IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p14575-d964950.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transformation Path of Ecological Product Value and Efficiency Evaluation: The Case of the Qilihai Wetland in Tianjin

Author

Listed:
  • Hang Yu

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, 38 Tongyan Road, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Chaofeng Shao

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, 38 Tongyan Road, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Xiaojun Wang

    (College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, 38 Tongyan Road, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, China)

  • Chunxu Hao

    (Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, 8 Anyang Square, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100012, China)

Abstract

In order to protect wetland resources, China has developed wetland conservation policies and has made significant conservation investments, but there is still a lack of pathways for the conversion to economic value, making it difficult to meet the demand for continuous investment. We have explored a sustainable ecological conservation mechanism using the Seven Mile Sea as a case study, so that ecological conservation costs can be transformed into economic development behaviors and ecological benefits and socio-economic development can be integrated. This paper assesses the ecological product value of the Qilihai Wetland based on the ecosystem service function value assessment method, which designs the realization path of ecological product value and predicts the value transformation efficiency. The results show the following: (1) The total value of ecological products in the study area is CNY 569.06 million (USD 78.36 million), and the main sources of value are plant products in the supply service and water purification functions in the regulation service, accounting for 54.05% and 26.10% of the total, respectively. (2) The predicted value realization of ecological products, ideally, is CNY 689.65 million (USD 94.96 million), with a value realization rate of 111.60%. Considering the management policy restrictions in different areas of the Qilihai Wetland, the actual value realization volume is CNY 391.94 million (USD 53.97 million), with a value realization rate of 63.42%. (3) Owing to the restriction of the development policy of supply services and cultural services, the value realization path mainly contains two types: one is to drive the development of supply services and cultural services in the surrounding areas, along with product premiums, to realize value transformation. This path is mainly aimed at the supply of local characteristic products and the development of tourism. The second is to realize the value of regulating services through ecological compensation and ecological equity trading. This path is mainly for the adjustment and support services in the core area and buffer area. According to the pre-accounting results, the contribution rates of the two paths are 62.25% and 37.75%, respectively. The second path should be further effectively developed to improve the contribution rate. This study helps assess the ecological value and important ecological elements of the Qilihai Wetland to ensure effective protection and development of important ecological resources and to achieve the sustainable development of wetland resources. It provides a reference for exploring feasible paths to realize the value of ecological goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Hang Yu & Chaofeng Shao & Xiaojun Wang & Chunxu Hao, 2022. "Transformation Path of Ecological Product Value and Efficiency Evaluation: The Case of the Qilihai Wetland in Tianjin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14575-:d:964950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14575/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/14575/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich Enneking, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 205-223, June.
    2. Chen Chen & ChaoFeng Shao & YanMin Shi, 2020. "Dynamic Evaluation of Ecological Service Function Value of Qilihai Wetland in Tianjin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    4. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.
    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. Shuai Tong & Jianjie Gao & Fengyu Wang & Xiang Ji, 2023. "Research on Township Industry Development under GEP Accounting—A Case Study of Hanwang Town in Xuzhou City," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Cong Liu & Wenlai Jiang & Yang Liu & Yunfei Liu, 2023. "Evaluation for Water and Land Resources System Efficiency and Influencing Factors in China: A Two-Stage Network DEA Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Kuifeng Wang & Paul Liu & Fengsheng Sun & Shengwen Wang & Gong Zhang & Taiping Zhang & Guodong Chen & Jinqiu Liu & Gangchao Wang & Songkun Cao, 2023. "Progress in Realizing the Value of Ecological Products in China and Its Practice in Shandong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-30, June.
    4. Enxiang Zhang & Xinting Gao & Shuo Lei & Qin Qiao & Yuping Zheng & Lixiang Liu & Yongwei Han, 2024. "Evaluation Methods and Application of Adaptability of Ecological Product Development and Utilization—Taking Jizhou District, Tianjin City, as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Xiansheng Xie & Shaozhi Chen & Rong Zhao, 2023. "A Preliminary Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ecological Product Value Realization in China Based on the DPSIR Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-26, November.

    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. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Naphtal Habiyaremye & Nadhem Mtimet & Emily A. Ouma & Gideon A. Obare, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for safe and quality milk: Evidence from experimental auctions in Rwanda," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1049-1074, October.
    6. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    8. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Asian Elephant in Sri Lanka: A Contingent Valuation Study," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48738, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    9. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    10. Goddard, Ellen W. & Drescher, Larissa S. & Fernando, Jeewani, 2012. "The potential impact of the Health Check™ on diet quality of food away from home purchases," 2012 AAEA/EAAE Food Environment Symposium 123523, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Chopra, Vasudha & Das, Sukanya, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Wastewater Treatment in New Delhi: Contingent Valuation Approach," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 2(02), July.
    12. Oluwakemi Adeola Obayelu & Janet Abiola Agbohin & Omobolaji Olubukunmi Obisesan, 2022. "Consumers’ Preference For Local Rice Brands In Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria," Food and Agri Economics Review (FAER), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(1), pages 12-17, January.
    13. Iliriana Miftari & Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner & Drini Imami & Ekrem Gjokaj, 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    16. Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Heikkila, Jaakko & Isoniemi, Merja & Makela, Johanna & Paananen, Jaana, 2008. "Consumers' choice of broiler meat in Finland: the effects of country of origin and production methods," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43543, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    18. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.
    19. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:14575-:d:964950. 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.