Abstract
In China, under the premise that the water quantity allocation and water quality control targets for transboundary rivers have been determined, ecocompensation between upstream and downstream areas is urgently needed in management practice when targets cannot be met in the transboundary section. A dynamic accounting method for ecocompensation standards needs to be established at the scientific level. However, the accounting method of the existing ecocompensation standards is not sufficient. The purpose of this study is to propose a transboundary compensation standard accounting method based on water quantity allocation and water quality control targets and to establish ecocompensation standard accounting formulas for the Shaying River watershed. The accounting process is as follows: the water quantity compensation standard in different water quantity scenarios is calculated from the perspective of the water resource value. By using the comprehensive pollution index method, the water quality compensation standard is calculated in different water quality scenarios, and the ecocompensation standard calculation formulas for watersheds are determined. As an application, 27 types of ecocompensation standard formulas for the Shaying River watershed were determined for 3 hydrological frequencies (50%, 75% and 95%), 3 water quantity scenarios (equal-quantity, excess-quantity and reduced-quantity discharging) and 3 water quality levels (equal-quality, inferior-quality and better-quality discharging). The results not only provide a compensation standard for the Shaying River but also provide a reference for the calculation of ecocompensation standards for other transboundary rivers in China with definite water quantity and water quality management objectives.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In China, under the construction of an ecological civilization and strict management of water resources, many transboundary rivers have allocated water quantities, and the water quality targets of transboundary sections have been determined. However, in daily management, if the water quantity and quality of a transboundary section cannot meet the water quantity allocation and water quality targets, implementing ecological compensation measures in upstream and downstream areas is an urgent problem that must be solved in management practice. The water resource value forms the basis of transboundary ecological compensation standards (Li et al. 2010; Liu and Lv 2012; Tang et al. 2018). Therefore, at the scientific level, the value of water resources needs to be determined, and a dynamic accounting method for ecocompensation standards needs to be established accordingly.
At present, the methods used to calculate river ecocompensation standards (which can also be regarded as watershed ecocompensation standards) locally or globally are mainly based on ecosystem service values (Pagiola et al. 2005; Pimentel et al. 1997; Liu et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2019; Wang and Li 2019), the water footprint method (Tian 2006; Qi 2009; Wei and Xia 2012; Geng and Zhang 2009; Lu and Ke 2016; Li 2018), the opportunity cost (kosoy et al. 2007; Ferraro 2008; Roland and Leon 2009; Liu et al. 2006; Huang 2013; Zhang 2009), water quality monitoring (Pang et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2018; Yang et al. 2018; Xie et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2016; Qin et al. 2018), willingness to pay (Bienabe and Hearne 2006; Arlene et al. 2007; Moreno et al. 2012; Zhao 2013; Chen and Ma 2017; Peng et al. 2010), and water quality and quantity (Xu et al. 2008; Fu et al. 2012; Guo et al. 2013; Chen and Zhou 2016). These six ecocompensation standard calculation methods have different compensation bases and application scopes. The compensation focuses are also different for each method since each has distinct advantages and disadvantages (Table 1). In addition, none of these six calculation methods for ecocompensation standards take into account both the dynamic changes in water resource values and the dynamic changes in water quality and quantity, thus influencing the calculation results.
The objectives of this paper are to propose a transboundary river compensation standard accounting method based on water quantity allocation and water quality control targets and to determine the ecocompensation standard accounting formulas of the Shaying River as an example. To achieve these objectives, shadow price models, assessment methods of the water resource value, accounting methods for water quantity compensation standards, comprehensive pollution index (CPI) methods, accounting methods for water quality compensation standards, and accounting methods for transboundary ecocompensation standards are utilized in this study. The models and methods are described in detail in Section 2. Then, the study area is described briefly in Section 3. Next, the results and discussion are provided in Section 4 and Section 5. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2 Methodology
We hold the opinion that the ecocompensation standard for transboundary rivers should consider both water quantity and water quality. Since the water quantity allocation and water quality management objectives of transboundary rivers have been determined, there are conflicts related to water resource utilization in both water quantity and water quality between upstream and downstream areas (Figs. 1 and 2).
