Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Effect of ecological restoration projects on carbon footprint in a grassland ecosystem on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau

Bibliographic Data

ID21648679
AuthorsLu Yu (0009-0004-6479-2630, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China), Shiliang Liu (0000-0001-5830-5171, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China, corresponding author), Fangfang Wang (0000-0002-5441-4490, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China), Hua Liu (0000-0003-2798-3337, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China), Yixuan Liu (0009-0004-8389-7550, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China), Qingbo Wang (0000-0002-7112-3732, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China), Yifei Zhao (0009-0009-3541-8937, State Key Laboratory of Water Environment Simulation, School of Environment Beijing Normal University Beijing China)
Year2023
Volume34
Issue18
Pages5824-5834
Publication date2023-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLand Degradation and Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1085-3278 • E-ISSN: 1099-145X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ldr.4880
OpenAlexW4386292963
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited53

Investigating the cost‐effective and low‐carbon pathways for grassland ecological restoration projects is vital to achieving carbon neutrality and Sustainable Development Goals. To fill the gap of incorporating ecological and socioeconomic systems of ecological restoration projects, this study established a cost‐benefit evaluation framework that integrated the carbon footprint based on life cycle assessment and a carbon price measurement model based on the Slack‐Based Measure‐Data Envelopment Analysis model. Taking a ‘Returning Grazing Land to Grassland Project’ on the Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau as a case, this study quantified the carbon footprint of three different ecological measurements, including fences construction (released 107 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 and absorbed 322 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 ), degenerated grassland improvement (released 1080 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 and absorbed 580 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 ) and artificial grassland planting (released 2540 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 and absorbed 6540 kgCO 2 ‐eq·hm −2 ). Raw material production was the largest emitter. In addition, we calculated the carbon price in the grassland ecosystem by the carbon price measurement model, at 1.06 yuan·kgCO 2 ‐eq −1 on average during 2011–2018. In the cost‐benefit analysis, the total carbon sequestration benefits (8.90 × 10 6 yuan) outweighed the total carbon emission costs (4.26 × 10 6 yuan). Optimizing the usage and transportation of building materials and the application of fertilizer can benefit carbon emission mitigation and enhancement of carbon sequestration capacity in grassland. This study provided a theoretical basis for ecological restoration projects and grassland carbon pricing mechanisms aiming for sustainable management

Agroforestry · Carbon dioxide · Carbon fibers · Carbon Footprint · Carbon sequestration · Ecosystem · Grassland · Greenhouse gas · Soil carbon · Soil water · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Computer Science · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Environmental Science · Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Ecology · Soil Science

  • Carbon surplus or carbon deficit under land use transformation in China

    Open Access•Shuoshuo Li, Yaobin Liu et al.•Land Use Policy•2024

  • Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition

    Open Access•Eric Allan, Peter Manning et al.•Ecology Letters•2015

  • Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010

    Open Access•Fei Lu, Huifeng Hu et al.•Proceedings of the National…•2018

  • Untangling the effects of management measures, climate and land use cover change on grassland dynamics in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, China

    Open Access•Yangyang Liu, Hanyu Ren et al.•Land Degradation and Development•2021

  • Species-specific herbivore grazing of type-specific grassland can assist with promotion of shallow layer of soil carbon sequestration

    Open Access•Jie Li, HUA CHAI et al.•Environmental Research Letters•2021

  • Performance and Obstacle Tracking to Natural Forest Resource Protection Project

    Open Access•Ya Wang, Lihua Zhou et al.•International Journal of…•2020

  • Quantifying carbon footprint for ecological river restoration

    Open Access•Yvonne Chiu, Yi Yang et al.•Environment Development and…•2022

  • Component-level embodied carbon database for landscape hard works in Taiwan

    Open Access•Hsien-Te Lin, Yi-Jiung Lin•Environment Development and…•2022

  • A probabilistic approach for the socioeconomic assessment of urban river rehabilitation projects

    Open Access•José M Martínez-Paz, Francisco Pellicer-Martínez et al.•Land Use Policy•2014

  • A method to the impact assessment of the returning grazing land to grassland project on regional eco-environmental vulnerability

    Open Access•Huaiyong Shao, Xiaofei Sun et al.•Environmental Impact Assessment…•2016

Citations per year0.5
Citation span2024 - 2024 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae