Ecological environment damage events will destroy or damage the balance between animal and plant habitats and ecosystems, and even pose a threat to China’s ecological security. However, at present, there are some problems in the identification and evaluation of forest ecosystem damage, such as imperfect evaluation system, insufficient quantitative evaluation methods, imperfect damage compensation management system, and lack of analysis of the overall damage of the interaction between human activities and forest ecosystem. Based on the damaged object, the system involves a total of four first-class indicators, including physical damage, mental damage, economic forest fruit loss, forest by-products loss, processing and manufacturing loss, forest tourism loss, scientific research literature and history loss, soil conservation loss, water conservation loss, wind prevention and sand fixation loss, carbon fixation and oxygen release loss, atmospheric purification loss. There are 14 secondary indicators of emergency treatment fee and investigation and evaluation fee, as well as 22 tertiary indicators, and the value quantification method of each indicator is clarified by using market value method, alternative cost method, shadow engineering method, recovery cost method and other methods. The article also discusses the management system of forest ecosystem damage from the two aspects of forestry technology department and judicial administration department. The purpose is to provide reference for the quantification and standardization of forest ecosystem damage assessment technology and the improvement of management system.

1. Ministry of Environmental Protection. The general principles of technical guide for ecological and environmental damage assessment. Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection; 2016.

2. Yu F, Zhang Y, Xu W. Interpretation of the general principles of technical guide for ecological and environmental damage assessment. Environmental Protection 2016; 44(20): 9−11.

3. Wu G, Cao F, Zhang Y, et al. Research on technology of identification and assessment on eco-environmental damage. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2016; 36(22): 7146−7151.

4. Wu G, Li J, Zhao J. Fundamental ecological and environmental problems and its countermeasures in Northwestern China. China Soft Science 2000; (10): 12−17.

5. Kong H, Zhao J, Wu G, et al. Ecosystem health and environmental management. Environmental Science 2002; 23(1): 15.

6. Zhao J. Theoretical thinking on the construction and evaluation of ecological civilization. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2013; 33(15): 4552−4555.

7. Chen B. Guanyu shegntai wenming jianshe yu pingjia de lilun sikao (Chinese) [Theoretical thinking on the construction and evaluation of ecological civilization]. Taxpaying 2018; 12(32): 290, 292.

8. Yu F, Zhao D, Wang B, et al. Interpretations on technical guidelines for identification and assessment of eco-environmental damage: Soil and groundwater. Environmental Protection 2019; 47(5): 19−23.

9. Zhang H, Cao D, Yu F, et al. Environmental damage assessment: International regulations and revelation to China. Environmental Science 2013; 34(5): 1653−1666.

10. Tang X, Zhang T. Key to environmental damage: Causality judgment. China Population, Resources and Environment 2012; 22(8): 172−176.

11. Bishop RC, Boyle KJ, Carson RT, et al. Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill. Science 2017; 356(6335): 253−254.

12. Desvousges WH, Gard N, Michael HJ, et al. Habitat and resource equivalency analysis: A critical assessment. Ecological Economics 2018; 143: 74−89.

13. Zafonte M, Hampton S. Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics 2007; 61(1): 134−145.

14. Attiwill PM. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: The ecological basis for conservative management. Forest Ecology and Management 1994; 63(2/3): 247−300.

15. Barnthouse LW, Stahl Jr RG. Quantifying natural resource injuries and ecological service reductions: Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Management 2002; 30(1): 1−12.

16. Neshat A, Pradhan B. Risk assessment of groundwater pollution with a new methodological framework: Application of Dempster–Shafer theory and GIS. Natural Hazards 2015; 78(3): 1565−1585.

17. Hossain MU, Poon CS, Lo IM, et al. Evaluation of environmental friendliness of concrete paving eco-blocks using LCA approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2016; 21(1): 70−84.

18. Li H, Zhang X, Zhang Y, et al. A monitoring system for identification and assessment of urban eco-environmental damage. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2019; 39(17): 6469−6476.

