摘要:目前国内外对自然资本价值核算的理论与方法尚未取得共识，无疑制约了自然资本核算在生态环境保护中积极作用的发挥。基于此，本文分别从自然资本内涵及其价值核算理论基础、国内外自然资本存量与流量核算方法实证研究、自然资本货币化价值核算的合理性等方面对已有文献进行梳理与分析，发现目前自然资本核算研究主要集中在生态产品的功能量与价值量核算而缺少生态资产货币价值量核算的研究；当前采用的生态产品价值量核算的生态系统类型系数表、本地化生态过程模型、能值当量替换三种方法在精度适用性、应用推广性和计算便捷性上各有优劣，尚待进一步的深入研究；最后对自然资本货币核算的一些争论进行了分析。通过上述研究和分析，提出如下新认识：（1）自然资本相关概念尚不统一，已经形成的认识包括：自然资本具有一定的稀缺性和使用价值，资本可分为存量资本（又称生态资产）和流量资本（又称生态系统服务）；（2）自然资本核算技术繁多，研究成果的横向比较性较差，需要通过标准化核算技术方法和建立生态环境资源数据库等措施，进一步提高核算结果的准确性和可比性；（3）相比于基于生态系统类型价值系数方法和基于非市场化货币的当量替代方法，基于本地化参数的生态系统服务过程方法更能够反映本地生态环境特征，评估分析的准确度更高，生态管理抓手更多；（4）尽管自然资本货币核算理论和实践应用仍存在一些争论，但各国政府和各类组织都在推动自然资本核算工作，自然资本的探索性核算成果已在各国生态补偿和生态损害修复等方面发挥积极作用。



Abstract:At present, the theory and methodology of natural capital valuation have not reached a consensus domestically or internationally. This undoubtedly restricts the positive role of natural capital valuation played in the protection of the ecological environment. To address this issue, this paper analyzed the existing literature, including studies on the theoretical basis of value accounting, empirical accounting methods for stocks and flows, and the rationality of natural capital monetization. We found that natural capital valuation research tended to focus on product quantity, lacking exploration of the monetary value of ecological assets. Currently, three methods, including ecosystem type coefficient table, the localized ecological process model, and emergy-equivalent replacement for ecological product value, have been broadly adopted. They have their advantages and disadvantages in terms of precision applicability, application popularization, and calculation convenience, all of which need further study. In the end, this paper discussed some of the controversies surrounding the monetary accounting of natural capital. Through the above analysis, the paper puts forward the following conclusions:(1) the concepts related to natural capital have not been unified. The natural capital has a certain scarcity and use value, and capital can be divided into stocks (also known as ecological assets) and flows (also known as ecosystem services). (2) The variety of natural capital valuation techniques leads to poor horizontal comparison of research results. It is necessary to improve the accuracy and comparability of accounting results by standardizing techniques and establishing ecological-environmental resource databases. (3) Compared with the value coefficient method based on ecosystem type and the equivalent substitution method based on non-market valuation, the ecosystem service process method based on local parameters can better reflect the characteristics of local ecological and environmental conditions. The accuracy of evaluation and analysis is higher, and there are more ecological management channels. (4) Although there are still some debates about the theory and practical application of the monetary accounting of natural capital, governments and various organizations have promoted the work of natural capital valuation. The results of the exploratory accounting of natural capital have played a positive role in ecological compensation and restoration policies in various countries.





PDF全文下载地址:

https://www.ecologica.cn/stxb/article/pdf/stxb202006241648