Bridging Ecosystem Value and Decision-Making: GEP Accounting in Nanhua County, China, and Pathways for Green Policy

Authors

  • Yongfei You

    Chongqing Yike Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Youwei Zuo

    School of Life Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Yaxin Jiang

    College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Lu Xu

    Chongqing Yike Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Zhengwen He

    Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture Bureau of Ecology and Environment, Chuxiong 675000, China
  • Yihong Tang

    Chongqing Yike Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Bo Lei

    Chongqing Academy of Environmental Sciences, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Wei Yuan

    Chongqing Yike Environmental Protection Engineering Co., Ltd, Chongqing 404100, China
  • Hongping Deng

    School of Life Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing 404100, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v8i3.12917
Received: 22 December 2025 | Revised: 26 February 2026 | Accepted: 2 March 2026 | Published Online: 15 June 2026

Abstract

Establishing effective mechanisms for recognizing and realizing ecosystem value is a central challenge in linking ecological conservation with sustainable development. Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) accounting has emerged as an important tool for quantifying ecosystem service contributions, yet its application at the county scale—particularly in mountainous regions—remains limited. Taking Nanhua County in southwestern China as a representative case, this study develops a county-level GEP accounting framework tailored to complex topography and forest-dominated landscapes. By integrating biophysical models (InVEST, RUSLE, and SCS-CN) with market-based and replacement cost valuation methods, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services were systematically assessed for the year 2024. Results show that the total GEP reached 163.25 billion CNY, with regulating services accounting for 93.17%. Provisioning services were mainly supported by forestry and specialty agriculture, while cultural services were driven by ecotourism and landscape-related benefits. Spatial analysis revealed pronounced heterogeneity, with high-value GEP areas concentrated in forested southern mountains and lower values in central basins and urbanized zones. These findings highlight the ecological structure underpinning county-level ecosystem value and demonstrate the potential of GEP accounting to support spatial prioritization and comparative assessment. While subject to uncertainty inherent in ecosystem service valuation, the framework provides an indicative basis for exploring pathways that link ecological protection with green development in similar mountainous regions.

Keywords:

GEP; County Region; Territorial Spatial Planning; Ecological Compensation

References

[1] Ouyang, Z.Y., Song, C.S., Zheng, H., et al., 2020. Using Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) to Value Nature in Decision Making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 117(25), 14593–14601. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911439117

[2] Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al., 1998. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Ecological Economics. 25(1), 3–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2

[3] Hao, C.Z., Wu, S.Y., Zhang, W.T., et al., 2022. A Critical Review of Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting in China: Status Quo, Problems and Future Directions. Journal of Environmental Management. 322, 115995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115995

[4] Ouyang, Z.Y., Zhu, C.Q., Yang, G.B., et al., 2013. Gross Ecosystem Product: Concept, Accounting Framework and Case Study. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 33(21), 6747–6761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201310092428 (in Chinese)

[5] International Monetary Fund, 2025. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting: Ecosystem Accounting. International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA.

[6] Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., et al., 2020. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: An EU Ecosystem Assessment. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

[7] Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., et al., 2018. The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability. 1, 136–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0

[8] Wunder, S., 2015. Revisiting the Concept of Payments for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics. 117, 234–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016

[9] García-Pardo, K.A., Moreno-Rangel, D., Domínguez-Amarillo, S., et al., 2022. Remote Sensing for the Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Vegetation: A Review of the Methods Applied. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 74, 127636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127636

[10] Villa, F., Ceroni, M., Bagstad, K., et al., 2009. ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): A New Tool for Ecosystem Services Assessment, Planning, and Valuation. Available from: http://bioecon-network.org/pages/11th_2009/Villa.pdf (cited 18 September 2025).

[11] Zhang, Q., Ye, B., Shen, X., et al., 2024. Coupling Coordination Evaluation of Ecology and Economy and Development Optimization at Town-Scale. Journal of Cleaner Production. 447, 141581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141581

[12] Willcock, S., Martínez-López, J., Hooftman, D.A.P., et al., 2018. Machine Learning for Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services. 33, 165–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.004

[13] Hu, H., Tian, G., Wu, Z., et al., 2023. Cross-Regional Ecological Compensation under the Composite Index of Water Quality and Quantity: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin. Environmental Research. 238, 117152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117152

[14] Fang, Z., Chen, J., Liu, G., et al., 2020. Framework of Basin Eco-Compensation Standard Valuation for Cross-Regional Water Supply—A Case Study in Northern China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 279, 123630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123630

[15] Chen, Y., Wu, Q., Guo, L., 2024. Ecological Compensation Based on the Ecosystem Service Value: A Case Study of the Xin'an River Basin in China. Water. 16(20), 2923. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w16202923

[16] Ding, F., Zhou, C., 2025. Analysis of Ecological Compensation Willingness and Influencing Factors of Public Welfare Forest—Take Yulong County, Lijiang City as an Example. Research in Ecology. 7(2), 19–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v7i2.8685

[17] Hou, L., Xia, F., Chen, Q., et al., 2021. Grassland Ecological Compensation Policy in China Improves Grassland Quality and Increases Herders' Income. Nature Communications. 12(1), 4683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24942-8

[18] Jiang, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, K., et al., 2019. Moving towards a Systematic Marine Eco-Compensation Mechanism in China: Policy, Practice and Strategy. Ocean and Coastal Management. 169, 10–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.002

[19] Li, T., Li, J., Wang, Y., 2019. Carbon Sequestration Service Flow in the Guanzhong-Tianshui Economic Region of China: How It Flows, What Drives It, and Where Could Be Optimized? Ecological Indicators. 96, 548–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.040