19. Wang J, Liu Q, Qi J, et al. Speeding up building compensation system for eco-environmental damage. Environmental Protection 2016; 44(2): 26−29.

20. Niu K, Yu F, Zhang H, et al. Natural resource damage assessment experience in the United States: Laws, procedures and evaluation ideas. China Population, Resources and Environment 2014; 24(S1): 345−348.

21. Wang H, Zhan Y. Predicament and crack of accountability system for forestry ecological environmental damage. Journal of Northeast Forestry University 2018; 46(8): 106−110.

22. Subject Research Group of Environmental Damage Accountability, Lan Z, Cheng W, et al. The study on the accountability of forestry ecological damage. Forestry Economics 201; 37(8): 54−60.

23. Office of the National Forest Fire Prevention Command. Technical specification for assessment on forest fire loss (Trial). Office of the National Forest Fire Prevention Command; 2011.

24. Heilongjiang Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. DB23/T 1376-2010. Determination of the degree of forest fire damage. 2010.

25. Fujian Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. DB35/T 1729-2017. Methods for identification and assessment of forest environmental damage. 2017.

26. Liu P, Liang Q, Chen M, et al. Construction on index system of forest pest disaster loss assessment. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 2016; 52(6): 101−107.

27. Li X, Luo C, Hu T, et al. Suggestions on restoration and reconstruction of degraded forest ecosystem in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2001; 21(12): 2117−2124.

28. Su L, He Y, Chen S. Temporal and spatial characteristics and risk analysis of forest fires in China from 1950 to 2010. Scientia Silvae Sinicae 2015; 51(1): 88−96.

29. Shi H, Xiao F. Comparative study on frost resistance of forests in Yunnan. Forest Inventory and Planning 2018; 43(2): 36−41.

30. Su H, Zhao J, You D, et al. Economic losses caused by forest diseases and insect pests in China. Forest Pest and Disease 2004; 23(5): 16.

31. Liu Y. Xinjiang jianshe xiangmu zhanyong zhengshou lindi senlin ziyuan jiazhi sunshi jiliang ji buchang zhengce jianyi (Chinese) [Suggestions on the measurement and compensation policy for the value loss of forest resources occupied and expropriated by construction projects in Xinjiang]. Forestry of Xinjiang 2017; (4): 9−11.

32. Wen J. Current situation and control measures of environmental pollution in forest tourism scenic spots. Environmental Science and Management 2019; 44(7): 167−171.

33. the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of some issues concerning the application of law for the trial of cases on compensation for personal injury [Internet]. 2003 Dec 26. Available from: https://baike.so.com/doc/1637524-1731028.html.

34. the Supreme People’s Court of the people’s Republic of China. Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on several issues concerning the application of the trade union law of the people’s republic of China in civil trials [Internet]. 2001 Feb 26. http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=589.

35. ma L. Research on value loss measurement and recovery benefits of development and construction project occupied forest land [PhD thesis]. Beijing: Beijing Forestry University; 2013.

36. Jiang P, Hao L, Zhou L. Application of AHP in the social value appraisal of forest resources assets—A case study in forest industrial region of Heilongjiang province. Forestry Economics 2012; (12): 8891.

37. Dong D, Zhou Z, He Y, et al. Economic evaluation of the conservation of old and famous trees based on tourists’ willingness to pay—A case study of Jiuhua Mountain scenic area, Anhui province. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 2011; 20(11): 1334−1340.

38. pan J, Zhang Y, Li X. Willingness to pay for forest cultural value conservation and its evaluation—Case of Diebu county in Gansu province. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment 2017, 31(9): 32−37.

39. Zheng P, Yang L, Han W, et al. Evaluation of social benefits of forest based on ecosystem service function: A case study of forest resources in Yunnan province. Ecological Economy 2020; 36(5): 161−170.

40. Wang L, Xiao Y, Ouyang Z, et al. Evaluation of social benefits of forest based on ecosystem service function: A case study of forest resources in Yunnan province. Ecological Economy 2017; 27(3): 146−154.