Enhancing the capacity for ecosystem services delivery in karst desertification control engineering through ecological products value realization

Enhancing the capacity for ecosystem services delivery in karst desertification control engineering through ecological products value realization | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 18 September 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Enhancing the capacity for ecosystem services delivery in karst desertification control engineering through ecological products value realization Authors : Rong Zhao , Kangning Xiong [email protected] , and Zhaojun Liu Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175821329.99001267/v1 165 views 108 downloads Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3.3 Case analysis 3 Theoretical Framework 3.3 How EPVR pathways enhance ES capacity 4 Mechanisms of ES capacity enhancement through EPVR 4.2 Creating value realization channels to incentivize investment 4.3 Embedding ES into regional economies for resilient output 5 Discussion 6 Conclusions Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Karst Desertification Control (KDC) engineering aims to deliver vital Ecosystem Services (ES), yet their long-term capacity to do so is often limited and fiscally unsustainable. This article aims to develop a novel framework and synthesize evidence on how Ecological Product Value Realization (EPVR) mechanisms can enhance the capacity of ES delivery in KDC engineering. Employing a systematic qualitative synthesis approach, we analyzed peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and primary interview data from three representative case studies in the South China Karst. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and process-tracing methods to identify causal mechanisms. We construct a novel theoretical framework illustrating three primary EPVR pathways and their specific mechanisms for enhancing ES capacity. Case comparisons reveal that pathway effectiveness is highly context-dependent, with key barriers include ES quantification, market development, and community empowerment. We conclude that EPVR represents a crucial paradigm shift from merely sustaining projects to amplifying their ecological functionality. Realizing this potential requires policy interventions that foster adaptive EPVR models tailored to local socio-ecological contexts. This article offers a foundational framework for guiding future research and policy in sustainable ecological engineering. Enhancing the capacity for ecosystem services delivery in karst desertification control engineering through ecological products value realization Rong Zhao a, b , Kangning Xiong a, b, * , Zhaojun Liu a, b a School of Karst Science, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, Guizhou 550025, China b State Engineering Technology Institute for Karst Desertification Control, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, Guizhou 550025, China Abstract Karst Desertification Control (KDC) engineering aims to deliver vital Ecosystem Services (ES), yet their long-term capacity to do so is often limited and fiscally unsustainable. This article aims to develop a novel framework and synthesize evidence on how Ecological Product Value Realization (EPVR) mechanisms can enhance the capacity of ES delivery in KDC engineering. Employing a systematic qualitative synthesis approach, we analyzed peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and primary interview data from three representative case studies in the South China Karst. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and process-tracing methods to identify causal mechanisms. We construct a novel theoretical framework illustrating three primary EPVR pathways and their specific mechanisms for enhancing ES capacity. Case comparisons reveal that pathway effectiveness is highly context-dependent, with key barriers include ES quantification, market development, and community empowerment. We conclude that EPVR represents a crucial paradigm shift from merely sustaining projects to amplifying their ecological functionality. Realizing this potential requires policy interventions that foster adaptive EPVR models tailored to local socio-ecological contexts. This article offers a foundational framework for guiding future research and policy in sustainable ecological engineering. Keywords Karst desertification control; Ecological products value realization; Ecosystem services capacity; Payment for ecosystem services; Sustainable engineering; South China Karst 1 Introduction Karst Desertification (KD) poses a severe global ecological threat, with South China Karst (SCK) representing one of the most impacted and challenging regions for sustainable development (Cai, 2006; Ford & Williams, 2007; Jiang et al., 2014). In response, large-scale Karst Desertification Control (KDC) engineering projects have been implemented over recent decades (Lan et al., 2020; Yan & Cai, 2015). These projects have achieved significant milestones in expanding vegetation coverage and curbing the expansion of KD areas (Qiu et al., 2022; Tong et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). However, a critical paradox emerges: despite these ‘greening’ successes, the long-term capacity of these engineered ecosystems to deliver stable, high-quality, and diverse ecosystem services (ES) remains fundamentally constrained (Piao et al., 2020; Gómez-González et al., 2021). These include the fiscal unsustainability and over-reliance on government investment that create a precarious funding model (Sophus O.S.E et al., 2024; Liao et al., 2025), insufficient incentives for post-project stewardship leading to low community participation (Qiu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2025), a persistent failure to effectively translate ecological benefits into tangible economic value (Yang et al., 2024; Zhao & Zhao, 2025), as well as weak industrial support and consequently limited community benefits (Cheng et al., 2017; Ebeler et al., 2025). KDC engineering has enhanced the potential supply of key ecosystem services, conceptualized as “the ability of an ecosystem to generate a service under current ecosystem condition and uses” (Hein et al., 2016). This is demonstrated through measurable increases in carbon sequestration (Du et al., 2024), improved soil retention functions, and biodiversity improvement (Chen et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025). Nevertheless, these gains often prove precarious, failing to translate into stable, sustainable ES delivery (Tong et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2022). The challenges in sustaining enhanced ES capacity are multifaceted, stemming from factors such as the region’s inherently fragile ecological conditions which constrain realized capacity, an underdeveloped mechanism for value realization that creates a funding void, and a limited community stake which ultimately undermines long-term stewardship (Oliver et al., 2020). Ecological products represent the ecosystem-related goods and services derived from ecological restoration (Zheng et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024). The Ecological Products Value Realization (EPVR) model integrates government-led initiatives with market-based operations (Yan et al., 2024). In essence, this model transforms the collection of post-restoration ecological services into a marketable ecological product system, thereby enhancing the economic benefits of restoration projects through the comprehensive development and trading of the ecological product system (Xiong et al., 2024). EPVR has emerged as a transformative paradigm that fundamentally redefines the approach to sustaining and enhancing the capacity of ecosystems to deliver services in restored karst environments. It represents a systemic shift from viewing ecological restoration as a public-funded cost center to recognizing it as a generator of valuable, marketable ecological products that can fuel a self-reinforcing cycle of conservation and economic development. Unlike the broader concept of ES—which emphasizes the interdependent processes between humans and natural systems (McPhearson et al., 2022)—ecological products specifically entail the transformation of ecological resources into economic entities through human intervention (Liu et al., 2024). The core of EPVR lies in its ability to internalize the positive externalities generated by restoration efforts, thereby creating a sustainable economic feedback loop that directly addresses the chronic challenges of funding, maintenance incentives, and community engagement that plague traditional KDC engineering. This article aims to systematically synthesize the mechanisms, evidence, and pathways through which EPVR enhances ES delivery capacity in KDC engineering. Our objectives are threefold: (1) to construct a theoretical framework linking EPVR pathways to ES capacity enhancement; (2) to critically analyze empirical evidence from representative SCK case studies in Salaxi, Qingzhen and Huajiang; (3) to propose actionable policy and management pathways for optimizing EPVR implementation. Employing a systematic qualitative synthesis, this article focuses on SCK to provide a foundational framework for researchers and policymakers, bridging the gap between ecological restoration and sustainable socio-economic development. 2 Methodology 2.1 Literature search and screening strategy To establish a comprehensive theoretical foundation and map the global scholarly landscape pertinent to this review, a systematic literature search was conducted using the Scopus database, selected for its extensive coverage of high-quality, interdisciplinary peer-reviewed literature. Three targeted searches were designed to correspond with the study’s core conceptual pillars: “ecosystem service capacity” (focusing on definitions, quantification, and enhancement of service delivery), “karst rocky desertification control” (addressing engineering approaches, outcomes, and sustainability challenges in global karst regions), and “ecological products value realization” (encompassing theories, mechanisms such as PES, market-based instruments, and case applications). The search strategy applied queries to the title, abstract, and keywords of documents, yielding 122, 97, and 56 records respectively. Screening was performed in two stages: initial relevance assessment via title and abstract, followed by full-text evaluation for final eligibility. After removing duplicates, 210 unique publications were retained for in-depth analysis. 2.2 Case selection rationale The empirical foundation for this analysis draws on the author’s long-term, in-depth fieldwork in three typical demonstration areas, which provides abundant firsthand data. This robust basis enables a comprehensive investigation into the varied mechanisms and contextual factors governing EPVR’s enhancement of ecosystem service capacity. Geological and geomorphological factors serve as thematerial foundation for the existence and development of the fragile KD ecosystem. The Guizhou Plateau is the center of the SCK. The three typical geomorphological regions selected for this study on the Guizhou karst plateau—karst plateau mountains, plateau basins, and plateau gorges—essentially represent the fundamental geomorphological types of karst in SCK. The case study sites of Salaxi, Qingzhen, and Huajiang correspond to typical karst plateau mountain, karst plateau basin, and karst plateau gorge landforms, respectively, on the Guizhou karst plateau. Fig.1 Location map of the study cases Salaxi is a typical karst plateau mountain area located in the upper reaches of the Wujiang River. Karst features account for 74.25% of the area, with an elevation range of 1495-2000 m. The area is primarily composed of mountains, cultivated land, and peak-cluster depressions. Qingzhen is a typical karst plateau basin area situated on the watershed between the Wujiang River system of the Yangtze River Basin and the Beipanjiang River system of the Pearl River Basin in central Guizhou Province. Karst features account for 94.59% of the area, with an elevation range of 1240-1450 m. It is characterized by peak-cluster valleys, peak-cluster flatlands, and peak-cluster depressions. Huajiang is a typical karst plateau gorge located in the middle reaches of the Beipanjiang River in southwestern Guizhou Province. Karst features account for 87.92% of the area, with an elevation range of 450-1450 m. It consists of peak-cluster depressions, sloping cultivated land, river valleys, and peak clusters. The study sites encompass a complete range of KD grades. The research areas of Salaxi, Qingzhen, and Huajiang represent potential-light, light-moderate, and moderate-severe KD grades, respectively. The Salaxi features relatively few gentle depressions and has a high population density. Sloping farmland constitutes a significant proportion, and coupled with the relatively thick soil layer, soil erosion rates are high. Qingzhen contains substantial gentle depressions suitable for agricultural cultivation. After implementing soil and water conservation measures on the slopes surrounding these depressions, soil erosion rates have been significantly reduced and remain low. Huajiang having experienced intense soil loss in earlier stages, the area now has little soil left to erode, resulting in extremely low current erosion rates Tab.2 Argument for representativeness of the study area Study sites Main land use types KD occurs land uset ypes Features Salaxi Dry farmland, shrubland, and forestland Shrubland, dry farmland, and other grassland types Relatively few gentle depressions and has a high population density. Sloping farmland constitutes a significant proportion, and coupled with the relatively thick soil layer, soil erosion rates are high. Qingzhen Dry farmland, paddy fields, and other woodland Other woodland, dry farmland, and other grassland types After implementing soil and water conservation measures on the slopes surrounding these depressions, soil erosion rates have been significantly reduced and remain low. Huajiang Garden land, forestland, and natural grassland Other woodland, garden land, and other grassland types Having experienced intense soil loss in earlier stages, the area now has little soil left to erode, resulting in extremely low current erosion rates. 3.3 Case analysis To develop a mechanistic understanding of how Ecological Product Value Realization (EPVR) operates in practice to enhance ecosystem service capacity, a qualitative case study approach was adopted. Primary data were collected through semi-structured and unstructured interviews with key stakeholders directly involved in or affected by KDC projects and EPVR initiatives. In total, 54 interviews were conducted to capture diverse perspectives and ensure a holistic view of the underlying mechanisms, motivations, and barriers. Participants included government officials (n=25) from forestry department and village committee, who offered insights into policy design, funding, and regulatory frameworks. Project experts and engineers (n=6) provided technical perspectives on ecological outcomes and feasibility. Local entrepreneurs and cooperative leaders (n=7) contributed market-oriented views related to value chains and profitability in sectors such as eco-tourism and specialty agriculture. Finally, interviews with local residents and community members (n=16), including farmers, revealed critical information regarding on-the-ground implementation, behavioral adaptations, and the distribution of benefits and costs. This multi-stakeholder approach enriches the analysis with empirical depth and contextual nuance, supporting a robust examination of EPVR mechanisms within real-world settings. 3 Theoretical Framework 3.1 The concept of ES delivery capacity ES delivery capacity serves as the fundamental theoretical lens through which the efficacy of both existing projects and the proposed EPVR paradigm will be evaluated. ES delivery capacity is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to generate and provide a continuous flow of ecosystem services at a specified level, quality, and reliability, without compromising its future potential to do so, under prevailing ecological conditions and management practices. This concept moves beyond merely quantifying the stock of natural capital or the theoretical potential of services, to focus on the actual, realized flow of benefits to society over time, and the system’s resilience in maintaining that flow. The capacity of an ecosystem to deliver services is not a monolithic attribute but a multi-dimensional construct. Its connotation can be deconstructed into four interrelated dimensions that are critical for assessing the performance of ecological restoration engineering. The first dimension is ES quantity. It refers to the magnitude or yield of a specific ecosystem service produced per unit time and space. It is the most immediate and measurable output, often assessed through biophysical metrics such as tons of carbon sequestered, or kilograms of soil retained. In KDC engineering, this translates to the immediate output gains from interventions, such as enhanced timber production from plantations. However, a high quantity alone is insufficient if it is erratic or unsustainable(Zhang et al., 2025). The second dimension is ES stability. It refers to the temporal consistency and reliability of ES delivery in the face of environmental fluctuations and disturbances such as drought, pests, and market shocks. It encompasses two key components: ecosystem resistance, namely the capacity to maintain function during a disturbance, and resilience, namely the capacity to recover its pre-disturbance state thereafter. A stable ES supply ensures predictable benefits, fundamental to long-term planning and sustainable community dependence. The fragility of monoculture plantations in karst regions, which are highly vulnerable to climate stresses, highlights low stability even in systems with a high initial yield. The third dimension is ES delivery sustainability. It focuses on the long-term persistence of the ES delivery capacity. It is the foundation upon which stability and quantity rely. Sustainability addresses the question of whether prevailing levels and modes of service extraction or management adversely impact the essential ecological structures and processes—such as biodiversity, soil fertility, and hydrological cycles—that generate the service. Therefore, it questions whether current practices compromise future supply. The fourth dimension is value transformation efficiency. This dimension captures the effectiveness with which the biophysical supply of an ES is converted into recognized and captured socio-economic value. It is a critical bridge between ecological performance and human well-being. These four dimensions are inextricably linked and often involve trade-offs. For example, the pursuit of short-term quantity gains can severely compromise sustainability and stability. Conversely, investments in sustainability may diminish short-term output but reinforce long-term stability and value transformation efficiency by fostering more resilient and diversified ecological assets. Thus, the ultimate objective of KDC engineering shifts from a narrow focus on increasing quantity toward holistically optimizing the synergies and trade-offs among all four dimensions. 3.2 EPVR: mechanisms and pathways 3.2.1 The mechanism of EPVR The EPVR mechanism refers to the transaction of ecological products between the supply side and the consumption side. Firstly, the supply side involves the production of ecological products, while the consumption side pertains to the social reproduction of these products. Overall, the supply side drives the consumption of ecological products through their provision, and the consumption side provides feedback on ecological protection and restoration through the demand for these products. Specifically, the consumption of ecological products refers to the actual consumption by consumers, resulting from transactions between suppliers and consumers, integrating the supply capacity of ecological products and consumer demand. Moreover, the demand for ecological products refers to consumers’ willingness and ability to consume these products, which is communicated to suppliers to adjust production. This demand is influenced by consumers’ income levels and their perceptions and expectations regarding the types, quantities, and prices of ecological products. On the supply side, actions include the creation of ecological products, maintenance of ecological functions, and restoration of the ecological environment. On the consumption side, actions include purchasing high-quality agricultural products, experiencing high-quality travel, and obtaining green financial benefits. Fig. 2 The mechanism of EPVR 3.2.2 The pathways of EPVR 3.2.2.1 Government-dominated Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Government-dominated PES represent a fundamental fiscal mechanism wherein the government, as the primary payer and regulator, provides direct financial incentives to land managers, farmers, or communities in exchange for adopting and maintaining specific land-use practices that protect or enhance the delivery of ES. This model is predicated on the Pigouvian subsidy principle, aiming to internalize the positive externalities generated by conservation behaviors that the market fails to reward. Its core connotation lies in using fiscal transfer payments to correct market failures, thereby ensuring the maintenance and stability of ES delivery capacity by covering the opportunity costs of conservation and providing a stable income stream for stewards. In the context of KDC, this translates to the government financially rewarding actions that directly sustain the quantity and stability of key services like water conservation, soil retention, and carbon sequestration. While powerful, this model faces challenges. Fiscal sustainability is a primary concern, as it creates a long-term dependency on government budgets. The targeting and pricing of payments must be scientifically calibrated to accurately reflect the opportunity cost and the value of the ES delivered to avoid under- or over-payment. 3.2.2.2 Market-based transactions Market-based transactions represent a paradigm shift from government-funded compensation to the direct creation of economic value for ES through market mechanisms. This pathway involves the transformation of quantified ES into tradable ecological products or rights, which are then exchanged between buyers and sellers in a marketplace. Its core connotation is the establishment of efficient value realization channels that leverage market forces—supply, demand, and price signals—to monetize ES. By generating a direct revenue stream from ecosystem stewardship, this process elevates value transformation efficiency. This financially incentivizes providers to optimize both the quantity and quality of service provision to maximize returns. The theoretical underpinning of this mechanism lies in the Coase theorem: the assignment of well-defined property rights facilitates private negotiations that efficiently resolve externality problems. 3.2.2.3 Industrialization of ecological products The industrialization of ecological products represents the most advanced and synergistic pathway for EPVR. It moves beyond discrete transactions (PES or selling single credits) to deeply integrate the enhanced ES capacity directly into the regional economic structure through the development of branded, value-added industries. Its core connotation is the systematic development of eco-oriented industries that utilize the superior local ecological endowment—a direct output of successful KDC—as their fundamental competitive advantage. This pathway transforms the overall ES capacity from a public good into the core input and brand capital for market-oriented businesses, thereby achieving a structural fusion of ecological conservation and economic development. It works by building entire industries upon them and ultimately aims to enhance the sustainability and value transformation efficiency of ES capacity. It achieves this by making the local economy structurally dependent on its continued health. 