重新评估生态恢复计划的生态有效性:来自中国准自然实验的证据

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Yuanjie Deng , Xiaohan Yan , Mengyang Hou , Shunbo Yao
{"title":"重新评估生态恢复计划的生态有效性:来自中国准自然实验的证据","authors":"Yuanjie Deng ,&nbsp;Xiaohan Yan ,&nbsp;Mengyang Hou ,&nbsp;Shunbo Yao","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Globally, ecological restoration programs (ERPs) have emerged as vital tools for mitigating ecosystem degradation and preserving ecosystem services. Accurately assessing their effectiveness is essential to determining the success of these initiatives. However, the limitations inherent in traditional evaluation methods introduce uncertainty into these assessments. This study aims to reassess the ecological effectiveness of such programs through a counterfactual approach using quasi-natural experimental methods, thereby ensuring more accurate results and exploring potential impact pathways. We constructed a counterfactual scenario and employed a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model to evaluate the ecological benefits and mechanisms of China's National Key Ecological Functional Areas (NKEFAs). Additionally, we utilized a series of robustness tests for our findings. The results indicate: (1) NKEFAs have successfully restored ecological environments and produced positive ecological effects, although variations exist across different ecological function types and geographical regions. (2) Our analysis of transmission mechanisms suggests that optimization of national land use, upgrading of industrial structures, and labor force migration are critical pathways through which NKEFAs achieve ecological effectiveness. (3) Extended analysis reveals that NKEFAs not only have ecological spillover effects but also contribute to economic growth. Given that most global ERPs can implement counterfactual scenarios, the methodology used here offers a general framework that supports the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"212 ","pages":"Article 107506"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reassessing the ecological effectiveness of ecological restoration programs: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China\",\"authors\":\"Yuanjie Deng ,&nbsp;Xiaohan Yan ,&nbsp;Mengyang Hou ,&nbsp;Shunbo Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Globally, ecological restoration programs (ERPs) have emerged as vital tools for mitigating ecosystem degradation and preserving ecosystem services. Accurately assessing their effectiveness is essential to determining the success of these initiatives. However, the limitations inherent in traditional evaluation methods introduce uncertainty into these assessments. This study aims to reassess the ecological effectiveness of such programs through a counterfactual approach using quasi-natural experimental methods, thereby ensuring more accurate results and exploring potential impact pathways. We constructed a counterfactual scenario and employed a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model to evaluate the ecological benefits and mechanisms of China's National Key Ecological Functional Areas (NKEFAs). Additionally, we utilized a series of robustness tests for our findings. The results indicate: (1) NKEFAs have successfully restored ecological environments and produced positive ecological effects, although variations exist across different ecological function types and geographical regions. (2) Our analysis of transmission mechanisms suggests that optimization of national land use, upgrading of industrial structures, and labor force migration are critical pathways through which NKEFAs achieve ecological effectiveness. (3) Extended analysis reveals that NKEFAs not only have ecological spillover effects but also contribute to economic growth. Given that most global ERPs can implement counterfactual scenarios, the methodology used here offers a general framework that supports the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"volume\":\"212 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107506\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424003318\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424003318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在全球范围内,生态恢复计划(ERPs)已成为缓解生态系统退化和保护生态系统服务的重要工具。准确评估其有效性对于确定这些举措的成功至关重要。然而,传统评估方法固有的局限性给这些评估带来了不确定性。本研究旨在通过准自然实验方法,通过反事实方法重新评估这些项目的生态有效性,从而确保更准确的结果并探索潜在的影响途径。本文构建了一个反事实情景,并采用差异中的差异(DID)模型对中国国家重点生态功能区的生态效益及其机制进行了评价。此外,我们对我们的发现使用了一系列稳健性测试。结果表明:(1)在不同生态功能类型和地理区域存在差异的情况下,nkefa成功地恢复了生态环境,产生了积极的生态效应。(2)传导机制分析表明,国家土地利用优化、产业结构升级和劳动力迁移是NKEFAs实现生态效应的重要途径。(3)扩展分析表明,nkefa不仅具有生态溢出效应,而且对经济增长也有促进作用。鉴于大多数全球erp可以实施反事实情景,本文使用的方法提供了一个支持实现联合国可持续发展目标的总体框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reassessing the ecological effectiveness of ecological restoration programs: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China
Globally, ecological restoration programs (ERPs) have emerged as vital tools for mitigating ecosystem degradation and preserving ecosystem services. Accurately assessing their effectiveness is essential to determining the success of these initiatives. However, the limitations inherent in traditional evaluation methods introduce uncertainty into these assessments. This study aims to reassess the ecological effectiveness of such programs through a counterfactual approach using quasi-natural experimental methods, thereby ensuring more accurate results and exploring potential impact pathways. We constructed a counterfactual scenario and employed a Difference-in-Differences (DID) model to evaluate the ecological benefits and mechanisms of China's National Key Ecological Functional Areas (NKEFAs). Additionally, we utilized a series of robustness tests for our findings. The results indicate: (1) NKEFAs have successfully restored ecological environments and produced positive ecological effects, although variations exist across different ecological function types and geographical regions. (2) Our analysis of transmission mechanisms suggests that optimization of national land use, upgrading of industrial structures, and labor force migration are critical pathways through which NKEFAs achieve ecological effectiveness. (3) Extended analysis reveals that NKEFAs not only have ecological spillover effects but also contribute to economic growth. Given that most global ERPs can implement counterfactual scenarios, the methodology used here offers a general framework that supports the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信