- Email: [email protected]
Designing a framework for marine ecosystem assets accounting
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Designing a framework for marine ecosystem assets accounting a
a,∗
b
a
Tao Wang , Guang-shun He , Qiu-lin Zhou , Jin-zhu Gao , Li-jing Deng a b
T
a
National Marine Data and Information Service, Tianjin, China Third Institute of Oceanography of the State Oceanic Administration, Xiamen, China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Ecosystem assets Ecosystem extent Ecosystem condition Expected ecosystem service flows
Marine ecosystem assets accounting is a cornerstone of the marine resource assets management; however, it is facing an imperfect accounting system in the current situation. Based on the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, this paper initially combines the key concepts, the objectives, the extent, and the tabular structure in measuring the ecosystem assets. Subsequently, with the marine ecosystems as the research object, this paper attempts to design the accounting tables for the marine ecosystems extent, marine ecosystems conditions and the expected service flows of the marine ecosystems in physical terms. Furthermore, the technical issues such as trade-off, pricing and the choice of asset discount rate on expected marine ecosystem services are explored. With the accounting of the expected marine ecosystem services in monetary terms, the calculation of the marine ecosystem assets using the net present value method is possible, and the marine ecosystem assets accounts can be compiled. Finally, this paper proposes the existing challenges and directs the need for further research in designing the framework of marine ecosystem assets accounts.
1. Introduction Marine resources are the natural capital and wealth of the nation and serve as an important basis of the national strategic resource. Marine ecosystems continue to provide products and services, and maintain the environmental conditions of human survival, thus benefitting the mankind. For a long time, marine ecosystems structure and function have been excessively disturbed. Hence, in order to strengthen the integrated marine ecosystems management accurately on a scientific basis (Hou and Wang, 2015), there is an urgent need to develop a framework for marine ecosystem assets accounting. The current research on the accounting theories of the ecosystem assets and technical methods mainly focus the unit area value of the total static estimation (Yu, 2010; Wang and Wan, 2014; Zhu and Gao, 2011; Duan and Li, 2010)，without considering the spatial differences in the types and quality of an ecosystem, the estimation results fail to comprehensively reflect the real value of ecosystem assets in terms of spatial distribution. In order to realize these dynamic calculations, it is necessary to make further exploration and practice of ecosystem assets accounting. In 2014, The United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental- Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) formulated and released the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) – 2012 Experimental Ecosystem Accounting that expounds a series of
∗
rules and accounting concepts for the assessment and measurement of the ecosystem (European Commission, 2014b). As a supplement to the SEEA central framework (European Commission, 2014a), the experimental ecosystem accounting framework focuses the functional units of the ecosystems in different biophysical environments, from a research perspective. This leads to the exploration of the ecosystem services and ecosystem assets accounting frameworks, which in-turn explains and analyzes the accounting relationship between ecosystem and economic activities. Although the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting does not accurately construct a comprehensive process for ecosystem accounting, yet it has clearly combined the central concepts and key disciplines in ecosystem assets and ecosystem services (Pan, 2013; Research Group of Forest Resource Accounting in China, 2015). Based on the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, this paper attempts to outline a marine ecosystem assets accounting framework and makes a preliminary exploration in the comprehensive accounting of marine ecosystem assets. 2. An ecosystem assets accounting framework Using a wide range of information, the SEEA Central Framework, through its structure, enables source data to be compared and contrasted and allows for the development of aggregates, indicators and
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Wang), [email protected] (G.-s. He).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.019 Received 5 November 2017; Received in revised form 14 April 2018; Accepted 26 May 2018 0964-5691/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. Basic model of ecosystem assets accounting.
relatively stable over time and may be considered ecosystem assets for accounting purposes. The measurement of the ecosystem extent could determine the boundary of the ecosystem assets and comprises of a variety of types of ecosystems, which need to be measured by their spatial size and their proportions of different water covers. It is an important variable index of ecosystem assets.
trends across a broad spectrum of ecosystems and economic issues. In the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, the ecosystem assets are the spatial areas comprising of a combination of biotic and abiotic components, and other characteristics that function together (European Commission, 2014b). The accounting entity is represented by a spatial region, each of which constitutes an ‘ecosystem asset’. Ecosystem assets are measured from two perspectives viz. from the ecosystem condition and ecosystem extent, and from the ecosystem services. The ecosystem assets are generated at a specific time point due to a specific combination or ‘basket’ of the ecosystem services. The formation of ecosystem services from the ecosystem assets is similar to the generation of the equity dividends from the economic assets (Zhai and Li, 2015a, b). The ecosystem assets accounting should take into account the ability to generate a basket of expected ecosystem service flows at a time point, following to which the ecosystem service is a total revenue stream. The formation of the expected ecosystem service is also influenced by the conditions and extent of ecosystems. The relationship between ecosystem condition and ecosystem extent is relatively complex, possibly non-linear, and changes with time. The simplified process of ecosystem assets accounting is shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Ecosystem condition Ecosystem condition reflects the overall quality of an ecosystem asset in terms of its characteristics. The assessment of an ecosystem condition involves two distinct stages with reference to both quantity and quality attributes of the ecosystem assets. In the first stage, it is necessary to select the appropriate key ecosystem condition characteristics and the relevant change of index in them. The selected indicators should take into account the current and the future use patterns of the ecosystem. In the second stage, the reference conditions and the evaluation criteria are set for the evaluation indicators. The changes in the ecosystem conditions are reflected after a comparison of the conditional evaluation scores at different time points. Each ecosystem asset has a series of ‘ecosystem characteristics’ to describe the ecosystem conditions. In the accounting framework, the ecosystem condition is measured on the basis of ecology, location and biodiversity: (1) Key ecological characteristics such as ecological structure, components, processes, and functions. (2) Key characteristics of the location of an ecosystem such as the extent, configuration, landscape forms within which the ecosystem is situated, climate and associated seasonal patterns. (3) Key characteristics of the diversities in an ecosystem, at a number of levels that include the species diversity and ecosystem diversity.
2.1. Ecosystem extent The ecosystem extent generally refers to the size of an ecosystem asset, which is generally measured in terms of surface area, for example, hectares of a land-cover type.1 Three different, but related, types of units are defined in SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting to accommodate the different scales and methods used to collect, integrate and analyze data: (1) Basic spatial units (BSUs), which are composed of a small grid, can reflect the accounting information, and the diversity of the landscape (2) Land-cover/ecosystem functional units (LCEUs), which is usually an ecosystem (3) Ecosystem accounting units (EAUs) in which the spatial unit consists of the spatial areas that are fixed or
2.3. Expected ecosystem service flow Expected ecosystem service flow is the measurement of the capacity of an ecosystem asset to generate a given combination of ecosystem services (Xie, 2015). The expected flows are based on the parameters like the expected basket of provisioning, regulating services, and cultural services from an ecosystem asset (Campbell, 2012; Peter and
1
Marine ecosystems may be classified by type of water cover (e.g., coastal water bodies, open wetlands) but also through aquatic ecosystem mapping systems which distinguish between marine and estuarine environments (see, e.g., Cowardin et al. (1979)). These mapping systems may consider different marine habitats (e.g., reefs and seagrass) and factors such as depth and light availability.
93
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. Stylized model of flows related to marine ecosystem services.
3. Marine ecosystem extent and condition
Burkhard, 2016; Jónsson and Davíðsdóttir, 2016; Brian and Widmark, 2016; La Notte and D'Amato, 2017), excluding support services or intermediate services (Ma and Zhao, 2015). The stylized model of flows related to marine ecosystem services is shown in Fig. 2. The measurement of an expected ecosystem service is based on the sustainability of the framework. Within the framework of the existing ecosystem structure, it is necessary to determine the expected future ecosystem service combinations under the current use patterns, and the optimal use of ecosystem services. The capacity to generate the ecosystem services is influenced by the changes in the ecosystem conditions and extent.
Based on the logical framework of SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, the paper focuses on the marine ecosystems as the research object to study the marine ecosystem assets accounting. Marine ecosystem extent is composed of the marine and coastal biological communities and its surrounding environment with typical and special values for conservation. Marine ecological space consists of the waterbodies, estuaries, islands and adjacent coastal areas under its jurisdiction (State Oceanic Administration, 1999). In the accounting process, marine ecosystem extent needs to be initially defined before decomposing the key characteristics of marine ecosystem condition for assessing the marine ecosystem condition, and subsequently, the expected marine ecosystem services are measured using the marine ecosystem condition score. Finally, the marine ecosystem assets are evaluated using the net present value method.
