewski, Ida & Lee, Harry & Liu, Shuang & Magnuszewski, Piotr & Maynard, Sim, 2014. "Simulation games that integrate research, entertainment, and learning around ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 195-201.
    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. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    2. Kenny, Daniel C., 2017. "Modeling of natural and social capital on farms: Toward useable integration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Jane Turpie & Gwyneth Letley & Robynne Chyrstal & Stefan Corbella & Derek Stretch, 2017. "A Spatial Valuation of the Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space Areas in eThekwini Municipality," World Bank Publications - Reports 26765, The World Bank Group.
    4. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2019. "How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the PArticulatES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    6. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.
    9. 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.
    10. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    11. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    12. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    13. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    14. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    16. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    17. 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.
    18. Juliana Hurtado Rassi, 2020. "Gestión conjunta de ecosistemas transfronterizos: la importancia del trabajo articulado entre los Estados para la conservación de los recursos naturales. Análisis del caso particular de la “Reserva de," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1241, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.

    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:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1860-:d:115709. 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.