[20] Zheng, H., Liu, Y., Zhao, J., 2021. Understanding Water Rights and Water Trading Systems in China: A Systematic Framework. Water Security. 13, 100094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2021.100094

[21] da Silva Bezerra, D., 2025. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change. Scientific Reports. 15, 22095. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-05678-7

[22] Chu, C.-C., Ren, X., Luo, D., et al., 2025. Research on the Governance Path of Agricultural Carbon Emissions Based on Ecological Compensation Mechanism and Green Fiscal and Taxation Policies. Research in Ecology. 7(3), 42–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v7i3.10033

[23] Ranjan, R., 2024. Creating Synergies between Payments for Ecosystem Services, Green Bonds, and Catastrophe Insurance Markets for Enhanced Environmental Resilience. Land Use Policy. 136, 106970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106970

[24] Woodruff, S.C., BenDor, T.K., 2016. Ecosystem Services in Urban Planning: Comparative Paradigms and Guidelines for High Quality Plans. Landscape and Urban Planning. 152, 90–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003

[25] Ren, X., Tan, X., Luo, D., et al., 2025. Coupling and Spatial Disparities of Regional Economy and Ecosystem in High-Quality Town Development. Research in Ecology. 7(1), 15–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v7i1.8118

[26] Cao, X., Huang, X., Shan, W., et al., 2025. The Construction of Territorial Space System and the Guidance of Planning System for Chinese Path to Modernization. Journal of Natural Resources. 40(10), 2591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31497/zrzyxb.20251001 (in Chinese)

[27] Bai, Y., Li, H., Wang, X.Y., et al., 2017. Evaluating Natural Resource Assets and Gross Ecosystem Products Using Ecological Accounting System: A Case Study in Yunnan Province. Journal of Natural Resources. 32(7), 1100–1112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11849/zrzyxb.20160755 (in Chinese)

[28] You, X., He, D.J., Xiao, Y., et al., 2019. Assessment of Ecological Protection Effectiveness in a County Area: Using Eshan County as an Example. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 39(9). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201806021234 (in Chinese)

[29] Shen, Y., Q., Yi, X., Chen, M., et al., 2024. Gross ecosystem product accounting in Miyun County: the supply and use of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 12, 1367768. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2024.1367768

[30] Zhou, X., Wang, Q., Zhang, R., et al., 2022. A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Hainan Island's 2010–2020 Gross Ecosystem Product Accounting. Sustainability. 14(23), 15624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315624

[31] Pema, D., Xiao, Y., Ouyang, Z.Y., et al., 2020. Assessment of Ecological Conservation Effect in Xishui County Based on Gross Ecosystem Product. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 40(2), 499–509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201812202767 (in Chinese)

[32] Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Dalton, J., et al., 2019. Core Principles for Successfully Implementing and Upscaling Nature-Based Solutions. Environmental Science and Policy. 98, 20–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014

[33] Shen, P., Wu, L., Huo, Z., et al., 2023. A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China's County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 20(4), 3181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043181

[34] Liu, K.D., Jin, M.H., Cheng, L., 2025. County Green Transformation: How Does Gross Ecosystem Product Assessment Promote Common Prosperity? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 12, 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04330-5

[35] Shang, W., Gong, Y., Wang, Z., et al., 2018. Eco-Compensation in China: Theory, Practices and Suggestions for the Future. Journal of Environmental Management. 210, 162–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.077

[36] Chen, M., Xu, X., Tan, Y., et al., 2025. Integrating Ecosystem Service Spillovers and Environmental Justice in Ecological Compensation: A Pathway to Effective Ecological Protection in China. Ecological Indicators. 174, 113455. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113455

[37] Yang, H., Gou, X., Li, Z., et al., 2025. Assessing Ecosystem Services and Their Spillover Effects to Inform Cost-Benefit Sharing and Horizontal Eco-Compensation Mechanisms in the Qilian Mountains, China. Ecosystem Services. 75, 101764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101764

[38] Hamel, P., Bryant, B.P., 2017. Uncertainty Assessment in Ecosystem Services Analyses: Seven Challenges and Practical Responses. Ecosystem Services. 24, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.008

[39] Venter, Z.S., Czúcz, B., Stange, E., et al., 2024. ‘Uncertainty Audit’ for Ecosystem Accounting: Satellite-Based Ecosystem Extent Is Biased without Design-Based Area Estimation and Accuracy Assessment. Ecosystem Services. 66, 101599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599

[40] Walther, F., Barton, D.N., Schwaab, J., et al., 2025. Uncertainties in Ecosystem Services Assessments and Their Implications for Decision Support—A Semi-Systematic Literature Review. Ecosystem Services. 73, 101714. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101714

[41] Liu, L., Wang, J., Li, J., 2025. Evaluation of Ecosystem Service Capacity Using the Integrated Ecosystem Services Index at Optimal Scale in Central Yunnan, China. Ecology and Evolution. 15(4), e71222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71222

Downloads

How to Cite

You, Y., Zuo, Y., Jiang, Y., Xu, L., He, Z., Tang, Y., Lei, B., Yuan, W., & Deng, H. (2026). Bridging Ecosystem Value and Decision-Making: GEP Accounting in Nanhua County, China, and Pathways for Green Policy. Research in Ecology, 8(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.30564/re.v8i3.12917

Issue

Vol.8, Iss.3 (June 2026)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2026 Yongfei You, Youwei Zuo, Yaxin Jiang, Lu Xu, Zhengwen He, Yihong Tang, Bo Lei, Wei Yuan, Hongping Deng

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC