دانلود مقاله مسائل توزیعی در حسابداری سرمایه طبیعی
چکیده
مقدمه
مسائل توزیعی و حسابداری سرمایه طبیعی: مفاهیم و چارچوب
توزیع فضایی مالکیت زمین و خدمات اکوسیستمی در اسکاتلند
نتایج
بحث و نتیجه گیری
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Distributional Issues and Natural Capital Accounting: Concepts and Framework
Spatial Distribution of Landownership and Ecosystem Services in Scotland
Results
Discussion and Conclusions
References
چکیده
حسابداری برای اکوسیستم ها به طور فزاینده ای برای حسابداری سرمایه طبیعی مرکزی است. با این حال، آنچه در این مورد وجود ندارد، پاسخ به سؤالاتی در مورد چگونگی توزیع سرمایه طبیعی است. به این معنا که چه کسی خدمات اکوسیستمی را مصرف می کند و چه کسی دارایی(های) اساسی را که منجر به خدمات اکوسیستمی می شود، مالک یا مدیریت می کند. در این مقاله، اهمیت مالکیت زمینی را که دارایی‌های اکوسیستم (یا انواع اکوسیستم) در زمینه حسابداری سرمایه طبیعی در آن قرار دارد، بررسی می‌کنیم. ما این را در یک کاربرد تجربی برای دو سرویس اکوسیستمی و طیف وسیعی از انواع اکوسیستم و مالکیت زمین در اسکاتلند نشان می‌دهیم، زمینهای که در آن بحث‌های اصلاحات ارضی طولانی است. نتایج ما نشان‌دهنده اهمیت نسبی زمین خصوصی در عرضه خدمات اکوسیستم است، به جای زمین‌هایی که توسط بخش دولتی نگهداری می‌شود. ما تمرکز نسبی مالکیت را برای زمینی که مقادیر نسبتاً بالایی از ترسیب کربن را فراهم می کند، پیدا می کنیم. با این حال، برای حذف آلودگی هوا، نقش زمینهای کوچک‌تر تا متوسط، عمدتاً خصوصی، نزدیک‌تر به شهرک‌های شهری برجسته‌تر می‌شود. ما استدلال می‌کنیم که مشارکت‌های این مقاله اولین گام‌های مهم را در پیش‌بینی تأثیرات توزیعی سرمایه طبیعی (و مرتبط) در حساب‌های سرمایه طبیعی و همچنین اتصال این چارچوب‌ها به نگرانی‌های گسترده‌تر در مورد تفاوت‌های ثروت در بین کشورها و درون کشورها نشان می‌دهد.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
Accounting for ecosystems is increasingly central to natural capital accounting. What is missing from this, however, is an answer to questions about how natural capital is distributed. That is, who consumes ecosystem services and who owns or manages the underlying asset(s) that give rise to ecosystem services. In this paper, we examine the significance of the ownership of land on which ecosystem assets (or ecosystem types) is located in the context of natural capital accounting. We illustrate this in an empirical application to two ecosystem services and a range of ecosystem types and land ownership in Scotland, a context in which land reform debates are longstanding. Our results indicate the relative importance of private land in ecosystem service supply, rather than land held by the public sector. We find relative concentration of ownership for land providing comparatively high amounts of carbon sequestration. For air pollution removal, however, the role of smaller to medium sized, mostly privately owned, land holdings closer to urban settlements becomes more prominent. The contributions in this paper, we argue, represent important first steps in anticipating distributional impacts of natural capital (and related) policy in natural capital accounts as well as connecting these frameworks to broader concerns about wealth disparities across and within countries.
Introduction
Natural capital accounting (NCA) describes a body of statistical work that seeks to construct better metrics of nature for policy. While there is no hard and fast definition of what NCA is, at its core is an emphasis on measuring flows—typically called ‘ecosystem services’—as well as the underlying ‘natural capital’ stocks giving rise to these outputs. A connection to national accounting principles and practice is also a prominent theme (e.g. Obst and Vardon 2014; Obst et al. 2016).
A core of this work has focused on ecosystems.Footnote1 Barbier (2011) defines natural capital in this context as the physical area of a recognizable ecological landscape. For practical purposes this is often interpreted as referring to broad habitats, more commonly called ecosystem types. A comprehensive framework for ecosystem accounting can be found in UN (2021). This sets out ecosystem accounts, as a component of the United Nations System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (henceforth, SEEA-EA), which has been adopted as an international statistical standard and is thus focal to on-going and planned official work within countries.Footnote2
Discussion and Conclusions
Natural capital accounting (NCA) provides a powerful framework for organizing otherwise voluminous information on ecosystem assets—and natural capital more generally—as well as the flow of services that these assets produce. This, in turn, provides a systematic basis for addressing a correspondingly large number of economic and policy questions.
How natural capital is distributed also matters. Indeed, this is acknowledged by the growing attention given to spatially explicit NCA. This increasingly emphasizes the locality and location of natural capital, as the basis for more effective and economically efficient policy formulation. Given this emerging centrality of NCA to decision-making, it becomes ever more important that this work is also aligned to providing answers to distributional questions.
In this paper, we have couched this in terms of identifying distributional issues in the supply and use of ecosystem services and location of ecosystem assets (defined as ecosystem types). To do so, in our empirical application to Scotland, we have focused on two categories of ecosystem service: air pollution removal and carbon sequestration services. These two distinct flows provide a useful contrast given that, in the latter, the location of the ecosystem asset ‘does not matter’ at least in terms of the use of the ecosystem service by people, and in the former it does. That is, in the case of air pollution removal what is often important is relative proximity of an ecosystem asset, providing this service, to users in relatively populated areas.
H1: The larger the scale of related party transactions, the worse the accounting information comparability
H1a: There is no significant negative correlation between the scale of normal related party transactions and the accounting information comparability
H1b: There is a significantly negative correlation between the scale of abnormal related party transactions and the accounting information comparability
H2: The better the internal control quality, the better the accounting information comparability
H3: Internal control can inhibit the negative impact on abnormal related party transactions and the accounting information comparability
H4a: Compared with private enterprises, the internal control of state-owned enterprises has a stronger inhibiting effect
H4b: Compared with state-owned enterprises, the internal control of private enterprises has a stronger inhibiting effect