生态产品不仅包括农产品、工业品和服务产品这样的有形产物，也包括像清洁空气、纯净水源、宜人气候等的无形需求。生态产品总值（GEP）是对一个区域生态产品及服务蕴含的经济价值的核算，可以为生态环境保护和可持续发展提供理论和实践基础。在全国范围内探索开展GEP核算是衡量“绿水青山”生态价值的重要方法，通过将无价的生态效益“有价化”，可以得到一本科学的“生态台账”。然而现有核算项目大多在省、市层面开展，关于县域的研究很少，因此构建差异化的县域核算样本有一定的借鉴意义。

本文以Z县为研究对象区域展开。Z县地处我国生物多样性保护生态功能区、南水北调中线水源涵养生态功能区的秦巴山区，目前正在实施生态优先发展，成功创建了省级生态县、绿化模范县和森林城市，入选全国最美县域榜单。具体地，文章首先构建县域生态核算指标体系，从物质供给、调节服务、文化服务三项选取共9个核算指标，在各生态系统类型上分别采用功能价值法、当量因子法核算其2010、2015、2020年的生态产品总值，比较分析方法论优劣，然后研究Z县GEP十年间的时空演变，并结合GEP与GDP间的协调关系，认识Z县的生态发展情况，并提出相关建议。研究得到主要结论如下：

（1）通过功能价值法进行核算并修正后得到Z县2010年GEP值为90.66亿元，2015年为80.05亿元，2020年110.79亿元。GEP在十年间呈现出先降后升趋势，单位GEP和人均GEP的变化保持一致。其背后原因主要在于降水量、蒸散量等水资源总和减少带来的水源涵养、洪水调蓄等价值的下降。

（2）相较当量因子法的核算结果，对于Z县这样的小范围纵向对比，功能价值法会更加准确。且根据当量因子的横向对比，Z县相对全国滞后，相对秦巴山区领先，生态价值仍需进一步挖掘。

（3）从GEP生态系统服务构成来看，调节服务占比达90%，物质供给达6%，文化服务达4%；在调节服务中，水源涵养的贡献最高，其次是洪水调蓄，这两个指标总占比超八成，反映出Z县较高的水文产业价值。

（4）从空间分布来看，Z县生态系统结构保持相对稳定，其主要生态系统类型为森林和草地，这两个系统在调节服务中的贡献度高达98%。

（5）Z县始终维持着GEP > GDP，具体比值逐渐减小，说明其生态资源丰富，发展潜力有所释放。

上述结论对应的政策含义是：

在实践中构建GEP、GDP双核算机制，促进两者效率互相转换提高，对我国城市经济与生态协调发展具有创新价值。Z县在实现生态产品价值的过程中，可从物质供给品牌增长、调节服务生态补偿、文化服务生态旅游等角度入手，促进转换经济效益。我国未来也要坚持在生态优先、绿色发展的指引下，遵循市场规律，探索更多元化的生态产品价值市场实现机制，逐步攻克诸多难题，释放生态价值。

Ecological products not only include tangible outputs such as agricultural products, industrial goods, and service products, but also encompass intangible demands such as clean air, pure water sources, and pleasant climates. Gross Ecological Product (GEP) is the accounting of the economic value contained in the ecological products and services of a region, which can provide a theoretical and practical basis for ecological environmental protection and sustainable development. Exploring and conducting GEP accounting nationwide is an important method to measure the ecological value of "lush mountains and clear waters". By "pricing" the invaluable ecological benefits, we can obtain a scientific "ecological ledger". However, most of the existing accounting projects are carried out at the provincial and municipal levels, and there are few studies on county-level accounting. Therefore, it is of certain reference significance to construct differentiated county-level accounting samples.

This article takes County Z as the research object. County Z is located in the Qinba Mountains, which serves as an ecological functional area for biodiversity conservation and water conservation for the middle route of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project in China. Currently, it is implementing the strategy of ecological priority development and has successfully established itself as a provincial-level ecological county, a greening model county, and a forest city. It has also been included in the list of the most beautiful counties in China. Specifically, the article first constructs an ecological accounting index system for county-level areas, selecting a total of nine accounting indicators from three categories: material supply, regulatory services, and cultural services. It uses the functional value method and equivalent factor method to calculate the gross ecological product (GEP) of various ecosystem types in 2010, 2015, and 2020, compares and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different methodologies, and then studies the spatial and temporal evolution of GEP in County Z over the past decade. By combining the coordination relationship between GEP and GDP, it recognizes the ecological development situation of County Z and puts forward relevant suggestions. The main conclusions of the study are as follows:

(1) After accounting and revision using the functional value method, the GEP of County Z in 2010 was found to be 9.066 billion yuan, in 2015 it was 8.005 billion yuan, and in 2020 it increased to 11.079 billion yuan. Over the past decade, GEP showed a trend of decreasing first and then increasing, with the changes in unit GEP and per capita GEP remaining consistent. The main reason behind this is the decline in the values of water conservation and flood regulation and storage caused by the reduction in the total amount of water resources such as precipitation and evapotranspiration.

(2) Compared to the accounting results of the equivalent factor method, the functional value method is more accurate for vertical comparisons within a small scope like County Z. Furthermore, based on the horizontal comparison of equivalent factors, County Z lags behind the national average but leads in the Qinba Mountain region. Its ecological value still needs to be further explored and developed.

(3) In terms of the composition of GEP ecosystem services, regulatory services accounted for 90%, material supply accounted for 6%, and cultural services accounted for 4%. Among the regulatory services, water conservation contributed the most, followed by flood regulation and storage. The combined contribution of these two indicators exceeded 80%, reflecting the high value of County Z's hydrological industry.

(4) From the perspective of spatial distribution, the ecosystem structure of County Z has remained relatively stable, with the main ecosystem types being forests and grasslands. These two systems contribute up to 98% to regulatory services.

(5) County Z has always maintained a ratio of GEP > GDP, with the specific ratio gradually decreasing. This indicates that the county is rich in ecological resources and has released some of its development potential.

The policy implications corresponding to the above conclusions are as follows:

In practice, establishing a dual accounting mechanism for GEP and GDP can promote the efficient conversion and enhancement of both, representing innovative value for the coordinated development of urban economy and ecology in China. In the process of realizing the value of ecological products in County Z, efforts can be made from the perspectives of brand growth in material supply, ecological compensation for regulatory services, and eco-tourism for cultural services, to promote the conversion of economic benefits. In the future, China should adhere to the guidance of ecological priority and green development, follow market rules, explore more diversified market mechanisms for realizing the value of ecological products, gradually overcome numerous challenges, and unlock the potential of ecological value.