2.1 Water Quantity Compensation Standard from the Perspective of Water Resources Value
2.1.1 Assessment of Water Resource Value
The value of water resources includes the economic and ecological value of water resources. The accounting formula is:
where V is the value of water resources (yuan); VJ is the economic value of water resources (yuan); and VS is the ecological value of water resources (yuan).
-
1)
Economic value of water resources (VJ)
The economic value of water resources is calculated according to the theoretical value of the water use amounts required for domestic, industry, and agriculture. The accounting formula is given as:
where VJ is the value of water resources (yuan); QiL, QiI andQiA are the water use amounts for domestic, industry, and agriculture for the reach-i region(m3), respectively, and these data can be obtained generally from water quantity allocation schemes; and CiL, CiI andCiA are the theoretical values of water resources for domestic, industry, and agriculture for the reach-i region (yuan/m3), respectively, which are calculated by a shadow price model.
-
We refer to previous studies that used the shadow pricing method to calculate the value of water resources (Yuan et al. 2002; Mao and Yuan 2003; Zhu et al. 2005; Sun et al. 2007; Tang et al. 2018). The shadow price model is specifically:
-
a)
Watershed partitioning involves dividing a watershed into administrative regions at the same level based on the transboundary section of the river.
-
b)
The maximum net benefit of water use in a watershed is used to establish the objective function, and the upper and lower limits of various water use departments and the amount of available water in the watershed are used as constraints. The optimal allocation model for water resources is established as follows:
where R is the net social benefit from the use of water resources and n is the number of reaches. AiIminand AiImax are the upper and lower limits of industrial water use for the reach-i region; AiAmin and AiAmax are the upper and lower limits of agricultural water use for the reach-i region; AiLmin and AiLmax are the upper and lower limits of domestic water use for the reach-i region; AiOmin and AiOmax are the upper and lower limits of outside-stream ecological water use for the reach-i region; Qi is the amount of available water supplied for the reach-i region; eiI, eiA, eiL and eiO are the net benefit coefficients of water use for industry, agriculture, domestic and the outside-stream ecological environment, respectively, for the reach-i region; and qiI, qiA, qiL and qiO are the water use amounts for industry, agriculture, domestic and the outside-stream ecological environment for the reach-i region under the maximum net benefit.
-
c)
Computation of the dual solutions of the model
According to the connotation of the shadow price method, the shadow price of water resources (i.e., the theoretical value of water resources) for different water use departments is actually determined through a dual solution of the optimal allocation model of water resources discussed above.
The model is repeatedly run with the MATLAB program, and multiple optimization schemes are considered in the calculation. Taking the net social benefit of each scheme as the weight, the shadow price of each water use department in each reach can be calculated by the weighted averaging method, that is, the theoretical water resource value of water use for domestic (CiL), industry (CiI), agriculture (CiA) and the outside-stream ecological environment (CiO) in each reach in a watershed (yuan/m3).
-
2)
Ecological value of water resources (VS)
The ecological value of water resources includes the ecological value of outside-stream and in-stream water resources. Therefore, the accounting formula for the ecological value of water resources is:
where VS is the ecological value of water resources (yuan); VW is the ecological value of outside-stream water resources (yuan); and VE is the ecological value of in-stream water resources (yuan).
-
The ecological value of outside-stream water resources (VW) is calculated by the following formula:
where VW is the ecological value of outside-stream water resources (yuan) and QiO is the outside-stream ecological water-use amount in the reach-i region. These data can be obtained from water quantity allocation schemes. CiO is the theoretical water resource value of water use in the outside-stream ecological environment of each reach in the watershed (yuan/m3), which is calculated from the shadow price model.