3.3 How EPVR pathways enhance ES capacity The three EPVR pathways are not mutually exclusive but are rather complementary mechanisms that collectively address the multifaceted challenge of enhancing ES. The integrated connotation of this framework is that a synergistic application of these pathways enables a transition from merely funding the maintenance of a basic level of ES capacity to actively fostering its growth and resilience by embedding it into socio-economic systems. Each pathway targets different dimensions of ES capacity and operates through distinct yet interconnected mechanisms, together forming a robust strategy to overcome the sustainability dilemmas in KDC engineering. The integrated framework illustrates how the three EPVR pathways collectively enhance the four dimensions of ES capacity (Fig.2). The power of the EPVR framework lies in the synergistic interaction of its pathways. This synergy operates on several levels. First, government-led PES programs often establish essential fiscal stability and reduce initial risks, enabling landowners to participate more confidently in market transactions or invest in eco-industries. For instance, reliable PES income for forest conservation can provide a community with the financial security needed to subsequently develop a carbon credit project—a form of market transaction—or launch an eco-tourism venture, representing industrialization of ecological products. Furthermore, profits generated through market transactions and industrial activities create a reinforcing feedback loop: as these streams grow, they alleviate the long-term fiscal pressure on governments. Maturing markets and industries can assume a larger role in financing conservation, thereby enhancing the overall sustainability of the system. This revenue can also be reinvested into improving ecological conditions, which in turn raises the future value of ecosystem services accessible through all pathways. Finally, the multi-pathway nature of EPVR ensures comprehensive coverage, incorporating a wide range of ecosystem services—including provisioning, regulating, and cultural services—as well as diverse stakeholders, from smallholders to large corporations. This inclusiveness strengthens the resilience and sustainability of KDC outcomes. Fig.3 The integrated framework illustrates how the three EPVR pathways collectively enhance the four dimensions of ES capacity 4 Mechanisms of ES capacity enhancement through EPVR 4.1 Providing direct fiscal incentives for capacity maintenance The first and most foundational mechanism identified for enhancing the capacity of KDC projects is the provision of direct fiscal incentives, primarily orchestrated through government-led PES schemes. This mechanism functions by internalizing the positive externalities of conservation actions, translating abstract ecological benefits into tangible financial flows that directly fund maintenance activities, compensate stewards and industry cultivation, thereby securing the baseline capacity of ecosystems to deliver services. Our analysis, particularly from the Salaxi case, reveals how this mechanism operates in practice. In Salaxi, the core sustainability challenge was the high dependency on transient government funding and a consequent lack of motivation for long-term post-project maintenance. The local government implemented a PES scheme comprising two main components: (1) direct monetary compensation for converting cropland to ecological forests; and (2) the creation of paid “ecological guardian” positions for local residents to patrol and protect restored areas. This intervention directly activated the fiscal incentive mechanism. The stable, albeit modest, monetary transfers altered the cost-benefit calculus for local communities. By compensating for opportunity costs and paying for protective labor, the PES scheme effectively reduced the financial and motivational barriers to maintenance, a classic principal-agent problem in environmental management. This is a clear example of capacity maintenance: it prevents backsliding and protects the achieved level of ES provision from degradation. Fig. 4 The practice of EPVR in Salaxi, China. However, the Salaxi case also starkly illustrates the inherent limitations of a purely PES-driven mechanism. While effective at maintaining the status quo, it demonstrates a weaker capacity for significantly enhancing or amplifying ES delivery. The mechanism is almost entirely dependent on continued government fiscal input, with no built-in link to the market value of the enhanced services themselves. In contrast, the other cases show how this mechanism can be complemented. While Qingzhen also benefits from fiscal transfers, it has successfully leveraged this initial support to develop market-driven activities (tourism) that now provide a more independent revenue stream. Huajiang’s Zanthoxylum industry, though initially supported by government subsidies, has evolved into a profitable market enterprise that financially rewards farmers directly for maintaining and even expanding the tree cover that provides the soil retention service. Overall, the Salaxi case demonstrates a typical model initiated by ecological compensation under strong government guidance and institutional guarantee for KDC and preliminary industry cultivation. It has successfully curbed desertification and formed the embryo of a characteristic eco-industry. However, its development is at a bottleneck stage, facing the core challenge of transitioning from government “blood transfusion” to market “hematopoiesis”. Future breakthroughs hinge on awakening the “dormant” ecological assets, overcoming the industrial scaling bottlenecks, and designing more effective mechanisms to make communities the main actors in value creation and sharing. In summary, the Providing Direct Fiscal Incentives mechanism is critical for securing the foundational capacity of KDC projects, effectively addressing the “public goods” problem by government fiat. It is most potent in ensuring stability and preventing degradation. However, as Salaxi demonstrates, its ability to catalyze a step-change in capacity is intrinsically limited by fiscal constraints and its disconnection from market forces. It lays the necessary groundwork but must be integrated with other mechanisms (market-driven, industry-driven) to unlock the full potential for enhanced ES delivery. 4.2 Creating value realization channels to incentivize investment The second mechanism moves beyond government transfers to harness market forces directly. This mechanism involves creating formal or informal channels through which the value of specific ecological products can be realized via transactions with willing buyers. It functions by translating ES capacity into marketable goods or services, generating a price signal that incentivizes voluntary investment in maintaining and enhancing that very capacity. This mechanism is pivotal for transforming ecological assets into economic capital. The Qingzhen case serves as a paradigmatic example of this mechanism in action. Faced with stringent environmental restrictions as a critical water source for Guiyang city, traditional development paths were blocked. Instead, local actors adeptly created value realization channels by packaging and marketing two key ecological products: (1)Cultural services through eco-Tourism. The project leveraged the enhanced landscape—the pristine lake and restored surroundings—to develop a tourism economy. This involved branding, creating experiences, and attracting urban visitors. This channel directly monetizes the aesthetic and recreational value of the ecosystem.(2) Provisioning services through premium agri-foods: By adopting eco-circular agricultural models and securing green certifications, local producers differentiated their products (tea, vegetables, poultry) as “pollution-free” and “from the source of our drinking water.” This allowed them to command price premiums in the discerning Guiyang market, effectively monetizing the clean water and soil maintained by the conservation efforts. This mechanism fundamentally alters the incentive structure. The revenue generated is not a pre-determined compensation but is directly linked to the quality and attractiveness of the ecological product, creating a powerful, self-reinforcing loop: a healthier ecosystem attracts more tourists and allows for higher product premiums, which in turn provides more funds and incentives for continued conservation investment. Fig. 5 The practice of EPVR in Qingzhen, China. In summary, the creating value realization channels mechanism is powerful for enhancing ES capacity by linking conservation directly to market rewards. It can generate more sustainable and scalable financing than pure PES and fosters a greater sense of local ownership. As Qingzhen demonstrates, it is particularly effective for cultural and provisioning services that can be easily packaged and sold. Its primary constraint is its dependence on favorable market conditions and entrepreneurial capacity, making it less readily applicable in remote areas without access to demand or business expertise. 4.3 Embedding ES into regional economies for resilient output The third and most transformative mechanism identified is the industrialization of ecological products. This goes beyond creating mere market channels, it involves fundamentally restructuring local economic systems around the sustainable utilization of enhanced ecosystem services, making ecological capacity the core competitive advantage of a region’s primary industry. This mechanism functions by building complete, value-added industrial chains that are intrinsically dependent on the maintained and enhanced capacity of the local ecosystem, thereby creating powerful, embedded economic incentives for stewardship across the entire community. The Huajiang case provides a quintessential and powerful example of this mechanism. Here, the choice of Zanthoxylum as the flagship species for restoration was a masterstroke of ecological and economic alignment. This tree is not only exceptionally drought-resistant and effective at binding soil—directly enhancing the regulating services of soil retention and micro-climate regulation—but its product is also a high-value culinary commodity. The KDC in Huajiang successfully transitioned from simply planting trees for erosion control to establishing a thriving regional specialty industry. By 2021, the Zanthoxylum industry in Guanling county reached a output value of RMB 128 million, becoming a pillar of the local economy. This directly embedded the capacity for soil retention into the capacity for agricultural production and income generation. The economic success of the industry creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Profits from pepper sales are reinvested by households and cooperatives into better orchard management, organic fertilizers, and irrigation techniques, which further enhances the land’s productivity and ecological resilience. This represents a shift from external fiscal incentives to internalized, profit-driven investment in ES capacity. Fig. 6 The practice of EPVR in Huajiang, China. However, this mechanism also carries its own set of vulnerabilities: (1)Market monoculture risk. High dependence on a single commodity (e.g., Zanthoxylum) exposes the community to price volatility and pest/disease outbreaks, potentially threatening the entire socio-ecological system. (2)High initial barriers. It requires significant upfront investment in technical extension, processing facilities, and market development to transition from a restoration project to a functional industry. (3) Not universally applicable. It is highly dependent on identifying a “win-win” species or product that offers both significant ecological functions and high economic value, which may not be available in all contexts. In summary, the embedding ES into regional economies mechanism represents the most advanced form of EPVR, enabling a true transition from “blood transfusion” to “blood generation.” It forges an inseparable symbiotic relationship between a region’s ecological health and its economic prosperity, as evidenced by Huajiang’s transformation. While it carries risks related to market concentration, its potential to create resilient, self-sustaining, and community-driven loops of investment in ES capacity makes it the ultimate goal for achieving sustainable KDC. 5 Discussion 5.1 The mechanisms of EPVR in unlocking and amplifying ES capacity The core contribution of EPVR lies in its ability to systematically address the market and governance failures that have historically constrained the ES capacity of KDC projects. It operates through two synergistic mechanistic processes: unlocking dormant ecological value and amplifying the capacity through a self-reinforcing economic-ecological feedback loop. The primary mechanism for unlocking is the quantification, certification, and commodification of ES. EPVR frameworks translate the biophysical metrics of ES into standardized, tradable units or verifiable attributes of products. This process, often enabled by emerging technologies like remote sensing and blockchain for monitoring, effectively creates new economic assets from previously unrecognized ecological functions. By assigning a measurable value to these services, EPVR unlocks their potential as a source of revenue. This directly tackles the “free-rider” problem inherent in public goods, creating a tangible economic rationale for conservation and providing the initial incentive for landowners and communities to maintain and invest in the ecological base that generates these services. The amplification of ES capacity occurs through a powerful positive feedback loop initiated by the unlocked value. The revenue generated from PES schemes, market transactions, or eco-industrial products is reinvested into the ecosystem. This reinvestment can take multiple forms: direct ecological investment, investment in value-adding infrastructure and socio-economic reinforcement. Direct ecological investment: Funding is used for advanced conservation practices, restoration activities, or maintenance efforts that go beyond basic compliance, directly enhancing the quantity and quality of ES flows (e.g., planting higher-value native species for better carbon sequestration and biodiversity). Investment in value-adding Infrastructure: Profits are channeled into processing facilities for agricultural products, eco-tourism infrastructure, or certification programs, which increase the economic return per unit of ES provided. This raises the marginal value of a healthy ecosystem, incentivizing further stewardship. Socio-Economic Reinforcement: Equitable distribution of benefits increases local capacity and willingness to engage in long-term conservation. As community livelihoods become structurally dependent on the continued flow of high-quality ES (e.g., through premium product brands or tourism), a powerful, intrinsic motivation for protection emerges, significantly enhancing the resilience and sustainability of the ES capacity. In essence, EPV mechanisms reconfigure the socio-economic landscape around KDC zones. They transform ecosystems from passive recipients of conservation funding into active, income-generating assets. This creates a virtuous cycle where investment enhances ecological capacity, which in turn generates greater economic value, which funds further investment, thereby continuously amplifying the system’s ability to deliver stable and sustainable ecosystem services. 5.2. Key barriers to maximizing ES capacity Despite its transformative potential, the full implementation of EPVR to maximize ES capacity faces significant, interconnected barriers. These obstacles primarily stem from the inherent complexity of quantifying ecological processes and establishing robust institutions for market exchange. 5.2.1. Quantifying and certifying ES capacity: The fundamental bottleneck First, the complexity of karst ecosystems hinders precise measurement. The unique “dualistic” hydrological structure and high spatial heterogeneity of karst environments make it difficult to accurately monitor, attribute, and verify changes in ES flows. Standardized methodologies for measuring, reporting, and verification are often lacking or not tailored to karst-specific conditions, leading to high transaction costs and uncertainties in valuing the ES provided by KDC projects. Second, there is a mismatch between scientific metrics and market requirements. While scientific assessments might measure ES in biophysical terms, markets require simplified, standardized, and tradable units. Developing credible certification protocols that are both scientifically sound and commercially viable is a major hurdle. Finally, the high cost of monitoring and verification can be prohibitive. For many local communities and governments, these costs can outweigh the potential benefits, effectively locking in a low-level equilibrium of unverified and undervalued ES capacity. 5.2.2. Imperfect market mechanisms for ecological products: The core constraint Even where ES capacity can be quantified, imperfect and underdeveloped market mechanisms act as the core constraint to its realization. Primarily, there is a lack of mature market platforms and clear price signals. Unlike conventional commodities, markets for most ES are not self-forming. They require deliberately designed institutions, trading rules, and platforms to facilitate exchange. The absence of these structures results in high search costs for buyers and sellers, information asymmetry, and an inability to discover a clear market price, stifling transaction volume and liquidity. Furthermore, ill-defined property rights create a significant obstacle. The effective operation of markets, as suggested by the Coase theorem, depends on clearly defined and enforceable rights over ecological resources. In many cases, these rights are ambiguous, particularly for collective-owned lands common in karst regions. This ambiguity creates uncertainty over who has the right to sell an ES and who is responsible for its maintenance, discouraging long-term investment in ES enhancement and exposing transactions to legal and reputational risks. Lastly, insufficient and unstable demand plagues the ES market. Demand for ES is often driven by regulatory compliance or corporate social responsibility, which can be volatile and policy-dependent. 