2.4. Aggregation in ecosystem assets accounting Aggregation in ecosystem assets accounting includes two stages viz. the aggregation of ecosystem services and the aggregation of ecosystem assets. Three different forms of the aggregation can be envisaged, which mainly include: (1) Aggregation of the various ecosystem services within a spatial area. (2) Aggregation of a single ecosystem service across multiple spatial areas. (3) Aggregation of all ecosystem services across multiple areas within a country. The aggregation of the ecosystem assets is based on the logic of standard assets accounting, and the value of ecosystem assets is the discounted profit flow that originates from the ecosystem service (Zhai and Li, 2015a, b). Under the premise of assuming the life expectancy of the ecosystem assets, the value of ecosystem assets can be calculated using Equation (1). Generally speaking, the capacity of an ecosystem asset to generate a basket of ecosystem services can be understood as a function of the ecosystem condition and the ecosystem extent.
V=
∫0
∞
e−δt Et dt
3.1. Marine ecosystem extent The first step in the aggregation of the marine ecosystem assets is a compilation of the information, which is indicated by the sea area in physical terms. Due to the same accounting unit (hectare), the aggregation of the marine ecosystem is relatively simple. Marine ecosystem extent can be divided into the various accounting units to compile the statistical information and data tabulation. For ecosystem accounting purposes, the definition of the marine ecosystem classification should align with the definition of types of LCEUs. In this paper, we have adopted the division of LCEUs accounting unit on the basis of the terrain and function groups. The marine natural system is divided into ten types viz. estuarine ecosystem, inter-tidal zone ecosystem, salt marsh ecosystem, mangrove ecosystem, bay ecosystem, seagrass ecosystem, coral reef ecosystem, ascending ecosystem, continental shelf ecosystem, and island ecosystem, on the basis of the corresponding composition of biological communities and the marine environment(State Oceanic Administration, 1999). Theoretically, the marine ecosystem accounting units should be mutually exclusive, which means that all the types of accounting units should lie in a sole ecosystem. If accounting units contains a variety of marine ecosystem function types, the selection of marine ecosystem accounting types should follow the principle of ecological protection priority to meet the actual marine management（State Oceanic Administration, 2015）. In the accounting period, it is essential to account the opening and closing stock in hectares depending on the different types and changes in the area of each ecosystem types in physical terms. The table structure is as shown in Table 1, which includes the
(1)
Where, V is the value of ecosystem assets, Et represents the expected ecosystem services value in time t, δ represents the discount rate, 3 Et = ∑i = 1 Eti represents the series of expected ecosystem service value including provisioning services, regulating services and cultural service, Eti represents the function of ecosystem extent and ecosystem condition and can be calculated by using Equation (2).
Eti = f ((Ft , M (Oti , Lti , Bti ))
(2)
Where, Ft represents ecosystem extent, M (Oti , Lti , Bti ) represents ecosystem condition, Oti , Lti and Bti represents ecology, ecosystem location, and diversity, respectively. 94
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Table 1 Measure of marine ecosystem extent in physical terms (unit: HA). Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Inter-tidal zone
Salt marsh
Mangrove
Bay or Gulf
Sea-grass bed
Coral reef
Upwelling
Continental shelf
Islands
Opening stock Additions to stock Managed expansion Natural expansion Upward reappraisals Total additions to stock Reductions in stock Managed regression Natural regression Downward reappraisals Total reductions in stock Net changes Closing stock of resources
and damage, and in the short term may be difficult to restore. In order to calculate accurately, it is necessary to master the marine ecosystem condition in time, although it is difficult in practice management. All of the marine natural ecosystems, the biological community structure, and the surrounding environment of the mangroves, sea-grass beds and coral reef ecosystem is relatively active in its ability to absorb the biological pollutants and resist storms, and also has a vital ecology and tourism ornamental value. The upwelling is affected by the horizontal divergence of the surface flow field. The movement of the seawater in the vertical direction carries the nutrient salt of the deep water area to the surface layer, which leads to the relatively high marine productivity in that area. The estuary and gulf ecosystems are inclined to be semi-enclosed, and the advance and retreat of the brackish water in the region is affected by the tidal fluctuations, which changes the circulation pattern, leading to a strong diversity in the ecosystem species. Inter-tidal ecosystem exhibits a strong interaction between the sea and the land and is a relatively open system, which consists of diverse types of habitat and relatively significant human activities. The environment in the coastal salt marshes is not conducive for the growth of plants, whose community structure involve a simple and mostly a single layer. The continental shelf ecosystem is located in the shallow sea where the temperature is conducive and the light is enough; the life in this ecosystem is relatively active, and the single cell planktonic algae and herbivorous zooplankton are relatively more in this ecosystem. The island ecosystem is ecologically isolated, and the biological structure of the island ecosystem is fragile, but the system is principally
variables like the opening stock and closing stock, additions to stock, reductions in stock and the net change. The additions (reductions) in the stock comprise the various types of subsidiary accounts in the marine ecosystem managed expansion (regression), natural expansion (regression), and upward (downward) reappraisals. With the use of the remote sensing image and sea area survey method, it is possible to set up the marine ecosystem extent and obtain the spatial statistical data in the assessment of environmental assets. 3.2. Marine ecosystem condition According to the key characteristics of the marine ecosystem types and the future usage of the ecosystems, it is desirable to establish a simple framework for assessing the ecosystem condition. The key characteristics of the marine ecosystem condition contain three factors that include the operation of the marine ecosystem, the location of the marine ecosystem, and the diversity. These factors provide the basis for assessing the ability of the ecosystem assets to generate the expected marine ecosystem services (Feest, 2009). The specific indicator framework for assessing marine ecosystem condition is shown in Table 2. Table 2 provides significant insights of the various processes operating within the marine ecosystem, and using this it may be possible to identify the specific indicators which can represent the overall condition of the marine ecosystem. It is necessary to investigate the characteristics of a marine ecosystem which, in turn, gets reflected in the ecosystem condition. Because of marine ecosystem condition is dynamic, may further interference expected marine ecosystem service flow, such as the external force result in marine ecosystem degradation Table 2 Specific indicator framework for assessing of marine ecosystem condition. Target
Ecosystem Characteristics
Headline Indicator
Specific Indicator
Marine Ecosystem Condition
Ecology
Biological productivity
Net primary productivity Mean species abundance Chlorophyll concentration Sea water quality Marine sediment quality Ecosystem coverage Geographical features of ecosystem Marine trophic index Biodiversity intactness index Invasive alien species Red list of ecosystem（RLI） Fragmentation of ecosystems Connectivity of ecosystems（Fractal Dimension） Mean species abundance（MSA） Marine Trophic Index（MTI） Population diversity Distribution of endangered/threatened species
Naturalness Ecosystem's location
Ecosystem extent Ecosystem integrity Fragility/sensitivity
Biodiversity
Significance Biodiversity
Habitat for endangered/threatened species
95
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
provided by the different marine ecosystems, it is difficult to assess all the ecosystem services at a given time. It may be feasible initially to select limited ones, rather than a comprehensive set of marine ecosystem services due to the environmental concerns, policy contexts and data availability (European Commission, 2014b). Normally, the benefits generated by the provisioning services are generally measured as a part of the standard economic accounting, which is the most feasible focus for the ecosystem accounting while expanding the collected information and accounting the measurement of regulating and cultural services.
Table 3 Changes in a Single-type marine ecosystem condition. Condition
Characteristics of Marine ecosystem condition
Opening condition Improvements in condition Improvements due to natural regeneration Improvements due to human activity Reductions in condition Reductions due to extraction and harvest of resources Reductions due to ongoing human activity Catastrophic losses due to human activity Catastrophic losses due to natural events Closing condition
Ecology
Location of the Ecosystem
Biodiversity
100
100
100
4.1. Accounting for marine ecosystem services in physical terms In order to comprehensive consider the practicability of marine ecosystem services to incorporate Marine ecosystem accounting, it may be most feasible initially to select a limited rather than a comprehensive set of ecosystem services. In general, the criteria for selecting the priorities of ecosystem services need to fully consider environmental concerns, data availability and policy contexts (European Commission, 2014b). On the basis of the existing research on the assessment of the ecosystem services (Sun and Wang, 2016; Jean and Pascoe, 2016), we selected 22 types of expected marine ecosystem services, the details are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that not all the marine ecosystems need to be accounted for the 22 kinds of ecosystem services. It is required to determine the ‘basket’ of the expected marine ecosystem services by the structure of the different types of marine ecosystems and the current use patterns, so as to achieve the expected marine ecosystem services indicator system in physical terms. The changes of marine ecosystem services in the whole accounting period only need the marine ecosystem services in physical terms at the beginning and end of the period. In order to meet the needs marine dynamic surveillance and monitoring management, it can also be used flexibly to fill marine ecosystem services in physical terms at any point in the accounting period. It is necessary to identify the capacity of marine ecosystem assets to generate the expected marine ecosystem services, as it a function related to the marine ecosystem conditions and extent. Initially, the expected marine ecosystem services should be described and the tradeoff in detail. Subsequently, a complete mapping between the marine ecosystem function and the structure should be built using the generated marine ecosystem services. Finally, a hypothesis should be made on the biophysical functional relationship between the capacity to generate the ecosystem services and the ecosystem condition and extent. The setting of the provisioning services index must reflect the existing stock that would be consumed, and its regeneration depends on the whole marine ecosystem condition. There are a series of complicated and changeable ecosystem processes regulating these changes in the provisioning services index. Regulating services do not usually involve the harvesting or extraction, and the capacity to generate regulating services can be linked to the biophysical and biochemical processes in the specific marine ecosystem. Typically, there exists a high spatial variability in the relationship between ecosystem assets and ecosystem regulating services. For example, the capacity of the marine ecosystem to prevent and mitigate disaster may be related to the local topography and the distance from the sea. There exists a high degree of variation between the types of selected cultural services and the capacity to generate marine ecosystem services. For example, recreational services are associated with the attractiveness of the coastal areas, which is a function of the marine landscapes, vegetation, marine organisms, maritime tourism facilities, and footpaths and other factors. It can be estimated that the expected marine ecosystem services are generated based on these established functions.