-
The ecological value of in-stream water resources (VE) is calculated by the following formula:
where VE is the ecological value of in-stream water resources (yuan); PiEis the unit value of in-stream water resources in reach-i of a river (yuan/m3); QiE is the runoff in reach-i of a river (m3); CiL, CiIand CiA are the theoretical values of water resources for societal, industrial and agricultural water use (yuan/m3), respectively; and ωiL, ωiI and ωiA are the weighting factors for the theoretical value of water resources associated with domestic, industry, and agriculture. The proportions of the water use amounts for domestic, industry and agriculture to the total amount are considered the weighting factors.
2.1.2 Water Price in Water Quantity Compensation (Also Called the Unit Value of Water Resources)
The water price in water quantity compensation (also called the unit value of water resources) is calculated according to the water resource value and water resource amount for the watershed (water consumption + runoff). The accounting formula is given as:
where C is the water price in water quantity compensation (also called the unit value of water resources) (yuan/m3); V is the value of water resources (yuan); QiH is the water consumption of different water-use departments in the reach-i region (m3); and QiE is the runoff in reach-i (m3).
2.1.3 Water Quantity Compensation Standard for a Transboundary Section
Based on the standard discharge from the water quantity allocation agreement in a transboundary section, different water quantity scenarios (equal-quantity, excess-quantity and reduced-quantity discharging) are established. Then, the calculation formula for the water quantity compensation standard in the transboundary section is:
where \( {M}_{{\mathrm{K}}_1} \) is the water quantity compensation standard (100 million yuan); C is the water price in water quantity compensation (yuan/m3); Q and Q′are the actual discharge and the standard discharge from the water quantity allocation agreement in a transboundary section (100 million m3), respectively; UU and UU′ are the actual water use amount and the standard water use amount from the water quantity allocation agreement for the upstream area (the area above the transboundary section) (100 million m3), respectively; and UD and UD′ are the actual water withdrawal from rivers and the standard water withdrawal from rivers from the water quantity allocation agreement for the downstream area (the area below the transboundary section) (100 million m3), respectively. The compensation stakeholders are the upstream, downstream and central governments. The one-way arrows indicate the compensation direction, and the two-way arrows represent no compensation behaviors.
The above formula, however, is flawed in that it assumes that the excess water used downstream comes only from upstream savings. However, in addition to come from upstream savings, the excess water used downstream also may come from the floods and the local water resources. Therefore, when the upstream area saves water resources and discharges excessively, the upstream area should be compensated for the value of the saving water resource, and the central government is the compensation subject. Even if the downstream government overuses the water, the source of the excess water is indistinguishable, so the downstream government does not participate in upstream ecological compensation. Then, Formula 9 is modified to Formula 10:
2.2 Water Quality Compensation Standard Based on the Comprehensive Pollution Index Method
2.2.1 Comprehensive Pollution Index (CPI) Method
The comprehensive pollution index (CPI) is a quantitative indicator that reflects the degree of comprehensive pollution for various pollutants in water bodies. The specific formula is:
where PK is the CPI of water quality for section k in a watershed; the higher the value is, the more serious the water pollution problem; n is the type of pollutant; Cj is the measured concentration of the pollutant; Coj is the evaluation criterion for the pollutant, which can be obtained from the Environmental Quality Standard for Surface Water (GB3838–2002); and Ck is the uniform maximum allowable index for various pollutants in surface water. In this study, the value of Ck is 0.1.
2.2.2 Water Quality Compensation Standard for a Transboundary Section
Based on the water quality target for a transboundary section, different water quality scenarios (equal-quality, inferior-quality and better-quality discharging) are established. Then, the formula for the water quality compensation standard in the transboundary section is:
where \( {M}_{K_2} \) is the water quality compensation standard in the transboundary section (100 million yuan); Pkout and Pko are the CPIs of actual water quality and standard water quality (water quality target) in the transboundary section, respectively; QP is the amount of water discharged into rivers in upstream areas (100 million m3); and \( {C}_{k_2} \) is the unit cost of maintaining water quality, which can be regarded as the unit cost of sewage treatment (yuan/m3).
2.2.3 Sewage Treatment Costs in the Combined Scenario of Excess-Quantity and Inferior-Quality Discharging
In the combined scenario of excess-quantity and inferior-quality discharging, upstream areas should bear the treatment cost, which enables water quality target to be met in the transboundary section. The corresponding accounting formula is:
where MK2′ is the sewage treatment cost in the combined scenario of excess-quantity and inferior-quality discharging (100 million yuan). The definitions of the other parameters are given above.
2.3 Transboundary River Ecocompensation Standard
The transboundary river ecocompensation standard (M) includes the water quantity compensation standard in the transboundary section (\( {M}_{{\mathrm{K}}_1} \)), the water quality compensation standard in the transboundary section (MK2) and the sewage treatment cost in the combined scenario of excess-quantity and inferior-quality discharging (MK2′); the accounting formula is:
Furthermore, Table 2 shows the detailed formulas for calculating the transboundary river ecocompensation standard.
3 Case Study
The Shaying River is the largest tributary of the Huaihe River, and it originates in the Funiu Mountain area of Henan Province and flows to the Huaihe River in Yingshang County, Anhui Province, with a total length of 561 km. The Shaying River watershed is located in the middle and upper reaches of the Huai River, between 112°45′ ~ 113°E and 34°20′ ~ 34°34′N, as shown in Fig. 3. The Shaying River watershed covers 32 counties (cities) in Henan Province and Anhui Province.
In January 2018, a water quantity allocation agreement for seven important transprovincial rivers in the Huaihe River watershed, including the Shaying River, was approved. In the water quantity allocation agreement for the Shaying River watershed, the standard discharge for the transprovincial section, the standard water-use amount in Henan Province and the standard water withdrawal from the river in Anhui Province were identified (Table 3). In addition, the basic ecological water demand of the Shaying River watershed was also stipulated as 5.5 m3/s from October to March, 5.8 m3/s April to May, and 20.4 m3/s June to September. According to the Water Function Zoning of Major Rivers and Lakes in China (2012–2030), the water quality target of the transprovincial section is Class III. At present, the main over-standard pollutants are total phosphorus, COD, ammonia nitrogen, BOD5 and the permanganate index in the trans-provincial section.
4 Results
4.1 Water Quantity Compensation Standard for the Transprovincial Section of the Shaying River
4.1.1 Value of Water Resources in the Shaying River Watershed
The calculation process for the shadow price model of the Shaying River watershed is as follows. 1) The Shaying River is divided into reach 1 and reach 2. Correspondingly, the Shaying River watershed in Henan Province above the province boundary is called the upstream area, and the Shaying River watershed in Anhui Province below the province boundary is called the downstream area. 2) The optimal allocation model of water resources for the Shaying River watershed is established. The relevant data used in the model are shown in Table 4. 3) The dual solution of the model is calculated, and the theoretical water resource value of each reach is obtained (Table 5).
The economic value of water resources in the Shaying River watershed is 1.743 billion yuan, 2.032 billion yuan and 1.751 billion yuan for hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively (Table 6).
The results indicate that the ecological values of outside-stream water resources for the Shaying River watershed corresponding to hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% are 48 million yuan, 50 million yuan and 44 million yuan, respectively (Table 7).
After calculating the unit value of in-stream water resources (Table 8), combined with runoff, the ecological value of in-stream water resources for hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% is 1.271 billion yuan, 0.551 billion yuan and 0.259 billion yuan, respectively (Table 9).
In summary, according to the economic value of water resources and the ecological value of water resources in the Shaying River watershed, the value of water resources at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% is 3.062 billion yuan, 2.633 billion yuan and 2.054 billion yuan, respectively (Table 10).
4.1.2 Water Price in Water Quantity Compensation for the Shaying River Watershed (Also Called the Unit Value of Water Resources in the Shaying River Watershed)
Table 11 shows the water prices in water quantity compensation for the Shaying River watershed at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, which are 0.36 yuan/m3, 0.39 yuan/m3 and 0.37 yuan/m3, respectively.
4.1.3 Water Quantity Compensation Standard for the Transprovincial Section of the Shaying River
The accounting formulas of the water quantity compensation standard for the transprovincial section at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% were determined (see formulas 15–17 for details).
where \( {M}_{{\mathrm{K}}_150\%} \),\( {M}_{{\mathrm{K}}_175\%} \) and \( {M}_{{\mathrm{K}}_195\%} \) are the water quantity compensation standards for the transprovincial section corresponding to hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, separately (100 million yuan); Q50%, Q50%and Q95% are the actual discharge values in the transprovincial section at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively (100 million m3), which can be obtained through Corresponding hydrologic station set by the state; and UU50%, UU75% and UU95% are the actual water-use amounts in the upstream area at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively (100 million m3). The meanings of the remaining variables are given in Table 3. “UP”, “DOWN” and “CEN” represent the upstream government, downstream government and central government, respectively.
4.2 Water Quality Compensation Standard for the Shaying River Watershed
4.2.1 Water Quality Compensation Standard for the Transprovincial Section of the Shaying River
Five pollutants, including total phosphorus, COD, NH3-N, BOD and the permanganate index, were selected to calculate the CPI. The CPI of the water quality target (Class III) in the transprovincial section is 0.5. Additionally, the unit cost of sewage treatment is 1.38 (yuan/m3) (Tan et al. 2015), and the amount of water discharged into rivers from upstream areas at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% is 2.82, 3.63 and 1.19 (100 million m3), respectively. Therefore, the accounting formulas for the water quality compensation standard in the transprovincial section at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% can be determined (see formulas 18–20 for details).
where \( {M}_{K_250\%} \), \( {M}_{K_275\%} \) and \( {M}_{K_295\%} \) are the water quality compensation standards for the transprovincial section at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively (100 million yuan), and Pk50%out, Pk75%out and Pk95%out are the CPIs of actual water quality in the transboundary section at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively.
4.2.2 Sewage Treatment Costs in the Combined Scenario of Excess-Quantity and Inferior-Quality Discharging in the Shaying River Watershed
The accounting formulas for the sewage treatment costs in the combined scenario of excess-quantity and inferior-quality discharging at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% were determined (see formulas 21–23 for details).
where \( {M_{K_250\%}}^{\prime } \), \( {M_{K_275\%}}^{\prime } \) and \( {M_{K_295\%}}^{\prime } \) are the sewage treatment costs for hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively (100 million yuan), and the other parameters are defined above.
4.3 Ecocompensation Standard for the Shaying River Watershed
Tables 12, 13 and 14 show the accounting formulas for the ecocompensation standard at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95% in the Shaying River watershed.
5 Discussion
We present a new method for calculating the ecocompensation standards of transboundary rivers. This approach has several specific characteristics: 1) The problems of the existing watershed ecocompensation methods based on water quality and quantity, e.g., the compensation relationship between upstream and downstream is not clear, and the water resources value is not scientifically established, are mitigated. 2) Our ecocompensation standard accounting method can determine the best ecocompensation standard in different water quality (equal-quality, inferior-quality and better-quality discharging) and water quantity (equal-quantity, excess-quantity and reduced-quantity discharging) scenarios. Moreover, the method can also aid in identifying the corresponding compensation subject and object. 3) Our ecocompensation standard accounting method can determine the unit value of water resources for different hydrological frequencies and provide key and dynamic parameters for the calculation of the water quantity compensation standard and watershed ecocompensation standard under different hydrological frequencies. 4) There is no time-scale limit to our ecocompensation standard accounting method. This method can be used to calculate the ecocompensation standards of transboundary rivers when a set of data for water quantity allocation and water quality objectives is available for a given segment.
