Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 30, pp 30954–30966 | Cite as

Study on the quantification of ecological compensation in a river basin considering different industries based on water pollution loss value

  • Xinjian Guan
  • Shengling Hou
  • Yu MengEmail author
  • Wenkang Liu
Research Article


The study on the quantification of ecological compensation (eco-compensation) in a river basin can help to make environmental protection more compatible with ecological construction. In this paper, the upstream and downstream of the river basin were treated as the subjects and objects of eco-compensation, and the mechanism of eco-compensation was clarified. The emergy analysis theory (EMA) was used to calculate the values of water resources in sub-industries (agriculture, industry, life, and recreation). The pollution loss rate theory (PLR) was adopted to calculate the water pollution loss rate in sub-industries. According to the value of water resources and pollution loss rate in sub-industries, combined with the water consumption of sub-industries in the river basin, the Ecological Compensation Quantification Model of Sub-industries (ECQ-Is Model) was constructed. Under the guidance of the aforementioned theory and model, a comprehensive research was conducted on the Xiaohong River. The results showed that the eco-compensation values of the upstream area, industry, and agriculture in the river basin were higher. Therefore, it is essential that the water resources in the Xiaohong River basin be well conserved and managed. In addition, the research results point out the direction for water pollution control, which includes promoting the coordinated development of the upstream and downstream, and maximizing the ecological benefits of the river basin.


Ecological compensation Quantification model Emergy analysis theory Pollution loss rate Value of water resources Xiaohong river basin 


Funding information

This study received partial financial support from the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC0407405) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51879241 and 51809239) that made this project possible. This study also received support from the School of Water Conservancy Science and Engineering in Zhengzhou University.


  1. Aretano R, Semeraro T, Petrosillo I, De Marco A, Pasimeni MR, Zurlini G (2015) Mapping ecological vulnerability to fire for effective conservation management of natural protected areas. Ecol Model 295(Sp. Iss. SI):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böck Kerstin, Muhar, S. , Muhar, A. , & Polt, R. . (2015). The ecosystem services concept: gaps between science and practice in river landscape managementGoogle Scholar
  3. Brancalion PHS, Cardozo IV, Camatta A, Aronson J, Rodrigues RR (2014) Cultural ecosystem services and popular perceptions of the benefits of an ecological restoration project in the brazilian atlantic forest. Restor Ecol 22(1):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown MA, Clarkson BD, Barton BJ, Joshi C (2014) Implementing ecological compensation in new zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward. J R Soc N Z 44(1):34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bull JW, Blake SK, Ascelin G, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2013) Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47(3):369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgin S (2008) Biobanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking offsets in conservation. Biodivers Conserv 17(4):807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell DE (2010) Using energy systems theory to define, measure, and interpret ecological integrity and ecosystem health. Ecosyst Health 6(3):181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chunling Z, Bifeng S, Fuqiang S (2015) Study on water resources fee and its standard calculation. J China Inst Water Resour Hydropower ResGoogle Scholar
  9. Haiying C, Guihua Y (2015) The contribution and continuous willingness of tourism ecological compensation to local communities: a case study of yulong snow mountain. Tourism Tribune 30(8):53–65Google Scholar
  10. Hayes T, Murtinho F, Wolff H (2015) An institutional analysis of payment for environmental services on collectively managed lands in ecuador. Ecol Econ 118:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. He T, Lu Y, Cui Y, Luo Y, Wang M, Meng W, Zhang K, Zhao F (2015) Detecting gradual and abrupt changes in water quality time series in response to regional payment programs for watershed services in an agricultural area. J Hydrol 525:457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hongliang L, Fengzhong C, Yun X, Xu S (2015) Symbiosis concept of economic development and environmental protection need to be set up under the new normal. Chin J Environ ManagGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu MH, Yuan JH, Lai CT (2014) Pollution loss rate assessment of soil heavy metals in paddy field with sewage irrigation in guixi city, jiangxi province, china. Appl Mech Mater 614:658–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. James LD (1974) Search for a role for engineering economics in water resources planning. ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  15. Kun-Zhou Z (2017) Integrating ecological civilization into modern agricultural industry:coupling mechanism and technological path. J Beijing Adm InstGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu Y, Yong P, University, H (2017) Revised method of water quality at the controlled section in tiaoxi basin. Water Resour PowerGoogle Scholar
  17. Lv CM (2009) Energy value study of regional ecological and economic value of water resources. (yan, zhengzhou university),in ChineseGoogle Scholar
  18. Marleni N, Gray S, Sharma A, Burn S, Muttil N (2015) Impact of water management practice scenarios on wastewater flow and contaminant concentration. J Environ Manag 151:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mianhao H (2015) Pollution assessment of industrial wastewater based on pollution lost rate method. Chin Agric Sci BullGoogle Scholar
  20. Murtinho F, Hayes T (2017) Communal participation in payment for environmental services (pes): unpacking the collective decision to enroll. Environ Manag 59(6):939–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noerfitriyani E, Hartono DM, Moersidik SS, Gusniani I (2018) Impact of leachate discharge from cipayung landfill on water quality of Pesanggrahan River, Indonesia. Iop Conference Series: Earth & Environmental Science. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental ScienceGoogle Scholar
  22. Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting--emergy and environmental decision making. Child Dev 42(4):1187–1201Google Scholar
  23. Pagiola S (2006) Payments for environmental services in costa rica. Ecol Econ 65(4):712–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phuong DM, Gopalakrishnan C (2003) An application of the contingent valuation method to estimate the loss of value of water resources due to pesticide contamination: the case of the mekong delta, vietnam. Int J Water Resour Dev 19(4):617–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rega, Carlo (2013) Ecological compensation in spatial planning in italy. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 31(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rijke J, Farrelly M, Brown R, Zevenbergen C (2013) Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environ Sci Pol 25(25):62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ross, Cody T (2016) Sliding-scale environmental service payments and non-financial incentives: results of a survey of landowner interest in costa rica. Ecol Econ 130:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rupérez-Moreno C, Pérez-Sánchez J, Senent-Aparicio J, Ma FA (2015) The economic value of conjoint local management in water resources: results from a contingent valuation in the boquerón aquifer (albacete, se spain). Sci Total Environ 532:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schoengold K, Sunding DL (2014) The impact of water price uncertainty on the adoption of precision irrigation systems. Agric Econ 45(6):729–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaofei WU, Xiang Z, Quanxi S, Gippel CJ (2015) Impact of river flow on water quality combination events under different scenarios: a case of bengbu sluice in huai river basin. J Basic Sci Eng 23(4):669–679Google Scholar
  31. Shi W, Xia J, Zhang X (2016) Influences of anthropogenic activities and topography on water quality in the highly regulated huai river basin, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(21):21460–21474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sun L, Lu W, Yang Q, Martín JD (2013) Ecological compensation estimation of soil and water conservation based on cost-benefit analysis. Water Resour Manag 27(8):2709–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang J (2014) History and Prospects of china’s ecological compensation system. Environ Prot 42(5) in ChineseGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoon T, Rhodes C, Shah FA (2015) Upstream water resource management to address downstream pollution concerns: a policy framework with application to the nakdong river basin in south korea. Water Resour Res 51(2):787–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinjian Guan
    • 1
  • Shengling Hou
    • 1
  • Yu Meng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wenkang Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Water Conservancy Science and EngineeringZhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina
  2. 2.China Water Resources & Hydropower Engineering Bohai Consultancy Co. LTDTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations