IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i4p3181-d1065363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Ping Shen

    (Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, Guangzhou 510060, China
    Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory for Urban Sensing, Monitoring and Early Warning, Guangzhou 510060, China)

  • Lijuan Wu

    (Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, Guangzhou 510060, China
    Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory for Urban Sensing, Monitoring and Early Warning, Guangzhou 510060, China)

  • Ziwen Huo

    (Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, Guangzhou 510060, China
    Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory for Urban Sensing, Monitoring and Early Warning, Guangzhou 510060, China)

  • Jiaying Zhang

    (Guangzhou Urban Planning & Design Survey Research Institute, Guangzhou 510060, China
    Guangdong Enterprise Key Laboratory for Urban Sensing, Monitoring and Early Warning, Guangzhou 510060, China)

Abstract

Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) is a concept that reflects ecological product value by using geospatial technology. It can demonstrate the spatial distribution of ecological products and provide new perspectives and refined support for spatial planning. China’s county-level regions are important units for the promotion of ecological product value. Based on the concept of GEP, this study evaluated the ecological product value of China’s county-level regions in 2020, used Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) to visualise spatial patterns and conducted a correlation analysis between the GEP indices and economic and land use factors. The study found that the results of evaluation and analysis varied by spatial distribution: (1) county-level regions with high provisioning service indices are concentrated in northeastern China and southeastern China; (2) county-level regions with high regulating service indices are concentrated south of the Yangtze River and in the southern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau; (3) county-level regions with high cultural service indices are concentrated in southeastern China; (4) county-level regions with high composite GEP indices are concentrated in northeastern China. The results have different correlations with different factors, reflecting the complex mechanisms behind ecological value transformation. For example, the composite GEP index for an area has a strong positive correlation with the area’s proportions of woodland area, water area and GDP.

Suggested Citation

  • Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3181-:d:1065363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3181/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3181/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    2. Hualin Xie & Zhe Li & Yu Xu, 2022. "Study on the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) and Regional Economic System: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    4. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    5. Shuai Guan & Qi Liao & Wenjun Wu & Chuan Yi & Yueming Gao, 2022. "Revealing the Coupling Relationship between the Gross Ecosystem Product and Economic Growth: A Case Study of Hubei Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    7. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    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. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Larson, Silva & Stoeckl, Natalie & Neil, Barbara & Welters, Riccardo, 2013. "Using resident perceptions of values associated with the Australian Tropical Rivers to identify policy and management priorities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 9-18.
    8. Chen, Haojie & Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2022. "Legitimacy and limitations of valuing the oxygen production of ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Jin, Ming & Han, Xulong & Li, Mingyu, 2023. "Trade-offs of multiple urban ecosystem services based on land-use scenarios in the Tumen River cross-border area," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 482(C).
    10. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    11. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    12. Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2020. "Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    14. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    15. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    16. Parks, Sarah & Gowdy, John, 2013. "What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    18. Luying Wang & Kai Su & Xuebing Jiang & Xiangbei Zhou & Zhu Yu & Zhongchao Chen & Changwen Wei & Yiming Zhang & Zhihong Liao, 2022. "Measuring Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) in Guangxi, China, from 2005 to 2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Mann, Carsten, 2015. "Strategies for sustainable policy design: Constructive assessment of biodiversity offsets and banking," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 266-274.
    20. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, Ágnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, Ágnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & Mihók, Barbara, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.

    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:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3181-:d:1065363. 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.