Biophysical and Social Constraints of Restoring Ecosystem Services in the Border Regions of Tibet, China

Lizhi Jia, Silin Liu, Xinjie Zha () and Ting Hua
Additional contact information
Lizhi Jia: Lhasa Plateau Ecosystem Research Station, Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Silin Liu: Xi’an University of Finance and Economics, Xi’an 710100, China
Xinjie Zha: Xi’an University of Finance and Economics, Xi’an 710100, China
Ting Hua: Industrial Ecology Programme and Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7034 Trondheim, Norway

Land, 2025, vol. 14, issue 8, 1-22

Abstract: Ecosystem restoration represents a promising solution for enhancing ecosystem services and environmental sustainability. However, border regions—characterized by ecological fragility and geopolitical complexity—remain underrepresented in ecosystem service and restoration research. To fill this gap, we coupled spatially explicit models (e.g., InVEST and RUSLE) with scenario analysis to quantify the ecosystem service potential that could be achieved in China’s Tibetan borderlands under two interacting agendas: ecological restoration and border-strengthening policies. Restoration feasibility was evaluated through combining local biophysical constraints, economic viability (via restoration-induced carbon gains vs. opportunity costs), operational practicality, and simulated infrastructure expansion. The results showed that per-unit-area ecosystem services in border counties (particularly Medog, Cona, and Zayu) exceed that of interior Tibet by a factor of two to four. Combining these various constraints, approximately 4–17% of the border zone remains cost-effective for grassland or forest restoration. Under low carbon pricing (US$10 t −1 CO 2 ), the carbon revenue generated through restoration is insufficient to offset the opportunity cost of agricultural production, constituting a major constraint. Habitat quality, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration increase modestly when induced by restoration, but a pronounced carbon–water trade-off emerges. Planned infrastructure reduces restoration benefits only slightly, whereas raising the carbon price to about US$50 t −1 CO 2 substantially expands such benefits. These findings highlight both the opportunities and limits of ecosystem restoration in border regions and point to carbon pricing as the key policy lever for unlocking cost-effective restoration.

Keywords: ecosystem services; ecological restoration; nature-based solutions; biophysical constraints; Tibet (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/8/1601/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/8/1601/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:1601-:d:1718655

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().