Monetary compensation vs. Ecological restoration for marine ecological damage in China: Theory, practices and policy

被引:0
作者
Shan, Jingzhu [1 ]
Li, Jingmei [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Ocean Univ China, Inst Marine Dev, 238 Songling Rd, Qingdao 266100, Shandong, Peoples R China
[2] Ocean Univ China, Sch Econ, 238 Songling Rd, Qingdao 266100, Shandong, Peoples R China
基金
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
Marine ecological damage compensation; Monetary compensation; Ecological restoration; China; RESOURCE EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS; CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; HABITAT EQUIVALENCY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ECO-COMPENSATION; ECONOMIC VALUATION; COASTAL; METAANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124684
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
With the increasing concentration of population and marine industrial activities in coastal areas, marine ecological damage caused by various human activities and unforeseen events has become increasingly severe. Marine ecological damage compensation (MEDC) is a policy designed to regulate and mitigate the ecological impacts of marine development; balance the environmental, economic, and social interests of stakeholders; and ensure the health of marine ecosystems and the sustainable use of marine resources. The MEDC is divided into two modes: compensation in money and compensation in kind, each giving rise to its respective standards: monetary compensation standards and ecological restoration standards. These two compensation standards differ in their theoretical foundations, compensation content, and evaluation methods. Defining the applicable scope and conditions for monetary compensation and ecological restoration is crucial for establishing a scientific, reasonable, and operable MEDC policy. This paper, from a "theory-practice-policy" perspective, begins by comprehensively comparing and analyzing the differences between the two compensation standards in terms of their theoretical basis, compensation content, and assessment methods. Through a survey targeting decisionmakers, it further examines the social acceptability of both compensation standards in management practice and discusses their respective advantages and limitations. Finally, from a policy perspective, applicable conditions and selection recommendations for different compensation standards are proposed: ecological restoration compensation is appropriate when the damaged entities include critical biological habitats such as estuaries, intertidal zones, mangroves, seagrass beds, or key species populations and when ecological damage is prolonged and affects a large area. If damaged ecological elements have clear market prices or substitute prices and if the duration of ecological damage is short, with a limited impact area, monetary compensation is recommended. The fundamental principle in choosing between these two compensation standards is to prioritize ecological restoration. If ecological restoration is not feasible, monetary compensation should be based on the ecological damage costs of the development area. Additionally, the socioeconomic conditions of a region experiencing ecological damage should be considered when appropriate compensation standards are selected. The results provide decision-making references for selecting marine ecological damage compensation modes in different application scenarios and offer guidelines for the government in establishing an "adequate compensation and effective restoration" MEDC standard.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 90 条
[1]  
Airoldi L, 2007, OCEANOGR MAR BIOL, V45, P345
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being: Desertification synthesis
[3]  
Barbier E.B., 2009, Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human wellbeing: An ecological and economic perspective, V10
[4]   Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services [J].
Bellanger, Manuel ;
Fonner, Robert ;
Holland, Daniel S. ;
Libecap, Gary D. ;
Lipton, Douglas W. ;
Scemama, Pierre ;
Speir, Cameron ;
Thebaud, Olivier .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2021, 184
[5]  
Bemow S., 1991, External Environmental Costs of Electric Power: Analysis and Internalization, P81
[6]   Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness? [J].
Bezombes, Lucie ;
Gaucherand, Stephanie ;
Kerbiriou, Christian ;
Reinert, Marie-Eve ;
Spiegelberger, Thomas .
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2017, 60 (02) :216-230
[7]   Operationalisation of ecological compensation - Obstacles and ways forward [J].
Blicharska, Malgorzata ;
Hedblom, Marcus ;
Josefsson, Jonas ;
Widenfalk, Olof ;
Ranius, Thomas ;
Ockinger, Erik ;
Widenfalk, Lina A. .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2022, 304
[8]   The numeraire matters in cost-benefit analysis [J].
Brekke, KA .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 1997, 64 (01) :117-123
[9]  
BURNS ME, 1973, AM ECON REV, V63, P335
[10]   Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill [J].
Carson, RT ;
Mitchell, RC ;
Hanemann, M ;
Kopp, RJ ;
Presser, S ;
Ruud, PA .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2003, 25 (03) :257-286