We have determined the ecocompensation standard accounting formulas for the Shaying River watershed but not fixed values. Notably, the actual discharges, concentrations of major pollutants, water use amounts in upstream Henan Province and water withdrawals from the river in downstream Anhui Province have not been determined. These parameters need to be monitored over a long period of time by specialized agencies. It is suggested that a Shaying River ecocompensation consultation platform be established by watershed management institutions, namely, the Huai River Water Resources Commission. The consultation platform for ecological compensation should be responsible for monitoring the parameters discussed above.
In this case, it is difficult to verify the rationality of Shaying River ecocompensation standard formulas. However, the unit value of water resources in the Shaying River watershed has been calculated for hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, with estimated values of 0.36 yuan/m3, 0.39 yuan/m3 and 0.37 yuan/m3, respectively.
The unit value of water resources in the Shaying River watershed was close to that obtained by Zhu et al. (2005) in 2000. However, compared with the water resource values of 0.71 yuan/m3 in the Xin’an River Basin (Sun et al. 2007), 3.10 yuan/m3 in the intake area of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (Tang et al. 2018), and 4.58 yuan/m3 in China (He and Chen 2005), although the water resource values in different hydrological scenarios are separately calculated in our research, they are generally much lower than those in other studies. As a crucial parameter, the net benefit coefficient of various water use departments in this study may have been inappropriate due to data limitations; Zhu et al. (2005) adopted the net benefit coefficient to obtain the water resource value for the Huaihe River basin in 2000. The net benefit coefficients of various water use departments are time constrained, and those in our research are much lower than those in other regions. Therefore, the net benefit coefficients of various water use departments should be updated based on the year of transboundary ecocompensation in the next step. Table 15 shows the net benefit coefficients and water resource values in different studies.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, a transboundary river ecocompensation standard accounting method based on water quantity allocation and water quality control targets is proposed, and the corresponding ecocompensation standard accounting formulas are determined by taking the Shaying River watershed as the study area. The following conclusions were drawn from the study.
-
1)
The transboundary river ecocompensation standard accounting method includes a) an accounting method for water quantity compensation standards from the perspective of water resources value and b) an accounting method for water quality compensation standards based on the comprehensive pollution index method. c) Ecocompensation standards are calculated for different water quantity and water quality scenarios at the watershed scale. Therefore, in the transboundary river ecocompensation standard accounting method, the effects of dynamic changes in the water resource value, water quality and water quantity on the ecocompensation standards are simultaneously considered.
-
2)
The unit values of water resources in the Shaying River watershed are 0.36 yuan/m3, 0.39 yuan/m3 and 0.37 yuan/m3 at hydrological frequencies of 50%, 75% and 95%, respectively. These values are generally much lower than those in other studies. As a crucial parameter, the net benefit coefficients of various water use departments in this study are much lower than those in other studies. Therefore, the net benefit coefficients should be updated based on the year of transboundary ecocompensation in the future.
-
3)
In this study, 27 types of ecocompensation standard formulas for the Shaying River watershed were determined for different hydrological frequencies (50%, 75% and 95%), water quantity scenarios (equal quantity, excess quantity and reduced quantity discharging) and water quality scenarios (equal quality, inferior quality and better-quality discharging).
-
4)
The establishment of online monitoring points for water consumption/use should be prioritized, the national water resource monitoring capacity should be improved, and the implementation of transboundary ecocompensation should be promoted.
Although most of the conclusions are drawn from the case study of the Shaying River watershed, the methodology and results of this study are objective and rational. Therefore, the findings of this study provide a compensation standard for the Shaying River and a reference for the calculation of ecocompensation standards for other transboundary rivers in China with definite water quantity and water quality management objectives.
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Arlene J, Amponin R, Ma E (2007) Willingness to pay for watershed protection by domestic water users in Tuguegarao City, Philippines. PREM Working Paper No. 07/06.Amsterdam: IES
Bienabe E, Hearne RR (2006) Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty with in a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy Econ 9:335–348
Chen Y, Ma J (2017) Study on willingness to pay for bidirectional ecological compensation and its influencing factors in Taihu Lake Basin—a case study in upper reaches of Yixing, Huzhou City and lower reaches of Suzhou City. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University (social sciences edition) 1:16–22
Chen YP, Zhou Y (2016) Basin ecological compensation measurement based on water quality and quantity—taking Ningxia Povince of Yellow River Basin as example. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning 37(4):119–126
Ferraro PJ (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65(4):810–821
Fu YC, Ruan BQ, Xu FR, Chu LM (2012) Water related eco-compensation standard study for the Yongding River basin. SHUILI XUEBAO 43(6):740–748
Geng YQR, Zhang P (2009) A water footprint based model on river basin eco-compensation. China Popul Resour Environ 19(6):11–16
Guo ZJ, Ge YX, Fan FY (2013) Gradual compensation system of river basin on water quality and quantity---- a case study of Dawenhe river basin. Chinese J Agricul Resour Regional Plann 34(1):96–102
He J, Chen XK (2005) Dynamic computable equilibrium model of shadow price of water resources of China. Acad Math Syst Sci 25(1):12–13
Huang W (2013) Design basis for standard of Compensation & Horizontal Compensation Mode in watershed-based PES. Ecol Econ 6:154–172
Kosoy N, Martines TM, Muradian R (2007) Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecol Econ 61:446–455
Li N (2018) Study on river basin ecological compensation mechanism of urban agglomeration in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. Wuhan, DC: Wuhan University: 107–152
Li HE, Pang M, Xiao Y, Shi SJ (2010) A study on ecological compensation quantity based of water resource value in Shanxi water source area. Journal of North West University (Natural Science Edition) 40(1):149–154
Liu JW, Lv HJ (2012) Economic value of water resources of the upper reaches of the Xin’an River Basin, China. J Resour Ecol 3(1):087–092
Liu YL, Xu FR, Zhang CL, Ruan BQ, Luo RZ (2006) Model for river basin ecological compensation. China Water Resour 22:35–38
Liu GH, Wen YH, Xie J (2016) Study of eco-compensation and fiscal incentive mechanism for trans-provincial water quality. Environ Protection Sci 42(6):6–9 32
Liu CL, Liu WD, Lu DD, Chen MX, Xu M (2017) A study of provincial differences in China’s eco-compensation framework. J Geogr Sci 27(2):240–256
Lu XH, Ke SG (2016) Establishment of regional water resources ecological compensation model based on ecological footprint model—take the yangtze river for example. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin 25(2):334–341
Mao CM, Yuan RH (2003) Calculation and analysis of the theory value of water resources of huanghe river. China Popul Resour Environ 13(3):25–29
Moreno SR, Maldonado JH, Wunder S (2012) Heterogeneous users and willingness to pay in an ongoing payment for watershed protection initiative in the Colombian Andes. Ecol Econ 75(3):126–134
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33:237–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011
Pang AP, Li CH, Liu KK, Shen N (2010) Ecological compensation in the water source areas of Zhangweinan basin based on water environmental capacity. China Popul Resour Environ 20:100–103
Peng XC, Liu Q, Zhou LX, Zheng SY, Guo M, Zhang XX (2010) Study of ecological compensation mechanism of Dongjiang river based on contingent valuation method. Ecol Environ Sci 19:1605–1610
Pimentel D, Wilson C, Mccullum C, Huang R, Dwen P (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313097
Qi R (2009) A water footprint based model on river basin eco-compensation. Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, DC
Qin YW, Zhao YM, Ma YQ, Zheng BH, Wang X, Wang LJ, Li H (2018) Prevention and control of nitrogen, phosphorus pollution in the three gorges reservoir: ecological compensation, pollution control, quality assessment. Res Environ Sci 31(1):1–8