in a state of equilibrium, which is conducive to the development of the nature reserve plan. Meanwhile, this ecosystem can provide more services for biological, genetic, habitat protection and information culture. The assessment of marine ecosystem extent and condition is to determine the capacity of generation of marine ecosystem services. Normally, the measurement of the changes in the ecosystem condition during the accounting period should be measured by the reference sites and biophysical condition models. The reference condition requires that the marine ecosystem should be in an equilibrium state, and the weights should be determined on the importance of the ecosystems evaluation indicator, which must be reflected in the differences in the quality and characteristics. All ecosystem condition indicators are weighted to composite in the accounting period, using a composite index. Usually, the index score is set to a value of 100 in the opening period, and the score of the marine ecosystem types in the closing period is calculated to reflect the ecosystem condition changes. The Single-type marine ecosystem condition account is shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the comprehensive structure of the marine ecosystem condition, which records the opening (and closing) ecosystem condition score of different marine ecosystems. It should be noted that the marine ecosystem condition score is required to calculate the capacity of the ecosystem to generate ecosystem services. 4. Accounting for marine expected ecosystem service Due to the great differences in the types of ecosystem service Table 4 Measures of marine ecosystem condition and extent at end of accounting period. Marine Ecosystem Classification
Ecosystem Extent
Characteristics of Ecosystem Condition
Area
Ecology
ecosystem's location
Biodiversity
Estuary Intertidal zone Salt marsh Mangrove Gulf Sea-grass bed Coral reef Upwelling continental shelf Islands
96
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Table 5 Expected marine ecosystem service in physical terms at end (beginning) of accounting period. Expected marine ecosystem services in physical terms
Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Provisioning
Regulating
Cultural
Intertidal zone
Salt marsh
Mangrove
Gulf
Sea-grass bed
Coral reef
Upwelling
Continental shelf
Islands
Water Uncultivated marine plants, algae, and animals for food Nutrients and natural feed for cultivated biological resources Plant and animal fibers and structures Chemicals from plants and animals Genetic materials Biomass-based energy Other provisioning services Bioremediation Dilution, filtration and sequestration of pollutants Air flow regulation Water flow regulation Mass flow regulation Water cycle regulation Life-cycle maintenance, and habitat and gene pool protection Pest and disease control Non-extractive recreation Information and knowledge Spiritual and symbolic Ecosystem capital for future generation of ecosystem services
should focus on the exchange value, which leads to the estimation of their monetary value based on the exchange rate.
4.2. Pricing of marine ecosystem services Different marine ecosystem services choose various appropriate valuation methods in their monetization (Hejnowicz and Raffaelli, 2014; Monge and Parker, 2016; Momblanch and Connor, 2016; Kim, 2016); the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting provides valuation methods like; 1. Pricing using the unit resource rent 2. Replacement cost methods 3. Pricing the ecosystem services and trading schemes. In addition, there are two other evaluation methods: 1. Revealed preference methods, including hedonic value method, production function method, and avoidance behavior law 2. Stated preference methods, including conditional value method and selection experiment method. Marine provisioning services relate to the goods extracted from or harvested in an ecosystem. Generally, the value of production of these goods is included in the System of National Accounts (SNA) production boundary. The unit resource rent can substitute the economic value of marine provisioning services. It is difficult to a certain extent to achieve the overall valuation of the marine regulating services. Regulating services support and enable economic activities by means of their generated positive externalities. The costs of maintaining the ecosystem or providing services are not generally incurred by the users of the service, except in the relatively rare cases, wherein the mechanisms of payments for ecosystem services (PES) have been established. Commonly, the focus of the measurement for regulating services lies in the welfare analysis. For cultural services, the situation differs according to the variation in the service involved. A number of cultural services such as the spiritual, symbolic and information services lack efficient markets, where a related market price cannot be determined and could be analyzed in the context of welfare economic concept. Generally, the economic activities associated with recreation and tourism lie within the scope of the SNA production boundary. The focus of the ecosystem accounting is to integrate with the standard economic accounting that can be compared with the existing production accounting to assess the ecosystem services and ecosystem assets. The evaluation method of valuation of the marine ecosystem
4.3. Accounting for marine ecosystem services in monetary terms The expected marine ecosystem services can be calculated using the marine ecosystem services in physical terms and prices, as shown in Table 6. The rows reflect the different types of expected ecosystem service value and the aggregation in the same marine ecosystem. The columns reflect the marine ecosystem service value and the aggregation under the different marine ecosystems. In order to avoid the repeated accumulation, the aggregates in the columns need to reflect the complex dependencies between the marine ecosystems. Assuming every expected marine ecosystem service is independent; the total marine ecosystem service value can be calculated using Equation (3). (3)
Si = Gi + Ri + Wi , i = 1,2,3…
Where, S is the expected marine ecosystem service, while G, R, and W Table 6 Expected marine ecosystem service in monetary terms at the end (or beginning) of the accounting period. Marine Ecosystem Classification
Estuary Intertidal zone Salt marsh Mangrove Bay or Gulf Sea-grass bed Coral reef Upwelling continental shelf Islands Total
97
Expected marine ecosystem service flows per year Provisioning services
Regulating services
Cultural services
Total
G1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ G10 T1
R1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ R10 T2
W1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ W10 T3
S1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ S10 T
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
5.2.1. Changes caused by human activities As shown in Table 7, the additions and improvement of the marine ecosystem assets caused by the human activities that repair the marine ecosystem are recorded as ‘Regeneration-through human activity’; the reductions of marine ecosystem assets caused by the degradation of the ecosystem are recorded as ‘Reductions due to extraction and harvesting of resources’, while the decline in the ecosystem capacity to form other ecosystem services is recorded as ‘Reductions due to ongoing human activity’. The measurement of degradation should comply with the following two conditions:
represents the provisioning services, Regulating services and Cultural services, respectively. 5. Aggregation in marine ecosystem assets In the assessment of the ecosystem assets, it should be assumed that each expected ecosystem service value needs to be discounted to the current accounting period, commonly referred as the net present value (NPV) approach, which is explained in the SEEA center framework. According to the optimal growth theory, the selected discount rate of future monetization is related to two influential factors viz. the contemporary preference of the people for future generations and the future prosperity. The discount rate can be expressed by the Ramsay formula, using Equation (4).
r = ρ + ηg
A. Ecosystem degradation should cover the decline due to merely economic and other human activity, thereby excluding those due to natural influences and events. B. A decline in the expected ecosystem service flow, where there is no associated reduction in the ecosystem condition, should not be considered as ecosystem degradation.
(4)
Where ρ represents the net time preference rate, g represents the increase rate of per capita consumption and ηrepresents the marginal utility elasticity of consumption. Usually, the discount rate used by OECD member countries is 4%–5% (Hepburn, 2016). Marine ecosystem assets value is estimated by the marine ecosystem services value and the discount rate. The change of marine ecosystem assets is measured by the change of ecosystem services during the accounting period, which is influenced by the expected price and quantity of marine ecosystem services in physical terms. The marine ecosystem assets account is represented in Table 7.
When the change in the extent and condition of an ecosystem is so significant that it is not possible for the ecosystem to be returned to a condition akin to a previous one, or when the change is irreversible, this approach is not followed by the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting.
5.2. Assessing change in marine ecosystem assets
5.2.2. Changes caused by natural events Under the existing threshold, irreversibility and the time span, the marine ecosystem assets have the potential for regeneration, and thus the ability to provide the same marine ecosystem services continuously within the life cycle of the assumed marine ecosystem. If in an accounting period, the increase due to natural regeneration is greater than the reductions due to human activity, then ecosystem degradation becomes zero and the extra regeneration should be recorded as an addition to the ecosystem assets. Catastrophic losses contain the losses due to human activity and the natural events. In the marine environment, the occurrence of largescale identified storm surges, waves, tsunamis, sea ice and other natural disasters may destroy marine ecosystem assets that need be attributed to the natural events, while events like acts of war, riots and political events, emissions of toxic substances or radioactive particles and other technical accidents need to be attributed to the human activities.
