Empirical research investigates ecological damage liability alternatives in China, suggesting improved judicial efficacy.
The alternative fulfillment mechanism for ecological and environmental damage liability represents a pivotal institutional innovation. Its principal function is to enable liable parties—under exceptional circumstances—to flexibly fulfill their ecological and environmental damage liability. This study adopts an empirical research method to systematically investigate the judicial application of the alternative performance mechanism. Findings reveal that under the guidance of the restorative justice concept, courts increasingly subsume diverse alternative performance modalities under the category of “alternative restoration”, leading to the gradual distortion of the alternative restoration centered on the concept of “equivalent restoration” into a “universal solution” for ecological damage cases. This practical tendency significantly weakens the actual effectiveness of ecological restoration. The purpose of this study is to establish a dual mechanism of alternative fulfillment—distinguishing between alternative restoration and alternative compensation—based on ecological principles and within the framework of the dual responsibilities of “restoration—compensation” for ecological environmental damage. The effectiveness of the dual mechanism is quantitatively evaluated using the AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. The evaluation results show that, after distinguishing between the two types of alternative responsibilities, the comprehensive evaluation scores for ecological damage remedy in cases of ecological destruction, water pollution, and soil pollution increased from 5.155 to 8.935, from 6.406 to 9.116, and from 6.137 to 9.108, respectively, effectively correcting the functional deviation of the current single-dimensional remedy model. This study clarifies the independent application criteria of alternative restoration and alternative compensation, and provides targeted optimization paths for the judicial application of ecological damage remedy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: