Research on opportunities of using GEP accounting in Mongolia: A case study of the valuation of ecosystem services in Khovd

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5564/mjgg.v62i46.4089

Keywords:

Mongolia, ecosystem services, GEP accounting, Khovd province, ecosystem valuation

Abstract

The study could be a basis for designing and choosing appropriate economic valuation methods for ecosystem goods and services in Mongolia. Ecosystem economic valuation is an effective way to measure and understand the significance of the benefits people receive from ecosystems. Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) is the monetary value of ecosystem services, making the findings comparable to GDP. The GEP concept seeks to employ specific indicators to quantify the economic value of all ecosystem products and services. GEP is the total value of final ecosystem goods and services supplied to human well-being in a region annually. We have developed the first GEP framework for Mongolia and conducted a case study using the market valuation method, shadow engineering method, replacement cost method, avoided cost method, conservation value method, and travel cost method. The GEP was calculated at the provincial level, and a framework was customized for the unique economic and ecological situations of Khovd Province. Our findings revealed that the total GEP in Khovd Province ranged from 110040.7 million dollars to 113650.2 million dollars in 2015 and 2020, respectively. The GEP to GDP ratio varied between 815 and 390 during this time. Among the different components of GEP, the value of ecosystem regulating services played a crucial role, accounting for 99.6% equally in both 2015 and 2020. The research results show that the distribution of GEP components in Khovd province is entirely distinct. The contribution of soil conservation services is the highest to the GEP of the selected case.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract
129
PDF
71

References

[1] C. Song, Y. Xiao, W. Bo, Y. Xiao, Z. Zou and Ouyang, “The ecological asset accounting method study: A case study of Qinghai province,” Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39(1), pp. 9–23, 2019, Available: doi: 10.5846/stxb201810172243.

[2] X. Lu, “Gross ecosystem product applied in the fields of urban planning and architecture”. Journal of Jilin Jianzhu University, 36 (6), 2019.

[3] Z. Ouyang, et al. “Theory and methodology of Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) accounting,” Beijing Publishing House, 2021.

[4] A. Zemmrich, “The northern part of Khovd Province–An ecological introduction,” Hamburger Beiträge zur Physischen Geographie und Landschaftsökologie, 18, pp. 1–10, 2008.

[5] B. Ochirbat, “Soil Science Society of Mongolia,” Presentation, Soil Department, Institute of Geography, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 2015.

[6] M. Altanbagana, “Policy research report: Ecological and social vulnerability assessment and policy recommendation for 5 aimags (Arkhangai, Bulgan, Uvurkhangai, Khovd, & Khentii) prioritizing green development (in Mongolian),” National Development Institute of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 2015.

[7] Y. Fan et al., “The valuation of ecosystems services in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China,” Nat. Resour. Forum, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 681–697, 2024, Available: doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.12321.

[8] Z. Ouyang, Y. Lin and C. Song, “Research on Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP): Case study of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province,” Environment and Sustainable Development, 6, 2020.

[9] Z. Han, Y. Zhao, X. Yan, and J. Zhong, “Coupling coordination mechanism Spatial – Temporal relationship between Gross ecosystem product and Regional economy,” Economy geography, 40 (10), 2020.

[10] W. Liao, Y. Liu, Y. Zheng, H. Zhou and Y. Luo, “Gross ecosystem product accounting for Chishui city,” China Forestry Economics, 3 (156), 2019.

[11] L. Wang, Y. Xiao, Z. Ouyang, Q. Wei, W. Bo, J. Zhang and L. Ren, “Gross ecosystem product accounting in the national key ecological function area,” China population, resources and environment, 27(3):146-154, 2017.

[12] M. Yu, H. Jin, Q. Li, Y, Yang and Z, Z, “Gross Ecosystem Product ( GEP) Accounting for Chenggong District,” Journal of West China Forestry Science, 49 (3), 2020.

[13] L. Hein et al., “Ecosystem accounting in the Netherlands,” Ecosyst. Serv, 44, 101118, 2020, Available: doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101118

[14] H. Jiang et al., “Mapping global value of terrestrial ecosystem services by countries,” Ecosyst. Serv., vol. 52, p. 101361, 2021, Available: doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101361.

[15] Z. Zou, T. Wu, Y. Xiao, C. Song, K. Wang, and Z. Ouyang, “Valuing natural capital amidst rapid urbanization: Assessing the gross ecosystem product (GEP) of China’s ‘Chang-Zhu-Tan’ megacity,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 15, no. 12, 2020, Available: doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc2f8.

[16] B. Suvdantsetseg et al., “Assessment of pastoral vulnerability and its impacts on socio-economy of herding community and formulation of adaptation options,” APN Sci., no. 10 (1), 2020, Available: doi: 10.30852/sb.2020.1107.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-01

How to Cite

Gaanjuur, G., & Tuuguu, E. (2025). Research on opportunities of using GEP accounting in Mongolia: A case study of the valuation of ecosystem services in Khovd. Mongolian Journal of Geography and Geoecology, 62(46), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.5564/mjgg.v62i46.4089