From the application perspective, SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting needs to emphasize the four factors that affect the change of ecosystem assets, including the human factors, natural factors, reclassification, and revaluation.
5.2.3. Reclassification This paper defines reclassification to include the spatial as well as the time aspects. The spatial change in the types of marine ecosystems states that the reduction in one type of marine ecosystem asset should
5.1. Assessing stock in marine ecosystem assets Marine ecosystem assets accounts possess multiple types and complex structures. The amount and structure of the inventory in the marine ecosystem assets can reveal the quantity and proportion of various types of marine ecosystem assets. The balanced formula of marine ecosystem assets in accounting period can be deduced from Equation (5).
Opening stock + Additions to stock + Revaluations = Closing stock + Reductions in stock
(5)
Table 7 Marine ecosystem assets accounting. Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Inter-tidal zone
Opening stock of marine ecosystem assets Additions to stock Regeneration—natural (net normal natural losses) Regeneration—through human activity Reclassifications Total additions to stock Reductions in stock Reductions due to extraction and harvesting of resources Reductions due to on-going human activity Catastrophic losses due to human activity Catastrophic losses due to natural events Reclassifications Total reductions in stock Revaluations (if any) Closing stock of marine ecosystem assets
98
Salt marsh
┄
Islands
Total
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
the elasticity of marginal utility. The setting of these parameters is relatively subjective by the time value, the wealth scale, and the different income groups.
offset the increase in another type of marine ecosystem asset. This means that the reclassification does not affect the total score in physical terms of marine ecosystems. The aspect of time is mainly about the choice of a ‘basket’ of the marine ecosystem services. Any changes in the marine ecosystem structure or the current marine ecosystem services will lead to the reclassification of marine ecosystem assets.
6.4. Cohesion and expansion with marine economic accounting At the national level, the marine ecosystem assets accounting should be linked with the marine economic accounts, which needs to be adjusted and expanded in the SNA framework. In the process of adjustment and expansion of the environmental and economic accounting, it is necessary to clearly put forward the scope of the accounting boundary defined in the SNA and SEEA, so as to ensure a consistency in the ecosystem assets and economic assets. In order to realize the assets management of the marine ecosystem on a regional scale, it is necessary to establish an integrated relationship between the ecosystem assets and the economic assets to improve the marine ecosystem assets accounting system.
5.2.4. Revaluation The revaluation account records the changes in the value of the marine ecosystem assets, caused due to price fluctuations, as changes in the discounted value of marine ecosystem assets during the accounting period. 6. Conclusions This paper tries to design the accounting framework of the marine ecosystem assets using the logical processes of standard economic accounting. The expected marine ecosystem services can be regarded as the future income stream of the marine ecosystem assets, and the income stream is related to marine ecosystem condition and extent. The assessment of the marine ecosystem extent and conditions have been relatively systematically defined and sorted, but this accounting framework is still limited at the theoretical level since practically, it is difficult to implement in the application and management of marine ecosystem assets. Thus, more research needs to be done in following areas for improved practicability, in the future work:
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.019. References Brian, Danley, Widmark, Camilla, 2016. Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications. Ecol. Econ. 126 (6), 132–138. Campbell, Brown, 2012. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14 (5), 691–724. Cowardin, Lewis M., et al., 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Duan, J., Li, Y.H., 2010. An assessment of ecological capital and compensation for yunnan shilin world heritage site. Resour. Sci. 32 (4), 752–760. European Commission, 2014a. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations, World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework 20l2. European Commission, 2014b. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations, World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting 20l2. Feest, A., 2009. Progress towards the European 2010 Biodiversity Target-indicator Fact Sheets. Compendium to EEA Report 04/2009. . Fu, B.J., Yu, D.D., 2016. Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resour. Sci. 38 (1), 1–9. Hejnowicz, Adam P., Raffaelli, David G., 2014. Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programs using a capital asset framework. Ecosys. Serv. 9 (9), 83–97. Hepburn, C., 2016. Use of Discount Rates in the Estimation of the Cost of Inaction with Respect to Selected Environment Concerns. Origination for Economic Co-operation and Development. Hou, P., Wang, Q., 2015. Progress of integrated ecosystem assessment: concept, framework and challenges. Geogr. Res. 34 (10), 1809–1823. Jean, Baptiste Marre, Pascoe, Sean, 2016. Information preferences for the evaluation of coastal development impacts on ecosystem services: a multi-criteria assessment in the Australian context. J. Environ. Manag. 173 (5), 141–150. Jean, Baptiste Marre, Olivier, Thébaud, Pascoe, Sean, 2016. Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management. J. Environ. Manag. 178 (8), 52–62. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G., Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services. Agric. Syst. 145 (6), 24–38. Kim, Dohoon, 2016. Value ecosystem models for social media services. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 107 (6), 13–27. La Notte, Alessandra, D'Amato, Dalia, 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Indicat. 74 (3), 392–402. Ma, G.X., Zhao, X.T., 2015. Concept definition and system construction of gross ecosystem production. Resour. Sci. 37 (9), 1709–1715. Momblanch, Andrea, Connor, Jeffery D., 2016. Using ecosystem services to represent the environment in hydro-economic models. J. Hydrol. 538 (6), 293–303. Monge, Juan J., Parker, Warren J., 2016. Integrating forest ecosystem services into the farming landscape: a stochastic economic assessment. Ecosys. Serv. 22 (12), 297–308. Pan, Y.J., 2013. Construction of Evaluation System for Ecological Civilization Based on ECO-gdp Accounts. Chinese Academy of Forestry. Peter, Waweru Wangai, Burkhard, Benjamin, 2016. A review of studies on ecosystem services in Africa. Inter. J. Sustain. Built. Environ. 12 (5), 225–245. Research Group of Forest Resource Accounting in China, 2015. China's Forest Resources Accounting in the Context of Ecocivilization Institutional Development. China Forestry Publishing House.
6.1. Balancing of the expected marine ecosystem services In general, marine ecosystem services may have an impact on each other. In addition, the marine ecosystem can generate a certain amount of marine ecosystem services, when bundled together. It is absolutely critical to balance and complements each other in the temporal and spatial forms, so as to facilitate the development of ‘increase profit - loss reduction’. At present, there are many qualitative methods of analyses (Fu and Yu, 2016; Jean et al., 2016), such as the multi-criteria analysis, costbenefit analysis, etc. It is worthy to further study by combining the ecology, economics, statistics and other disciplines together, to make a quantitative research on the trade-off of expected marine ecosystem services. 6.2. Pricing of the expected marine ecosystem services There are many uncertainties for the pricing of marine ecosystem services. Not all of the marine ecosystem services are exchanged in the market. Many marine ecosystem services that provide benefits to human well-being are not given at a price and are underestimated or ignored in actual decision-making. For determining a market price of these non-observable marine ecosystem services, a provision for an approximation of the market price equivalents needs to be done. It is also to be noted that, while integrating the values for ecosystem assets with the values of economic assets, care should be taken to ensure that the values of expected flows of ecosystem services and the expected flows of income from the produced assets should be consistent, in order to be aggregated. 6.3. Determination of the discount rate The growth of marine ecosystem assets is characterized by the scarcity and limited substitutability. In order to take into account the inter-generational equity, it is necessary to make a choice from the perspective of sustainable development, which needs to focus on two factors: (1) Net time preference that reflects the individual time preference and social preference (2) Generation of income in the future, which can be determined by the growth rate of per capita income, and 99
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
equivalent: a case study of Xinjiang autonomous region. Stat. Info. Forum. 25 (2), 20–25. Zhai, Q.S., Li, J.S., 2015a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. China Environment press. Zhai, Q.S., Li, J.S., 2015b. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. China Environment press. Zhu, W.Q., Gao, Q.Z., 2011. Ecological capital assessment for the alpine grassland ecosystem in the northwest alpine pastoral area of tibet. J. Nat. Resour. 26 (03), 419–428.