Roland BAG, Leon MH (2009) Broadening the picture: negotiating payment schemes for water-related environmental services in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 68(11):2760–2767
Sun J, Ruan BQ, Zhang CL (2007) Calculation and analysis of water resources value in upper reaches of the XinAn River. J China Instit Water Resour Hydropower Resh 5(2):121–124
Tan X, Shi L, Ma Z, Zhang XS, Lu GF (2015) Institutional analysis of sewage treatment charge based on operating cost of sewage treatment plant—an empirical research of 227samples in China. China Environ Sci 35(12):3833–3840
Tang Y, Song XF, Ma Y, Zhang YH, Yang LH, Han DM, Bu HM (2018) Study on water resources value in the intake area of the south-to-north water diversion project based on water resources optimization. South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Science & Technology 16(1):189–194
Tian PP (2006) Study on regional ecological security and compensation based on the analysis of ecological footprint in Guanzhong region. Xi’an, DC: Northwest University
Wang YQ, Li GP (2019) The evaluation of the watershed ecological compensation standard of ecosystem service value: a case of Weihe watershed upstream. Acta Ecol Sin 39(1):108–116
Wang JQ, Zheng BG, Liu Q, Li Y, Liang L, Zhang JB, Zheng Z (2012) Water quality monitoring and compensation amount measurement of ecological compensation section in Hongfeng Lake Basin. Environ Chem 31(6):917–918
Wei XY, Xia JX (2012) Ecological compensation for large water projects based on ecological footprint theory: a case study in China. Procedia Environ Sci 13:1338–1345
Wu ZN, Guo X, Lv CM, Wang HL, Di DY (2018) Study on the quantification method of water pollution ecological compensation standard based on energy theory. Ecol Indic 92:189–194
Xie RR, Pang Y, Li Z, Zhang NH, Hu FJ (2013) Eco-compensation in multi-district river networks in North Jiangsu, China. Environ Manag 51:874–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9992-5
Xu DW, Zheng HX, Liu MQ (2008) Measuring method of river basin ecological compensation based on river water quality and its water quantity about across administration area. China Popul Resour Environ 18:189–194
Xu J, Xiao Y, Xie GD, Jiang Y (2019) Ecosystem service flow insights into horizontal ecological compensation standards for water resource: a case study in Dongjiang Lake Basin. China Chin Geogra Sci 29(2):214–230
Yang YH, Zhang X, Chang LR, Cheng YF, Cao SL (2018) A method of evaluating ecological compensation under different property rights and stages: a case study of the xiaoqing river basin, China. Sustainability 10:615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030615
Yuan RH, Zhu JL, Tao XY, Mao CM (2002) Application of shadow price method in calculation of water resources theoretical value. J Nat Resour 17(6):757–761
Zhang L (2009) Study on watershed ecological compensation standards and ecological compensation mechanism—a case study on the Pishihang basin. Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, DC
Zhao YF (2013) Research on willingness to payment and payment behavior of ecological compensation of trans-regional river basin: taking Liaohe River as an example. Dalian, DC: Dalian University of Technology: 62–70
Zhu JL, Tao XY, Wang SJ, Tong JP (2005) Calculation and analysis of the value of water resources of Huaihe River. J Nat Resour 20(1):126–131
Funding
This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project (No. 2017YFA0605004), National Key Research and Development Project (No. 2016YFA0601503) and National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 51725905).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. DHY and TLQ had the idea for the article. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by CLH, MG and ZLY. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CLH and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hao, C., Yan, D., Gedefaw, M. et al. Accounting of Transboundary Ecocompensation Standards Based on Water Quantity Allocation and Water Quality Control Targets. Water Resour Manage 35, 1731–1756 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02807-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02807-5