4.7 Article

Ecological policy benefit valuation based on public feedback: Forest ecosystem services in Wuyishan nature reserve, China

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 673, Issue -, Pages 622-630

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.076

Keywords

Forest ecosystem services; Feedback valuation; Land-use changes; Contingent valuation method; Benefit trade-offs

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFD0800900]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The spontaneous expansion of tea cultivation has led to the degradation of forest ecosystem services in the Wuyishan national nature reserve (WNNR). In 2008, the local government put forward the policy of returning tea to forests (RTTF) to protect the forest ecosystem However, in order to measure its effects over the past ten years, it is necessary to accurately quantify the economic benefits of this ecological policy. This study tracked the land use changes in WNNR during the last 17 years and estimated the ecosystem service value caused by the RI II' policy We used virtual market methods to convert different types of public feedback into a unified monetary value, and estimated the economic benefits of RTTF by combining the land use changes. Results showed that the added value of forest ecosystem services not only compensated for the loss of tea profits, but also brought about remarkable economic benefits (approximately US$140 million). Through the combination of ecological changes and economic benefits, we proposed a fitture direction of the RTTF policy adjustment More broadly, we provided a method to quantify economic effects (or economic losses) from the perspective of public feedback on the basis of ecological changes. This attempt has contributed to the solving of econometric problems related to ecological policy by combining bioinformatics with ecological economics. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available