IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i3p923-d1574540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study on Quantitative Model of Water Resource Ecological Compensation in Yangtze River Basin Based on Water Footprint–Decoupling Analysis Methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Fuhua Sun

    (College of Agricultural Science and Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Daoming Pan

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Dandan Zhang

    (Ginling College, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)

  • Jiayi Guo

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Ping Guo

    (Continuous Education College, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China)

  • Xiaojie Zhang

    (Jinshen College, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing 210023, China)

  • Chen Chi

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Shengnan Zhang

    (School of Finance and Economics, Wanjiang University of Technology, Ma’anshan 203031, China)

Abstract

Establishing a standard model for water resource ecological compensation, based on water quantity and quality, is one of the current research hotspots in the field of ecological economy. This paper calculates the water footprint from 2011 to 2021, constructs an inter-provincial water resource ecological compensation model in the Yangtze River Basin, and discusses the horizontal compensation of water resource ecology in the Yangtze River Basin. Firstly, the water footprint method and the water footprint ecological load index are used to evaluate and analyze the overall water resource utilization in the basin and in various administrative regions within the basin; secondly, the decoupling analysis method is used to study the coordinated relationship between water resource utilization and economic development among different administrative regions; finally, the identity of the compensation subject and object are determined on the basis of the calculation of ecological surplus and deficit of water resources in each administrative region, and the compensation standards are quantitatively calculated. The results indicate the following: (1) Over the 11 years, the overall water footprint of the Yangtze River Basin and its provinces has shown a growth trend, with significant differences in the quantity of water footprints among different administrative regions, and the average water footprint exhibits a decreasing distribution from “midstream—downstream—upstream”. There are significant differences in the water footprint ecological load index among provinces, with the load index showing a trend of being higher in the east and lower in the west. (2) From the perspective of the decoupling index, there has been no state of dis-coordination in the Yangtze River Basin overall over the 11 years, with 2016, 2018, and 2019 being in a high-quality coordinated state, while the other years were in a primary coordinated state. (3) In terms of horizontal payment for ecological compensation, Tibet, Yunnan, and Qinghai have consistently been regions receiving ecological compensation, while Shanghai, Jiangsu, Anhui, Hubei, Hunan, and Chongqing have been determined as compensation subjects required to make payments over the years.

Suggested Citation

  • Fuhua Sun & Daoming Pan & Dandan Zhang & Jiayi Guo & Ping Guo & Xiaojie Zhang & Chen Chi & Shengnan Zhang, 2025. "Study on Quantitative Model of Water Resource Ecological Compensation in Yangtze River Basin Based on Water Footprint–Decoupling Analysis Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:923-:d:1574540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/923/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/923/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Moran, Dominic & McVittie, Alistair & Allcroft, David J. & Elston, David A., 2007. "Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 42-53, June.
    3. Muñoz-Piña, Carlos & Guevara, Alejandro & Torres, Juan Manuel & Braña, Josefina, 2008. "Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 725-736, May.
    4. Pham Thu Thuy & Campbell & Stephen Garnett, 2009. "Lessons for Pro-Poor Payments for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Projects in Vietnam," Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 117-133, December.
    5. Yin Su & Qifang Zheng & Shenghai Liao, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Water Ecological Footprint and Countermeasures for Water Sustainability in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Bazrafshan, Ommolbanin & Zamani, Hossein & Ramezanietedli, Hadi & Gerkaninezhad Moshizi, Zahra & Shamili, Mansoureh & Ismaelpour, Yahya & Gholami, Hamid, 2020. "Improving water management in date palms using economic value of water footprint and virtual water trade concepts in Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    7. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    8. Xue, Jibin & Lang, Jiahui & Guan, Yanjun & Lu, Shibao, 2023. "Design and measurement of small-scale regional ecological compensation model," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1392-1405.
    9. 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.
    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. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Ojea, Elena & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2015. "Understanding the economic value of water ecosystem services from tropical forests: A systematic review for South and Central America," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-106.
    3. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    5. Sylvie Démurger & Haiyuan Wan, 2012. "Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the sloping land conversion program in Ningxia," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    7. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    8. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    10. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    11. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    12. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    13. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    14. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    15. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    17. Gabay, Mónica & Alam, Mahbubul, 2017. "Community forestry and its mitigation potential in the Anthropocene: The importance of land tenure governance and the threat of privatization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 26-35.
    18. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    19. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.
    20. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, 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:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:3:p:923-:d:1574540. 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.