| 基于综合指标法的中国生态系统服务保护有效性评价研究 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 张立伟,傅伯杰,吕一河,董治宝,李英杰,曾源,吴炳方.基于综合指标法的中国生态系统服务保护有效性评价研究[J].地理学报,2016,71(5):768-780. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 张立伟 傅伯杰 吕一河 董治宝 李英杰 曾源 吴炳方 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 陕西师范大学旅游与环境学院,西安 7101192. 中国科学院生态环境研究中心,北京 1000863. 中国科学院寒区旱区环境与工程研究所,兰州 7300004. 中国科学院遥感与数字地球研究所,北京 100094 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 环保公益性行业科研专项(201409055, 201209027-4);陕西师范大学高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目(GK201603078) |
| |
| 摘 要： | 将生态系统服务保护纳入到传统的以保护区为基础的自然保护之中是生态保护研究的新领域。利用综合指标方法,分析了中国从2000-2010年的4种生态系统服务时空变化特征;并对中国的七大生态保护和恢复区域的服务空间保护成效进行评价,提出了国家尺度上的生态系统服务保护优先性分级。主要结论为：① 中国的生态系统服务自西北向东南逐渐增加,显著增加区主要分布在黄土高原地区,显著减少区主要分布在东北及华北地区。黄土高原的生态系统服务提高主要是农田向草地和林地、草地向林地的转换引的;华北地区的降低主要是耕地的减少以及人工用地的增加引起的;东北地区是由于林地向耕地草地、耕地向湿地与人工用地的转换引起的。② 七大生态保护和恢复区的生态系统服务均为增加趋势而且显著增加面积大于减少面积;显著增加面积最大的为三北防护林工程区、最小的为重点生态功能区;显著减少最大为重要生态功能区、最小的为三北防护林工程区。而且,对服务的保护成效在重要生态功能区最高,其次为天然林保护工程区,其余区域均小于全国平均水平。③ 提出的生态系统服务保护优先性等级中,极高级别占到了国土面积的26.18%,保护的生态系统服务量占到全国总量的64.19%,保护成效为全国平均水平的2.47倍。
|
| 关 键 词： | 生态系统服务 生态系统服务保护 生态红线 综合指标法 中国 |
| 收稿时间： | 2015-10-14 |
| 修稿时间： | 2015-12-30 |
The using of composite indicators to assess the conservational effectiveness of ecosystem services in China |
| |
| Liwei ZHANG,Bojie FU,Yihe Lü,Zhibao DONG,Yingjie LI,Yuan ZENG,Bingfang WU.The using of composite indicators to assess the conservational effectiveness of ecosystem services in China[J].Acta Geographica Sinica,2016,71(5):768-780. |
| |
| Authors: | Liwei ZHANG Bojie FU Yihe LÜ Zhibao DONG Yingjie LI Yuan ZENG Bingfang WU |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Geography, Tourism and Environment College of Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an 710119, China2. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, CAS, Beijing 100085, China3. Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, CAS, Lanzhou 730000, China4. Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, CAS, Beijing 100094, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Ecosystem services (ES) are the important links between natural ecosystems and human well-being, which draw the attention from many countries and organizations around the world. Traditionally conservationists have focused on conserving biodiversity, mainly through habitat protection, evaluation of endemic or endangered species distribution, and assessment of threats to survival. Recently, conservationists have focused not only on the conservation of biodiversity, but also on the sustainable provision of ES. In this study, a series of composite indicators were used to analyze the spatial-temporal patterns of four types of ES in China from 2000 to 2010. These types of ES include carbon-capture services of vegetation, water provision and purification, soil conservation and habitat protection services of ecosystems. The driving factors and conservation efficiency of the four ES types in the seven conservation and restoration regions of China were assessed based on the results of ES mapping. Finally, the priority levels of ES in China were identified in the study. The main results were as follows: (1) From 2000 to 2010, the spatial scope of four types of ES increased from the northwest to southeast of China. The significantly increased areas of the total ES are mainly distributed on the Loess Plateau while the decreased areas are mainly located in northeastern and northern China ecological regions. The main reasons for the decrease of total ES in northern China are due to the increase of artificial land and loss of cropland. The decreases of total ES in northeastern China are caused by the degradation of forest land and the conversion of forest to cropland or grassland. However, in the Loess Plateau the increases of total ES are caused by the conversion of cropland to grassland or forestland, which led to the significant increase of ES. (2) In the seven conservation and restoration regions of China, all the significant increased area of four ES types is larger than the decreased area from 2000 to 2010. The area proportions of the significantly increased regions of total ES in the Three-North Shelterbelt Project areas are greater than other regions, and the smallest region is the key ecological function area, while the most significantly decreased area is the important ecological function regions, and the smallest significant decreased regions are the Three-North Shelterbelt Project regions. (3) The final scenario of the priority levels of the ES conservational area accounted for 26.18% of China's territory, which protected 64.19% of the total ES values of China and the conservational efficiency is 2.47 times the average level of China. |
| |
| Keywords: | ecosystem services ecosystem services conservation ecological redline composite indicators China |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《地理学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《地理学报》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
