Calculation and Simulation of Ecological Compensation Quota of National Key Ecological Function Zones ——Take Altay Area as an Example

doi:10.16716/j.cnki.65-1030/f.2018.06.006

Abstract

Abstract: This paper constructs an ecological compensation standard accounting model based on the value of ecosystem services, and estimates the ecosystem service value and ecological compensation quota in the Altay area. The paper introduces a system dynamics approach and establishes a simulation model. Using 2015 as a reference year, it sets four scenarios: the baseline scenario, the enhanced protection scenario, the ideal protection scenario, and the mild development scenario for the development of ecosystem service value in the Altay area from 2015 to 2035. Estimated ecological compensation amounts under different scenarios. The results show that the amount of ecological compensation obtained in the Altay area is far from that provided by the ecological services. The autonomous region and the Central Government should increase the ecological compensation for the Altay area and maintain it to guarantee the sound and steady ecosystem development.

Key words: Ecological Compensation Quota, Simulation, System Dynamics, Scenario Simulation, the Altay area

CLC Number:

F205

Xiao Chunmei, He Wei. Calculation and Simulation of Ecological Compensation Quota of National Key Ecological Function Zones ——Take Altay Area as an Example[J]. Finance & Economics of Xinjiang, 2018, (6): 51-63.

References

[1]John Loomis,Paula Kent,Liz Strange,Kurt Fausch,Alan Covich.Measuring the Total Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in An Impaired River Basin: Results From a Contingent Valuation Survey[J].Ecological Economics,2000(1):103-117.
[2]LandellMills N.,Porras I..Silver Bullet or Fools’Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and Their Impact on the Poor [R].London:International Institute for Environment and Development,2002.
[3]Cesar H.S.J.,Van Beukering P.J.H..Economic Valuation of the Coral Reefs of Hawaii[J].Pacific Science,2004(2):2.
[4]Pagiola S..Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica[J].Ecological Economics. 2008(4):712-724.
[5]Pham T.T.,Campbell B.M.,Garnett S..Lessons for Pro-poor Payments for Environmental Services:An Analysis of Projects in Vietnam[J].The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration,2009(2):117-133.
[6]Newton P.,Nichols E.S.,Endo W.,et al..Consequences of Actor Level Livelihood Heterogeneity for Additionality in a Tropical Forest Payment for Environmental Services Programme with an Undifferentiated Reward Structure [J].Global Environmental Change,2012(1):127-136.
[7]Kosoy N.,Martinez-Tuna M.,Muradian R.,et al..Payments for Environmental Services in Watersheds:Insights from a Comparative Study of Three Cases in Central America[J].Ecological Economics,2007(3):446-455.
[8]刘玉龙,胡鹏.基于帕累托最优的新安江流域生态补偿标准[J].水利学报,2009(6):703-708.
[9]蔡邦成,陆根法,宋莉娟,刘庄. 生态建设补偿的定量标准——以南水北调东线水源地保护区一期生态建设工程为例[J].生态学报,2008(5):2413-2416.
[10]钟华,姜志德,代富强.水资源保护生态补偿标准量化研究——以渭源县为例[J].安徽农业科学,2008(20):8752-8754+8790.
[11]张自英,胡安焱,向丽.陕南汉江流域生态补偿的定量标准化初探[J].水利水电科技进展,2011(1):25-28.
[12]李芬,朱夫静,翟永洪,巢世军,岳琦,郭杨,张林波.基于生态保护成本的三江源区生态补偿资金估算[J/OL].环境科学研究,2017(1):91-100.
[13]代明,刘燕妮,江思莹.主体功能区划下的生态补偿标准——基于机会成本和佛冈样域的研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2013(2):18-22.
[14]高辉,姚顺波.中国三江源地区生态补偿标准研究[J].云南财经大学学报,2014(4):10-14.
[15]刘菊,傅斌,王玉宽,陈慧.关于生态补偿中保护成本的研究[J/OL].中国人口·资源与环境,2015(3):43-49.
[16]张皓玮,方斌,魏巧巧,瞿颖,王庆日.区域耕地生态价值补偿量化模型构建——以江苏省为例[J].中国土地科学,2015(1):63-70.
[17]曹牧,薛建辉.崇明东滩湿地生态系统服务功能与价值评估研究述评[J/OL].南京林业大学学报(自然科学版),2016(5):163-169.
[18]耿涌,戚瑞,张攀.基于水足迹的流域生态补偿标准模型研究[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2009(6):11-16.
[19]邵帅.基于水足迹模型的水资源补偿策略研究[J/OL].科技进步与对策,2013(14):116-119.
[20]巩芳,长青,王芳,刘鑫.内蒙古草原生态补偿标准的实证研究[J].干旱区资源与环境,2011(12):151-155.
[21]徐大伟,涂少云,常亮,赵云峰.基于演化博弈的流域生态补偿利益冲突分析[J].中国人口·资源与环境,2012(2):8-14.
[22]谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法,郑度,李双成.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003(2):189-196.
[23]王重玲,朱志玲,王梅梅,程淑杰,路彩玲.基于生态服务价值的宁夏隆德县生态补偿研究[J].水土保持研究,2014(1):208-212+218.
[24]谢高地,张彩霞,张雷明,陈文辉,李士美.基于单位面积价值当量因子的生态系统服务价值化方法改进[J].自然资源学报,2015(8):1243-1254.
[25]李晓赛,朱永明,赵丽,田京京,李静.基于价值系数动态调整的青龙县生态系统服务价值变化研究[J].中国生态农业学报,2015(3):373-381.