State Oceanic Administration, 1999. Principle for Classification of marine Nature reserve. State Standard of the People's Republic of China. State Oceanic Administration, 2015. The Implementation Plan of Marine Ecological Civilization Construction. (2015–2020). Sun, C.Z., Wang, S., 2016. Chinese marine ecosystem services value: regional and structural equilibrium analysis. Ocean Coast Manag. 6 (125), 70–83. Wang, J.J., Wan, D.J., 2014. Discussion on accounting method for ecological assets. Environ. Sustain. Dev. (6), 14–18. Xie, G.D., 2015. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 37 (9), 1740–1746. Yu, Q.L., 2010. Study on the accounting mode of ecological assets based on green
100
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Designing a framework for marine ecosystem assets accounting a
a,∗
b
a
Tao Wang , Guang-shun He , Qiu-lin Zhou , Jin-zhu Gao , Li-jing Deng a b
T
a
National Marine Data and Information Service, Tianjin, China Third Institute of Oceanography of the State Oceanic Administration, Xiamen, China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Ecosystem assets Ecosystem extent Ecosystem condition Expected ecosystem service flows
Marine ecosystem assets accounting is a cornerstone of the marine resource assets management; however, it is facing an imperfect accounting system in the current situation. Based on the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, this paper initially combines the key concepts, the objectives, the extent, and the tabular structure in measuring the ecosystem assets. Subsequently, with the marine ecosystems as the research object, this paper attempts to design the accounting tables for the marine ecosystems extent, marine ecosystems conditions and the expected service flows of the marine ecosystems in physical terms. Furthermore, the technical issues such as trade-off, pricing and the choice of asset discount rate on expected marine ecosystem services are explored. With the accounting of the expected marine ecosystem services in monetary terms, the calculation of the marine ecosystem assets using the net present value method is possible, and the marine ecosystem assets accounts can be compiled. Finally, this paper proposes the existing challenges and directs the need for further research in designing the framework of marine ecosystem assets accounts.
1. Introduction Marine resources are the natural capital and wealth of the nation and serve as an important basis of the national strategic resource. Marine ecosystems continue to provide products and services, and maintain the environmental conditions of human survival, thus benefitting the mankind. For a long time, marine ecosystems structure and function have been excessively disturbed. Hence, in order to strengthen the integrated marine ecosystems management accurately on a scientific basis (Hou and Wang, 2015), there is an urgent need to develop a framework for marine ecosystem assets accounting. The current research on the accounting theories of the ecosystem assets and technical methods mainly focus the unit area value of the total static estimation (Yu, 2010; Wang and Wan, 2014; Zhu and Gao, 2011; Duan and Li, 2010)，without considering the spatial differences in the types and quality of an ecosystem, the estimation results fail to comprehensively reflect the real value of ecosystem assets in terms of spatial distribution. In order to realize these dynamic calculations, it is necessary to make further exploration and practice of ecosystem assets accounting. In 2014, The United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental- Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) formulated and released the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) – 2012 Experimental Ecosystem Accounting that expounds a series of
∗
rules and accounting concepts for the assessment and measurement of the ecosystem (European Commission, 2014b). As a supplement to the SEEA central framework (European Commission, 2014a), the experimental ecosystem accounting framework focuses the functional units of the ecosystems in different biophysical environments, from a research perspective. This leads to the exploration of the ecosystem services and ecosystem assets accounting frameworks, which in-turn explains and analyzes the accounting relationship between ecosystem and economic activities. Although the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting does not accurately construct a comprehensive process for ecosystem accounting, yet it has clearly combined the central concepts and key disciplines in ecosystem assets and ecosystem services (Pan, 2013; Research Group of Forest Resource Accounting in China, 2015). Based on the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, this paper attempts to outline a marine ecosystem assets accounting framework and makes a preliminary exploration in the comprehensive accounting of marine ecosystem assets. 2. An ecosystem assets accounting framework Using a wide range of information, the SEEA Central Framework, through its structure, enables source data to be compared and contrasted and allows for the development of aggregates, indicators and
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Wang), [email protected] (G.-s. He).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.019 Received 5 November 2017; Received in revised form 14 April 2018; Accepted 26 May 2018 0964-5691/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. Basic model of ecosystem assets accounting.
relatively stable over time and may be considered ecosystem assets for accounting purposes. The measurement of the ecosystem extent could determine the boundary of the ecosystem assets and comprises of a variety of types of ecosystems, which need to be measured by their spatial size and their proportions of different water covers. It is an important variable index of ecosystem assets.
trends across a broad spectrum of ecosystems and economic issues. In the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, the ecosystem assets are the spatial areas comprising of a combination of biotic and abiotic components, and other characteristics that function together (European Commission, 2014b). The accounting entity is represented by a spatial region, each of which constitutes an ‘ecosystem asset’. Ecosystem assets are measured from two perspectives viz. from the ecosystem condition and ecosystem extent, and from the ecosystem services. The ecosystem assets are generated at a specific time point due to a specific combination or ‘basket’ of the ecosystem services. The formation of ecosystem services from the ecosystem assets is similar to the generation of the equity dividends from the economic assets (Zhai and Li, 2015a, b). The ecosystem assets accounting should take into account the ability to generate a basket of expected ecosystem service flows at a time point, following to which the ecosystem service is a total revenue stream. The formation of the expected ecosystem service is also influenced by the conditions and extent of ecosystems. The relationship between ecosystem condition and ecosystem extent is relatively complex, possibly non-linear, and changes with time. The simplified process of ecosystem assets accounting is shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Ecosystem condition Ecosystem condition reflects the overall quality of an ecosystem asset in terms of its characteristics. The assessment of an ecosystem condition involves two distinct stages with reference to both quantity and quality attributes of the ecosystem assets. In the first stage, it is necessary to select the appropriate key ecosystem condition characteristics and the relevant change of index in them. The selected indicators should take into account the current and the future use patterns of the ecosystem. In the second stage, the reference conditions and the evaluation criteria are set for the evaluation indicators. The changes in the ecosystem conditions are reflected after a comparison of the conditional evaluation scores at different time points. Each ecosystem asset has a series of ‘ecosystem characteristics’ to describe the ecosystem conditions. In the accounting framework, the ecosystem condition is measured on the basis of ecology, location and biodiversity: (1) Key ecological characteristics such as ecological structure, components, processes, and functions. (2) Key characteristics of the location of an ecosystem such as the extent, configuration, landscape forms within which the ecosystem is situated, climate and associated seasonal patterns. (3) Key characteristics of the diversities in an ecosystem, at a number of levels that include the species diversity and ecosystem diversity.
2.1. Ecosystem extent The ecosystem extent generally refers to the size of an ecosystem asset, which is generally measured in terms of surface area, for example, hectares of a land-cover type.1 Three different, but related, types of units are defined in SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting to accommodate the different scales and methods used to collect, integrate and analyze data: (1) Basic spatial units (BSUs), which are composed of a small grid, can reflect the accounting information, and the diversity of the landscape (2) Land-cover/ecosystem functional units (LCEUs), which is usually an ecosystem (3) Ecosystem accounting units (EAUs) in which the spatial unit consists of the spatial areas that are fixed or
2.3. Expected ecosystem service flow Expected ecosystem service flow is the measurement of the capacity of an ecosystem asset to generate a given combination of ecosystem services (Xie, 2015). The expected flows are based on the parameters like the expected basket of provisioning, regulating services, and cultural services from an ecosystem asset (Campbell, 2012; Peter and
1
Marine ecosystems may be classified by type of water cover (e.g., coastal water bodies, open wetlands) but also through aquatic ecosystem mapping systems which distinguish between marine and estuarine environments (see, e.g., Cowardin et al. (1979)). These mapping systems may consider different marine habitats (e.g., reefs and seagrass) and factors such as depth and light availability.
93
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. Stylized model of flows related to marine ecosystem services.
3. Marine ecosystem extent and condition
Burkhard, 2016; Jónsson and Davíðsdóttir, 2016; Brian and Widmark, 2016; La Notte and D'Amato, 2017), excluding support services or intermediate services (Ma and Zhao, 2015). The stylized model of flows related to marine ecosystem services is shown in Fig. 2. The measurement of an expected ecosystem service is based on the sustainability of the framework. Within the framework of the existing ecosystem structure, it is necessary to determine the expected future ecosystem service combinations under the current use patterns, and the optimal use of ecosystem services. The capacity to generate the ecosystem services is influenced by the changes in the ecosystem conditions and extent.
Based on the logical framework of SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, the paper focuses on the marine ecosystems as the research object to study the marine ecosystem assets accounting. Marine ecosystem extent is composed of the marine and coastal biological communities and its surrounding environment with typical and special values for conservation. Marine ecological space consists of the waterbodies, estuaries, islands and adjacent coastal areas under its jurisdiction (State Oceanic Administration, 1999). In the accounting process, marine ecosystem extent needs to be initially defined before decomposing the key characteristics of marine ecosystem condition for assessing the marine ecosystem condition, and subsequently, the expected marine ecosystem services are measured using the marine ecosystem condition score. Finally, the marine ecosystem assets are evaluated using the net present value method.
2.4. Aggregation in ecosystem assets accounting Aggregation in ecosystem assets accounting includes two stages viz. the aggregation of ecosystem services and the aggregation of ecosystem assets. Three different forms of the aggregation can be envisaged, which mainly include: (1) Aggregation of the various ecosystem services within a spatial area. (2) Aggregation of a single ecosystem service across multiple spatial areas. (3) Aggregation of all ecosystem services across multiple areas within a country. The aggregation of the ecosystem assets is based on the logic of standard assets accounting, and the value of ecosystem assets is the discounted profit flow that originates from the ecosystem service (Zhai and Li, 2015a, b). Under the premise of assuming the life expectancy of the ecosystem assets, the value of ecosystem assets can be calculated using Equation (1). Generally speaking, the capacity of an ecosystem asset to generate a basket of ecosystem services can be understood as a function of the ecosystem condition and the ecosystem extent.