6 Conclusions This article demonstrates that EPVR presents a crucial paradigm shift for enhancing the capacity of KDC engineering to deliver ES. By transitioning from a model of purely government-funded ecological maintenance to one that actively creates and captures economic value from restored ecosystems, EPVR directly addresses the chronic sustainability challenges of funding shortages, insufficient maintenance incentives, and limited community benefits. Our analysis confirms that the three primary EPVR pathways—government-led PES, market-based transactions, and the industrialization of ecological products—each play a distinct yet complementary role. PES provides foundational fiscal stability for maintaining baseline ES capacity. Market-based transactions create efficient mechanisms for monetizing specific, quantifiable services like carbon and water, thereby incentivizing increased ES supply. Industrialization deeply embeds ecological value into the regional economic structure by developing branded eco-industries, which maximizes value transformation efficiency and secures long-term sustainability. The case studies from Guizhou Province reveal that the effectiveness of each pathway is highly context-dependent, influenced by local geomorphology, socioeconomic conditions, and the degree of KD. A synergistic approach that combines these pathways, tailored to local contexts, is essential for unlocking the full potential of EPVR. Ultimately, successfully implementing EPVR transforms restored ecosystems from financial liabilities into valuable economic assets, creating a virtuous cycle where economic benefits fund further ecological stewardship. This strategy provides a replicable framework for achieving sustainable environmental restoration and rural revitalization not only in karst regions but also in other fragile ecosystems globally. Declaration of interest None. Author contributions Rong Zhao: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - Original draft preparation, Writing - Reviewing and Editing. Kangning Xiong: Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Funding acquisition. Zhaojun Liu: Writing - Review & Editing, Conceptualization. Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Planning Key Project of Guizhou Province, China (21GZZB43), the Project of National Major Research and Development Program of China in the 13th Five-year Plan (2016YFC0502607), and the China Overseas Expertise Introduction Project for Discipline In-novation (No. D17016). Data availability Data will be made available on request. 7 References Aguilar, F. X., & Wen, Y. (2021). Socio-economic and ecological impacts of China’s forest sector policies. Forest Policy and Economics, 127, Article 102454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102454 Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2018). Land degradation and poverty. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 623-631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0155-4 Bonn, A., Reed, M. S., Evans, C. D., Joosten, H., Bain, C., Farmer, J., Emmer, I., Couwenberg, J., Moxey, A., Artz, R., Tanneberger, F., von Unger, M., Smyth, M.-A., & Birnie, D. (2014). Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Ecosystem Services, 9, 54-65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.011 Botta, R., Borsum, J. S., Camp, E. V., Court, C. D., & Frederick, P. (2022). Short-term economic impacts of ecological restoration in estuarine and coastal environments: a case study of Lone Cabbage Reef. Restoration Ecology, 30(1), e13462. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13462 Brandt, M., Yue, Y., Wigneron, J. P., Tong, X., Tian, F., Jepsen, M. R., Xiao, X., Verger, A., Mialon, A., Al‐Yaari, A., Wang, K., & Fensholt, R. (2018). Satellite‐Observed Major Greening and Biomass Increase in South China Karst During Recent Decade. Earth’s Future, 6(7), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef000890 Burri, Ezio; Benedetta Castiglioni; and Ugo Sauro. 1999. Agriculture, landscape and human impact in some karst areas of Italy. International Journal of Speleology, 28: 33-54. Cai, Y. L. (2006). Eco- tourism: An Approach to Escaping From the ‘Poverty Trap’in Karst Mountains of Southwestern China. China Population Resources and Environment, 16(1), 4.10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2006.01.023 (In Chinese) Cao, S., Liu, Z., Li, W., & Xian, J. (2021). Balancing ecological conservation with socioeconomic development. Ambio, 50(5), 1117-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01448-z Chazdon, R. L. (2008). Beyond Deforestation: Restoring Forests and Ecosystem Services on Degraded Lands. Science, 320(5882), 1458-1460. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155365 Chen, Q., Li, Z., Xie. H., Wu. M., Pan. Y., Luo. S. (2024). How can ecological product value realization contribute to landscape sustainability? Landscape Ecology. 39. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01802-6. Chen, Y., Cheng, C., Xiong, K., Rong, L., & Zhang, S. (2024). Quantifying the biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes of karst ecological restoration: A meta-analysis of South China Karst. Catena (Giessen), 245, Article 108278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.108278 Cheng, F., Lu, H., Ren, H., Zhou, L., Zhang, L., Li, J., Lu, X., Huang, D., & Zhao, D. (2017). Integrated emergy and economic evaluation of three typical rocky desertification control modes in karst areas of Guizhou Province, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 1104-1128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.065 Cui P, Yang Y P, Wang G X, et al. Technological challenges and development directions of ecological security barrier construction in Yun-Gui-ChuanYu region. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2025, 40(6): 980-990, doi: 10.3724/j.issn.1000-3045.20250518002. (in Chinese) Ding, Z., Zheng, H., Wang, J., O’Connor, P., Li, C., Chen, X., Li, R., & Ouyang, Z. (2023). Integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches Improves Practicality and Efficiency of Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Planning: Insights from a Social–Ecological System. Engineering (Beijing, China), 31(12), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.08.008 Du, C., Bai, X., Li, Y., Tan, Q., Zhao, C., Luo, G., Wang, J., Wu, L., Li, C., Li, J., Xie, Y., Ran, C., Zhang, S., Xiong, L., Yuang, X., Liao, J., Dai, L., Long, M., Li, Z.,…Li, M. (2024). The restoration of karst rocky desertification has enhanced the carbon sequestration capacity of the ecosystem in southern China. Global and Planetary Change, 243, 104602. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2024.104602 Ebeler, L., Balke, T., Laurie, E., Le, H., Nguyen, T., & Renaud, F. G. (2025). Local-scale impacts of mangrove restoration and conservation on coastal communities in two Vietnamese deltas: Socio-economic and institutional dynamics. Ocean & Coastal Management, 269, 107812. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2025.107812 Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. z., & Sara, L. (2024). Financing ecosystem restoration. Current Biology, 34(9), R412-R417. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.031 Frietsch, M., Loos, J., Löhr, K., Sieber, S., & Fischer, J. (2023). Future-proofing ecosystem restoration through enhancing adaptive capacity. Communications Biology, 6(1), 377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04736-y Fu, B., Liu, Y., & Meadows, M. E. (2023). Ecological restoration for sustainable development in China. National Science Review, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwad033 Gan, F., Xia, Y., Li, W., Tan, X., Jiang, L., Dai, Q., Yan, Y., Fan, Y., & Pu, J. (2025). Long-term abandoned farmland enhanced soil aggregate-associated total carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus storage under different rocky desertification grades in a karst trough valley. Catena (Giessen), 259, Article 109326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2025.109326 Gómez-González, S., Paniw, M., Blanco-Pastor, J. L., García-Cervigón, A. I., Godoy, O., Herrera, J. M., Lara, A., Miranda, A., Ojeda, F., & Ochoa-Hueso, R. (2022). Moving towards the ecological intensification of tree plantations. Trends in Plant Science, 27(7), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2021.12.009 Hammond, W. M., Williams, A. P., Abatzoglou, J. T., Adams, H. D., Klein, T., López, R., Sáenz-Romero, C., Hartmann, H., Breshears, D. D., & Allen, C. D. (2022). Global field observations of tree die-off reveal hotter-drought fingerprint for Earth’s forests. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1761. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29289-2 He, M., Xu, J., Xiao, Y., Gu, X., Pang, Q., Zhou, Y., & Xie, G. (2025). A systematic review of the progress of research on comprehensive benefit assessment of national-level ecological protection projects in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 112, Article 107816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107816 Hein, L., Bagstad, K., Edens, B., Obst, C., de Jong, R., & Lesschen, J. P. (2016). Defining Ecosystem Assets for Natural Capital Accounting. PloS One, 11(11), e0164460–e0164460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164460 Hu, Z., Wang, S., Bai, X., Luo, G., Li, Q., Wu, L., Yang, Y., Tian, S., Li, C., & Deng, Y. (2020). Changes in ecosystem service values in karst areas of China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 301, Article 107026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107026 Jiang, Z., Lian, Y., & Qin, X. (2014). Rocky desertification in Southwest China: Impacts, causes, and restoration. Earth-Science Reviews, 132, 1-12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.01.005 Lan, J., Hu, N., & Fu, W. (2020). Soil carbon–nitrogen coupled accumulation following the natural vegetation restoration of abandoned farmlands in a karst rocky desertification region. Ecological Engineering, 158, 106033. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106033 Li, Y., Peng, L., Li, S., Yue, Y., & Wang, K. (2025). Integrating transfer entropy and network analysis to explore social-ecological resilience evolution: a case study in South China Karst. Journal of Cleaner Production, 518, 145926. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145926 Liao, W., Wei, Y., & Wei, Z. (2025). Exploring innovative assessment and driving mechanisms for achieving land degradation neutrality in rocky desertification areas: A case study of Yunnan–Guangxi–Guizhou, China. Ecological Informatics, 90, 103310. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103310 Lin, Z., Natarajan, I., Qi, L., Wei, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2020). Role and significance of restoration technologies for vulnerable ecosystems in building an ecological civilization in China. Environmental Development, 34, 100494. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100494 Liu, J., & Dou,S. (2022). Eco-compensation in China: achievement, experience, and improvement. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(40), 60867-60884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20181-6 Liu, J., Su, X., Liu, Y., & Shui, W. (2024). A Review of Research on Progress in the Theory and Practice of Eco-Product Value Realization. Land (Basel), 13(3), 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030316 Liu, Y., Han, Y., Wen, X., Wang, C., Liu, T., & Wang, S. (2025). All-win outcome on enhancing water-based ecosystem services with high industrial benefits in landscape restoration is spatially scarce in the Yellow River Basin. Ecological Frontiers, 45(1), 135-144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecofro.2024.09.011 Luo, X., Liao, R., Yang, R., Zhang, D., Yuan, X., & Wang, B. (2022). Business Data Clustering Analysis of Power Internet of Things Platform Based on Improved K-Means. 2022 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science, TOCS 2022, McPhearson, T., Cook, E. M., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Cheng, C., Grimm, N. B., Andersson, E., Barbosa, O., Chandler, D. G., Chang, H., Chester, M. V., Childers, D. L., Elser, S. R., Frantzeskaki, N., Grabowski, Z., Groffman, P., Hale, R. L., Iwaniec, D. M., Kabisch, N., Kennedy, C., … Troxler, T. G. (2022). A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth (Cambridge, Mass.), 5(5), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007 Mu, Y., Guo, Y., Li, X., Li, P., Bai, J., Linke, S., & Cui, B. (2022). Cost-effective integrated conservation and restoration priorities by trading off multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 320, 115915. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115915 Oliver, D. M., Zheng, Y., Naylor, L. A., Murtagh, M., Waldron, S., & Peng, T. (2020). How does smallholder farming practice and environmental awareness vary across village communities in the karst terrain of southwest China? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 288, 106715. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106715 Osborne, T., Brock, S., Chazdon, R., Chomba, S., Garen, E., Gutierrez, V., Lave, R., Lefevre, M., & Sundberg, J. (2021). The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102320. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102320 Pan, N., Feng, X., Fu, B., Wang, S., Ji, F., & Pan, S. (2018). Increasing global vegetation browning hidden in overall vegetation greening: Insights from time-varying trends. Remote Sensing of Environment, 214, 59-72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.05.018 Pardo-Igúzquiza, E., Durán-Valsero, J. J., Dowd, P. A., Guardiola-Albert, C., Liñan-Baena, C., & Robledo-Ardila, P. A. (2012). Estimation of spatio-temporal recharge of aquifers in mountainous karst terrains: Application to Sierra de las Nieves (Spain). Journal of Hydrology, 470-471, 124-137. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.042 Peng, J., Xu, D., Xu, Z., Tang, H., Jiang, H., Dong, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Ten key issues for ecological restoration of territorial space. National Science Review, 11(7), nwae176. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae176 Peng, X., Dai, Q. (2022). Drivers of soil erosion and subsurface loss by soil leakage during karst rocky desertification in SW China. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 10(2):217-227 Perry, N. (2023). The Economics of Ecological Restoration. In S. Florentine, P. Gibson-Roy, K. W. Dixon, & L. Broadhurst (Eds.), Ecological Restoration: Moving Forward Using Lessons Learned (pp. 567-590). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25412-3_15 Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T., Chen, C., Lian, X., He, Y., Bjerke, J. W., Chen, A., Ciais, P., Tømmervik, H., Nemani, R. R., & Myneni, R. B. (2020). Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(1), 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x Qiu, S., Peng, J., Zheng, H., Xu, Z., & Meersmans, J. (2022). How can massive ecological restoration programs interplay with social-ecological systems? A review of research in the South China karst region. Science of The Total Environment, 807, 150723. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150723 Ren, X., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Yang, L., Wu, X., Luo, G., & Huang, J. (2025). From vulnerability to sustainability: The evolution of rural social-ecological system in karst mountainous areas of Southwest China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 516, Article 145712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145712 Rolfe, J., Whitten, S., & Windle, J. (2017). The Australian experience in using tenders for conservation. Land Use Policy, 63, 611-620. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.037 S. Zhao, X. Wu, J. Zhou, P. Pereira, Spatiotemporal tradeoffs and synergies in vegetation vitality and poverty transition in rocky desertification area, SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 752 (2021) 141770. Tan, K., Zhao, X., Pu, J., Li, S., Li, Y., Miao, P., & Wang, Q. (2021). Zoning regulation and development model for water and land resources in the Karst Mountainous Region of Southwest China. Land Use Policy, 109, 105683. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105683 Tedesco, A. M., López-Cubillos, S., Chazdon, R., Rhodes, J. R., Archibald, C. L., Pérez-Hämmerle, K.-V., Brancalion, P. H. S., Wilson, K. A., Oliveira, M., Correa, D. F., Ota, L., Morrison, T. H., Possingham, H. P., Mills, M., Santos, F. C., & Dean, A. J. (2023). Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 38(7), 643-653. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.02.007 Tillman, S. C., & Matthews, J. W. (2024). Compliance with Regulatory Performance Standards in Wetland Mitigation Banks. Wetlands, 44(6), 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-024-01836-1 Tong, X., Brandt, M., Yue, Y., Ciais, P., Rudbeck Jepsen, M., Penuelas, J., Wigneron, J.-P., Xiao, X., Song, X.-P., Horion, S., Rasmussen, K., Saatchi, S., Fan, L., Wang, K., Zhang, B., Chen, Z., Wang, Y., Li, X., & Fensholt, R. (2020). Forest management in southern China generates short term extensive carbon sequestration. Nature Communications, 11(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13798-8 Tong, X., Brandt, M., Yue, Y., Horion, S., Wang, K., Keersmaecker, W. D., Tian, F., Schurgers, G., Xiao, X., Luo, Y., Chen, C., Myneni, R., Shi, Z., Chen, H., & Fensholt, R. (2018). Increased vegetation growth and carbon stock in China karst via ecological engineering. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 44-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0004-x Tong, X., Wang, K., Yue, Y., Brandt, M., Liu, B., Zhang, C., Liao, C., & Fensholt, R. (2017). Quantifying the effectiveness of ecological restoration projects on long-term vegetation dynamics in the karst regions of Southwest China. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 54, 105-113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2016.09.013 Villamagna, A. M., Angermeier, P. L., & Bennett, E. M. (2013). Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15, 114-121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 Wang, K. L., Yue, Y. M., Chen, H. S., & Zeng, F. P. (2020). Mechanisms and realization pathways for integration of scientific poverty alleviation and ecosystem services enhancement. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 35(11), 1264–1272. https://doi.org/10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20200729002 Wang, Q., Xiong, K., & Ying, B. (2025). A review of village ecosystem services and insights into karst desertification control. Journal of Environmental Management, 391, 126494. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126494 Wang, X., Liu, Y., Xiong, K., Huang, X., & Zhang Z. (2025). Supportive functions of soil organic carbon for ecosystem services in karst desertification areas. Ecological Indicators, 170, 113050. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.113050 Wang, Z., Qin, K., Du, J., Chen, W., Huang, Y., Zhu, H., Yang, S., & Wang, H. (2025). Study on the drivers of carbon storage in karst and non-karst forests and their differences. Forest Ecology and Management, 595, 123009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123009 Warner, M. E., & Hefetz, A. (2008). Managing Markets for Public Service: The Role of Mixed Public–Private Delivery of City Services. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 155-166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00845.x Xiao, H., Xiong, KN., Zhang, H., Zhang, QZ. (2014). Research Progress for Karst Rocky Desertification Control Models. China Population,Resources and Environment, 24(S1):330-334. (In Chinese) Xiong, K.N., Li P., Zhou Z.F., Lv T., Lan A.J. (2002). The typical study on RS-GIS of karst desertification with a special reference to Guizhou Province. Geology Press, Beijing. (In Chinese) Xiong, K.N., Zhao, R., Zhang, Z., Yan, J. & Li, Y. (2024). Value realization of eco-products in the karst rockydesertification control and its implications for ruralrevitalization. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 44(2), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.20103/j.stxb.202206071605 Yan J.W., Xiong K.N., Fu Y., Yu N.N., Zhang Z.F., Zheng P. Research progress on eco-product value realization and rural revitalization and its inspiration for karst desertification control: A systematic literature review between 1997 and 2023[J]. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2024, 8: 1420562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1420562 Yan, X., & Cai, Y. L. (2015). Multi-Scale Anthropogenic Driving Forces of Karst Rocky Desertification in Southwest China. Land Degradation & Development, 26(2), 193-200. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2209 Yang, L., Li, Y., Yu, L., Chen, M., Zhang, Y., & Ren, X. (2024). Characteristics of bare rocky land evolution in karst mountain areas of Southwest China based on socio-ecological system perspectives: The case study of Huajiang Canyon. Catena (Giessen), 242, Article 108139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.108139 Zhang, M., Xiong, K., & Hu, W. (2025). Changes and driving of ecological environment quality in key ecological restoration projects implement zone in South China Karst. Ecological Engineering, 220, Article 107726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107726 Zhang, J., Dai, M., Wang, L., & Su, W. (2016). Household livelihood change under the rocky desertification control project in karst areas, Southwest China. Land Use Policy, 56, 8-15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.009 Zhang, S., Xiong, K., Min, X., & Zhang, S. (2024). Demographic shrinkage promotes ecosystem services supply capacity in the karst desertification control. The Science of the Total Environment, 917, Article 170427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170427 Zhang, S., Xiong, K., Qin, Y., Min, X., & Xiao, J. (2021). Evolution and determinants of ecosystem services: insights from South China karst. Ecological Indicators, 133, 108437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108437 Zhao, R., Zhan, L., Yao, M., & Yang, L. (2020). A geographically weighted regression model augmented by Geodetector analysis and principal component analysis for the spatial distribution of PM2.5. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 102106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102106 Zhao, X., & Zhao, R. (2025). Sustainable poverty alleviation? The impact and mechanisms of forestry training on the economic welfare of rural households over time in Southern China. Forest Policy and Economics, 178, 103565. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103565 Zheng, H., Wu, T., Ouyang, Z., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Wang, L., Xiao, Y., Gao, X., Li, C., & Daily, G. C. (2023). Gross ecosystem product (GEP): Quantifying nature for environmental and economic policy innovation. Ambio, 52(12), 1952–1967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01948-8 Zheng, W., Guo, X., Zhou, P., Tang, L., Lai, J., Dai, Y., Yan, W., & Wu, J. (2024). Vegetation restoration enhancing soil carbon sequestration in karst rocky desertification ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 370, Article 122530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122530 Zhong, G., Hai, Y., Zheng, H., Xu, W., Ouyang, Z. (2021). Current Situation and Measures of Karst Rocky Desertification Control in Southwest China. Journal of Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, 38(11):38-43.(In Chinese) zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., & Löfqvist, S. (2024). Financing ecosystem restoration. Current Biology, 34(9), R412-R417. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.031 Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 18 September 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords ecological products value realization ecosystem services capacity karst desertification control payment for ecosystem services sustainable engineering Authors Affiliations Rong Zhao Guizhou Normal University Karst Research Institute View all articles by this author Kangning Xiong [email protected] Guizhou Normal University Karst Research Institute View all articles by this author Zhaojun Liu Guizhou Normal University Karst Research Institute View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 165 views 108 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Rong Zhao, Kangning Xiong, Zhaojun Liu. Enhancing the capacity for ecosystem services delivery in karst desertification control engineering through ecological products value realization. Authorea . 18 September 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175821329.99001267/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.175821329.99001267/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a008105efce5ad07',t:'MTc3OTU4MTI4Ng=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();