V=
∫0
∞
e−δt Et dt
3.1. Marine ecosystem extent The first step in the aggregation of the marine ecosystem assets is a compilation of the information, which is indicated by the sea area in physical terms. Due to the same accounting unit (hectare), the aggregation of the marine ecosystem is relatively simple. Marine ecosystem extent can be divided into the various accounting units to compile the statistical information and data tabulation. For ecosystem accounting purposes, the definition of the marine ecosystem classification should align with the definition of types of LCEUs. In this paper, we have adopted the division of LCEUs accounting unit on the basis of the terrain and function groups. The marine natural system is divided into ten types viz. estuarine ecosystem, inter-tidal zone ecosystem, salt marsh ecosystem, mangrove ecosystem, bay ecosystem, seagrass ecosystem, coral reef ecosystem, ascending ecosystem, continental shelf ecosystem, and island ecosystem, on the basis of the corresponding composition of biological communities and the marine environment(State Oceanic Administration, 1999). Theoretically, the marine ecosystem accounting units should be mutually exclusive, which means that all the types of accounting units should lie in a sole ecosystem. If accounting units contains a variety of marine ecosystem function types, the selection of marine ecosystem accounting types should follow the principle of ecological protection priority to meet the actual marine management（State Oceanic Administration, 2015）. In the accounting period, it is essential to account the opening and closing stock in hectares depending on the different types and changes in the area of each ecosystem types in physical terms. The table structure is as shown in Table 1, which includes the
(1)
Where, V is the value of ecosystem assets, Et represents the expected ecosystem services value in time t, δ represents the discount rate, 3 Et = ∑i = 1 Eti represents the series of expected ecosystem service value including provisioning services, regulating services and cultural service, Eti represents the function of ecosystem extent and ecosystem condition and can be calculated by using Equation (2).
Eti = f ((Ft , M (Oti , Lti , Bti ))
(2)
Where, Ft represents ecosystem extent, M (Oti , Lti , Bti ) represents ecosystem condition, Oti , Lti and Bti represents ecology, ecosystem location, and diversity, respectively. 94
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Table 1 Measure of marine ecosystem extent in physical terms (unit: HA). Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Inter-tidal zone
Salt marsh
Mangrove
Bay or Gulf
Sea-grass bed
Coral reef
Upwelling
Continental shelf
Islands
Opening stock Additions to stock Managed expansion Natural expansion Upward reappraisals Total additions to stock Reductions in stock Managed regression Natural regression Downward reappraisals Total reductions in stock Net changes Closing stock of resources
and damage, and in the short term may be difficult to restore. In order to calculate accurately, it is necessary to master the marine ecosystem condition in time, although it is difficult in practice management. All of the marine natural ecosystems, the biological community structure, and the surrounding environment of the mangroves, sea-grass beds and coral reef ecosystem is relatively active in its ability to absorb the biological pollutants and resist storms, and also has a vital ecology and tourism ornamental value. The upwelling is affected by the horizontal divergence of the surface flow field. The movement of the seawater in the vertical direction carries the nutrient salt of the deep water area to the surface layer, which leads to the relatively high marine productivity in that area. The estuary and gulf ecosystems are inclined to be semi-enclosed, and the advance and retreat of the brackish water in the region is affected by the tidal fluctuations, which changes the circulation pattern, leading to a strong diversity in the ecosystem species. Inter-tidal ecosystem exhibits a strong interaction between the sea and the land and is a relatively open system, which consists of diverse types of habitat and relatively significant human activities. The environment in the coastal salt marshes is not conducive for the growth of plants, whose community structure involve a simple and mostly a single layer. The continental shelf ecosystem is located in the shallow sea where the temperature is conducive and the light is enough; the life in this ecosystem is relatively active, and the single cell planktonic algae and herbivorous zooplankton are relatively more in this ecosystem. The island ecosystem is ecologically isolated, and the biological structure of the island ecosystem is fragile, but the system is principally
variables like the opening stock and closing stock, additions to stock, reductions in stock and the net change. The additions (reductions) in the stock comprise the various types of subsidiary accounts in the marine ecosystem managed expansion (regression), natural expansion (regression), and upward (downward) reappraisals. With the use of the remote sensing image and sea area survey method, it is possible to set up the marine ecosystem extent and obtain the spatial statistical data in the assessment of environmental assets. 3.2. Marine ecosystem condition According to the key characteristics of the marine ecosystem types and the future usage of the ecosystems, it is desirable to establish a simple framework for assessing the ecosystem condition. The key characteristics of the marine ecosystem condition contain three factors that include the operation of the marine ecosystem, the location of the marine ecosystem, and the diversity. These factors provide the basis for assessing the ability of the ecosystem assets to generate the expected marine ecosystem services (Feest, 2009). The specific indicator framework for assessing marine ecosystem condition is shown in Table 2. Table 2 provides significant insights of the various processes operating within the marine ecosystem, and using this it may be possible to identify the specific indicators which can represent the overall condition of the marine ecosystem. It is necessary to investigate the characteristics of a marine ecosystem which, in turn, gets reflected in the ecosystem condition. Because of marine ecosystem condition is dynamic, may further interference expected marine ecosystem service flow, such as the external force result in marine ecosystem degradation Table 2 Specific indicator framework for assessing of marine ecosystem condition. Target
Ecosystem Characteristics
Headline Indicator
Specific Indicator
Marine Ecosystem Condition
Ecology
Biological productivity
Net primary productivity Mean species abundance Chlorophyll concentration Sea water quality Marine sediment quality Ecosystem coverage Geographical features of ecosystem Marine trophic index Biodiversity intactness index Invasive alien species Red list of ecosystem（RLI） Fragmentation of ecosystems Connectivity of ecosystems（Fractal Dimension） Mean species abundance（MSA） Marine Trophic Index（MTI） Population diversity Distribution of endangered/threatened species
Naturalness Ecosystem's location
Ecosystem extent Ecosystem integrity Fragility/sensitivity
Biodiversity
Significance Biodiversity
Habitat for endangered/threatened species
95
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
provided by the different marine ecosystems, it is difficult to assess all the ecosystem services at a given time. It may be feasible initially to select limited ones, rather than a comprehensive set of marine ecosystem services due to the environmental concerns, policy contexts and data availability (European Commission, 2014b). Normally, the benefits generated by the provisioning services are generally measured as a part of the standard economic accounting, which is the most feasible focus for the ecosystem accounting while expanding the collected information and accounting the measurement of regulating and cultural services.
Table 3 Changes in a Single-type marine ecosystem condition. Condition
Characteristics of Marine ecosystem condition
Opening condition Improvements in condition Improvements due to natural regeneration Improvements due to human activity Reductions in condition Reductions due to extraction and harvest of resources Reductions due to ongoing human activity Catastrophic losses due to human activity Catastrophic losses due to natural events Closing condition
Ecology
Location of the Ecosystem
Biodiversity
100
100
100
4.1. Accounting for marine ecosystem services in physical terms In order to comprehensive consider the practicability of marine ecosystem services to incorporate Marine ecosystem accounting, it may be most feasible initially to select a limited rather than a comprehensive set of ecosystem services. In general, the criteria for selecting the priorities of ecosystem services need to fully consider environmental concerns, data availability and policy contexts (European Commission, 2014b). On the basis of the existing research on the assessment of the ecosystem services (Sun and Wang, 2016; Jean and Pascoe, 2016), we selected 22 types of expected marine ecosystem services, the details are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that not all the marine ecosystems need to be accounted for the 22 kinds of ecosystem services. It is required to determine the ‘basket’ of the expected marine ecosystem services by the structure of the different types of marine ecosystems and the current use patterns, so as to achieve the expected marine ecosystem services indicator system in physical terms. The changes of marine ecosystem services in the whole accounting period only need the marine ecosystem services in physical terms at the beginning and end of the period. In order to meet the needs marine dynamic surveillance and monitoring management, it can also be used flexibly to fill marine ecosystem services in physical terms at any point in the accounting period. It is necessary to identify the capacity of marine ecosystem assets to generate the expected marine ecosystem services, as it a function related to the marine ecosystem conditions and extent. Initially, the expected marine ecosystem services should be described and the tradeoff in detail. Subsequently, a complete mapping between the marine ecosystem function and the structure should be built using the generated marine ecosystem services. Finally, a hypothesis should be made on the biophysical functional relationship between the capacity to generate the ecosystem services and the ecosystem condition and extent. The setting of the provisioning services index must reflect the existing stock that would be consumed, and its regeneration depends on the whole marine ecosystem condition. There are a series of complicated and changeable ecosystem processes regulating these changes in the provisioning services index. Regulating services do not usually involve the harvesting or extraction, and the capacity to generate regulating services can be linked to the biophysical and biochemical processes in the specific marine ecosystem. Typically, there exists a high spatial variability in the relationship between ecosystem assets and ecosystem regulating services. For example, the capacity of the marine ecosystem to prevent and mitigate disaster may be related to the local topography and the distance from the sea. There exists a high degree of variation between the types of selected cultural services and the capacity to generate marine ecosystem services. For example, recreational services are associated with the attractiveness of the coastal areas, which is a function of the marine landscapes, vegetation, marine organisms, maritime tourism facilities, and footpaths and other factors. It can be estimated that the expected marine ecosystem services are generated based on these established functions.
in a state of equilibrium, which is conducive to the development of the nature reserve plan. Meanwhile, this ecosystem can provide more services for biological, genetic, habitat protection and information culture. The assessment of marine ecosystem extent and condition is to determine the capacity of generation of marine ecosystem services. Normally, the measurement of the changes in the ecosystem condition during the accounting period should be measured by the reference sites and biophysical condition models. The reference condition requires that the marine ecosystem should be in an equilibrium state, and the weights should be determined on the importance of the ecosystems evaluation indicator, which must be reflected in the differences in the quality and characteristics. All ecosystem condition indicators are weighted to composite in the accounting period, using a composite index. Usually, the index score is set to a value of 100 in the opening period, and the score of the marine ecosystem types in the closing period is calculated to reflect the ecosystem condition changes. The Single-type marine ecosystem condition account is shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the comprehensive structure of the marine ecosystem condition, which records the opening (and closing) ecosystem condition score of different marine ecosystems. It should be noted that the marine ecosystem condition score is required to calculate the capacity of the ecosystem to generate ecosystem services. 4. Accounting for marine expected ecosystem service Due to the great differences in the types of ecosystem service Table 4 Measures of marine ecosystem condition and extent at end of accounting period. Marine Ecosystem Classification
Ecosystem Extent
Characteristics of Ecosystem Condition
Area
Ecology
ecosystem's location
Biodiversity
Estuary Intertidal zone Salt marsh Mangrove Gulf Sea-grass bed Coral reef Upwelling continental shelf Islands
96
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
Table 5 Expected marine ecosystem service in physical terms at end (beginning) of accounting period. Expected marine ecosystem services in physical terms
Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Provisioning
Regulating
Cultural
Intertidal zone
Salt marsh
Mangrove
Gulf
Sea-grass bed
Coral reef
Upwelling
Continental shelf
Islands
Water Uncultivated marine plants, algae, and animals for food Nutrients and natural feed for cultivated biological resources Plant and animal fibers and structures Chemicals from plants and animals Genetic materials Biomass-based energy Other provisioning services Bioremediation Dilution, filtration and sequestration of pollutants Air flow regulation Water flow regulation Mass flow regulation Water cycle regulation Life-cycle maintenance, and habitat and gene pool protection Pest and disease control Non-extractive recreation Information and knowledge Spiritual and symbolic Ecosystem capital for future generation of ecosystem services
should focus on the exchange value, which leads to the estimation of their monetary value based on the exchange rate.
4.2. Pricing of marine ecosystem services Different marine ecosystem services choose various appropriate valuation methods in their monetization (Hejnowicz and Raffaelli, 2014; Monge and Parker, 2016; Momblanch and Connor, 2016; Kim, 2016); the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting provides valuation methods like; 1. Pricing using the unit resource rent 2. Replacement cost methods 3. Pricing the ecosystem services and trading schemes. In addition, there are two other evaluation methods: 1. Revealed preference methods, including hedonic value method, production function method, and avoidance behavior law 2. Stated preference methods, including conditional value method and selection experiment method. Marine provisioning services relate to the goods extracted from or harvested in an ecosystem. Generally, the value of production of these goods is included in the System of National Accounts (SNA) production boundary. The unit resource rent can substitute the economic value of marine provisioning services. It is difficult to a certain extent to achieve the overall valuation of the marine regulating services. Regulating services support and enable economic activities by means of their generated positive externalities. The costs of maintaining the ecosystem or providing services are not generally incurred by the users of the service, except in the relatively rare cases, wherein the mechanisms of payments for ecosystem services (PES) have been established. Commonly, the focus of the measurement for regulating services lies in the welfare analysis. For cultural services, the situation differs according to the variation in the service involved. A number of cultural services such as the spiritual, symbolic and information services lack efficient markets, where a related market price cannot be determined and could be analyzed in the context of welfare economic concept. Generally, the economic activities associated with recreation and tourism lie within the scope of the SNA production boundary. The focus of the ecosystem accounting is to integrate with the standard economic accounting that can be compared with the existing production accounting to assess the ecosystem services and ecosystem assets. The evaluation method of valuation of the marine ecosystem
4.3. Accounting for marine ecosystem services in monetary terms The expected marine ecosystem services can be calculated using the marine ecosystem services in physical terms and prices, as shown in Table 6. The rows reflect the different types of expected ecosystem service value and the aggregation in the same marine ecosystem. The columns reflect the marine ecosystem service value and the aggregation under the different marine ecosystems. In order to avoid the repeated accumulation, the aggregates in the columns need to reflect the complex dependencies between the marine ecosystems. Assuming every expected marine ecosystem service is independent; the total marine ecosystem service value can be calculated using Equation (3). (3)
Si = Gi + Ri + Wi , i = 1,2,3…
Where, S is the expected marine ecosystem service, while G, R, and W Table 6 Expected marine ecosystem service in monetary terms at the end (or beginning) of the accounting period. Marine Ecosystem Classification
Estuary Intertidal zone Salt marsh Mangrove Bay or Gulf Sea-grass bed Coral reef Upwelling continental shelf Islands Total
97
Expected marine ecosystem service flows per year Provisioning services
Regulating services
Cultural services
Total
G1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ G10 T1
R1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ R10 T2
W1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ W10 T3
S1 ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ ┄ S10 T
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
5.2.1. Changes caused by human activities As shown in Table 7, the additions and improvement of the marine ecosystem assets caused by the human activities that repair the marine ecosystem are recorded as ‘Regeneration-through human activity’; the reductions of marine ecosystem assets caused by the degradation of the ecosystem are recorded as ‘Reductions due to extraction and harvesting of resources’, while the decline in the ecosystem capacity to form other ecosystem services is recorded as ‘Reductions due to ongoing human activity’. The measurement of degradation should comply with the following two conditions:
represents the provisioning services, Regulating services and Cultural services, respectively. 5. Aggregation in marine ecosystem assets In the assessment of the ecosystem assets, it should be assumed that each expected ecosystem service value needs to be discounted to the current accounting period, commonly referred as the net present value (NPV) approach, which is explained in the SEEA center framework. According to the optimal growth theory, the selected discount rate of future monetization is related to two influential factors viz. the contemporary preference of the people for future generations and the future prosperity. The discount rate can be expressed by the Ramsay formula, using Equation (4).
r = ρ + ηg
A. Ecosystem degradation should cover the decline due to merely economic and other human activity, thereby excluding those due to natural influences and events. B. A decline in the expected ecosystem service flow, where there is no associated reduction in the ecosystem condition, should not be considered as ecosystem degradation.
(4)
Where ρ represents the net time preference rate, g represents the increase rate of per capita consumption and ηrepresents the marginal utility elasticity of consumption. Usually, the discount rate used by OECD member countries is 4%–5% (Hepburn, 2016). Marine ecosystem assets value is estimated by the marine ecosystem services value and the discount rate. The change of marine ecosystem assets is measured by the change of ecosystem services during the accounting period, which is influenced by the expected price and quantity of marine ecosystem services in physical terms. The marine ecosystem assets account is represented in Table 7.
When the change in the extent and condition of an ecosystem is so significant that it is not possible for the ecosystem to be returned to a condition akin to a previous one, or when the change is irreversible, this approach is not followed by the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting.
5.2. Assessing change in marine ecosystem assets
5.2.2. Changes caused by natural events Under the existing threshold, irreversibility and the time span, the marine ecosystem assets have the potential for regeneration, and thus the ability to provide the same marine ecosystem services continuously within the life cycle of the assumed marine ecosystem. If in an accounting period, the increase due to natural regeneration is greater than the reductions due to human activity, then ecosystem degradation becomes zero and the extra regeneration should be recorded as an addition to the ecosystem assets. Catastrophic losses contain the losses due to human activity and the natural events. In the marine environment, the occurrence of largescale identified storm surges, waves, tsunamis, sea ice and other natural disasters may destroy marine ecosystem assets that need be attributed to the natural events, while events like acts of war, riots and political events, emissions of toxic substances or radioactive particles and other technical accidents need to be attributed to the human activities.
From the application perspective, SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting needs to emphasize the four factors that affect the change of ecosystem assets, including the human factors, natural factors, reclassification, and revaluation.
5.2.3. Reclassification This paper defines reclassification to include the spatial as well as the time aspects. The spatial change in the types of marine ecosystems states that the reduction in one type of marine ecosystem asset should
5.1. Assessing stock in marine ecosystem assets Marine ecosystem assets accounts possess multiple types and complex structures. The amount and structure of the inventory in the marine ecosystem assets can reveal the quantity and proportion of various types of marine ecosystem assets. The balanced formula of marine ecosystem assets in accounting period can be deduced from Equation (5).
Opening stock + Additions to stock + Revaluations = Closing stock + Reductions in stock
(5)
Table 7 Marine ecosystem assets accounting. Marine Ecosystem Classification Estuary
Inter-tidal zone
Opening stock of marine ecosystem assets Additions to stock Regeneration—natural (net normal natural losses) Regeneration—through human activity Reclassifications Total additions to stock Reductions in stock Reductions due to extraction and harvesting of resources Reductions due to on-going human activity Catastrophic losses due to human activity Catastrophic losses due to natural events Reclassifications Total reductions in stock Revaluations (if any) Closing stock of marine ecosystem assets
98
Salt marsh
┄
Islands
Total
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
the elasticity of marginal utility. The setting of these parameters is relatively subjective by the time value, the wealth scale, and the different income groups.
offset the increase in another type of marine ecosystem asset. This means that the reclassification does not affect the total score in physical terms of marine ecosystems. The aspect of time is mainly about the choice of a ‘basket’ of the marine ecosystem services. Any changes in the marine ecosystem structure or the current marine ecosystem services will lead to the reclassification of marine ecosystem assets.
6.4. Cohesion and expansion with marine economic accounting At the national level, the marine ecosystem assets accounting should be linked with the marine economic accounts, which needs to be adjusted and expanded in the SNA framework. In the process of adjustment and expansion of the environmental and economic accounting, it is necessary to clearly put forward the scope of the accounting boundary defined in the SNA and SEEA, so as to ensure a consistency in the ecosystem assets and economic assets. In order to realize the assets management of the marine ecosystem on a regional scale, it is necessary to establish an integrated relationship between the ecosystem assets and the economic assets to improve the marine ecosystem assets accounting system.
5.2.4. Revaluation The revaluation account records the changes in the value of the marine ecosystem assets, caused due to price fluctuations, as changes in the discounted value of marine ecosystem assets during the accounting period. 6. Conclusions This paper tries to design the accounting framework of the marine ecosystem assets using the logical processes of standard economic accounting. The expected marine ecosystem services can be regarded as the future income stream of the marine ecosystem assets, and the income stream is related to marine ecosystem condition and extent. The assessment of the marine ecosystem extent and conditions have been relatively systematically defined and sorted, but this accounting framework is still limited at the theoretical level since practically, it is difficult to implement in the application and management of marine ecosystem assets. Thus, more research needs to be done in following areas for improved practicability, in the future work:
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.019. References Brian, Danley, Widmark, Camilla, 2016. Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications. Ecol. Econ. 126 (6), 132–138. Campbell, Brown, 2012. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14 (5), 691–724. Cowardin, Lewis M., et al., 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Duan, J., Li, Y.H., 2010. An assessment of ecological capital and compensation for yunnan shilin world heritage site. Resour. Sci. 32 (4), 752–760. European Commission, 2014a. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations, World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework 20l2. European Commission, 2014b. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, United Nations, World Bank. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting 20l2. Feest, A., 2009. Progress towards the European 2010 Biodiversity Target-indicator Fact Sheets. Compendium to EEA Report 04/2009. . Fu, B.J., Yu, D.D., 2016. Trade-off analyses and synthetic integrated method of multiple ecosystem services. Resour. Sci. 38 (1), 1–9. Hejnowicz, Adam P., Raffaelli, David G., 2014. Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programs using a capital asset framework. Ecosys. Serv. 9 (9), 83–97. Hepburn, C., 2016. Use of Discount Rates in the Estimation of the Cost of Inaction with Respect to Selected Environment Concerns. Origination for Economic Co-operation and Development. Hou, P., Wang, Q., 2015. Progress of integrated ecosystem assessment: concept, framework and challenges. Geogr. Res. 34 (10), 1809–1823. Jean, Baptiste Marre, Pascoe, Sean, 2016. Information preferences for the evaluation of coastal development impacts on ecosystem services: a multi-criteria assessment in the Australian context. J. Environ. Manag. 173 (5), 141–150. Jean, Baptiste Marre, Olivier, Thébaud, Pascoe, Sean, 2016. Is economic valuation of ecosystem services useful to decision-makers? Lessons learned from Australian coastal and marine management. J. Environ. Manag. 178 (8), 52–62. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G., Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services. Agric. Syst. 145 (6), 24–38. Kim, Dohoon, 2016. Value ecosystem models for social media services. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 107 (6), 13–27. La Notte, Alessandra, D'Amato, Dalia, 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Indicat. 74 (3), 392–402. Ma, G.X., Zhao, X.T., 2015. Concept definition and system construction of gross ecosystem production. Resour. Sci. 37 (9), 1709–1715. Momblanch, Andrea, Connor, Jeffery D., 2016. Using ecosystem services to represent the environment in hydro-economic models. J. Hydrol. 538 (6), 293–303. Monge, Juan J., Parker, Warren J., 2016. Integrating forest ecosystem services into the farming landscape: a stochastic economic assessment. Ecosys. Serv. 22 (12), 297–308. Pan, Y.J., 2013. Construction of Evaluation System for Ecological Civilization Based on ECO-gdp Accounts. Chinese Academy of Forestry. Peter, Waweru Wangai, Burkhard, Benjamin, 2016. A review of studies on ecosystem services in Africa. Inter. J. Sustain. Built. Environ. 12 (5), 225–245. Research Group of Forest Resource Accounting in China, 2015. China's Forest Resources Accounting in the Context of Ecocivilization Institutional Development. China Forestry Publishing House.
6.1. Balancing of the expected marine ecosystem services In general, marine ecosystem services may have an impact on each other. In addition, the marine ecosystem can generate a certain amount of marine ecosystem services, when bundled together. It is absolutely critical to balance and complements each other in the temporal and spatial forms, so as to facilitate the development of ‘increase profit - loss reduction’. At present, there are many qualitative methods of analyses (Fu and Yu, 2016; Jean et al., 2016), such as the multi-criteria analysis, costbenefit analysis, etc. It is worthy to further study by combining the ecology, economics, statistics and other disciplines together, to make a quantitative research on the trade-off of expected marine ecosystem services. 6.2. Pricing of the expected marine ecosystem services There are many uncertainties for the pricing of marine ecosystem services. Not all of the marine ecosystem services are exchanged in the market. Many marine ecosystem services that provide benefits to human well-being are not given at a price and are underestimated or ignored in actual decision-making. For determining a market price of these non-observable marine ecosystem services, a provision for an approximation of the market price equivalents needs to be done. It is also to be noted that, while integrating the values for ecosystem assets with the values of economic assets, care should be taken to ensure that the values of expected flows of ecosystem services and the expected flows of income from the produced assets should be consistent, in order to be aggregated. 6.3. Determination of the discount rate The growth of marine ecosystem assets is characterized by the scarcity and limited substitutability. In order to take into account the inter-generational equity, it is necessary to make a choice from the perspective of sustainable development, which needs to focus on two factors: (1) Net time preference that reflects the individual time preference and social preference (2) Generation of income in the future, which can be determined by the growth rate of per capita income, and 99
Ocean and Coastal Management 163 (2018) 92–100
T. Wang et al.
equivalent: a case study of Xinjiang autonomous region. Stat. Info. Forum. 25 (2), 20–25. Zhai, Q.S., Li, J.S., 2015a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. China Environment press. Zhai, Q.S., Li, J.S., 2015b. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making. China Environment press. Zhu, W.Q., Gao, Q.Z., 2011. Ecological capital assessment for the alpine grassland ecosystem in the northwest alpine pastoral area of tibet. J. Nat. Resour. 26 (03), 419–428.
State Oceanic Administration, 1999. Principle for Classification of marine Nature reserve. State Standard of the People's Republic of China. State Oceanic Administration, 2015. The Implementation Plan of Marine Ecological Civilization Construction. (2015–2020). Sun, C.Z., Wang, S., 2016. Chinese marine ecosystem services value: regional and structural equilibrium analysis. Ocean Coast Manag. 6 (125), 70–83. Wang, J.J., Wan, D.J., 2014. Discussion on accounting method for ecological assets. Environ. Sustain. Dev. (6), 14–18. Xie, G.D., 2015. The value of ecosystem services in China. Resour. Sci. 37 (9), 1740–1746. Yu, Q.L., 2010. Study on the accounting mode of ecological assets based on green
100