彭保发
, 郑俞
Peng Baofa, Zheng Yu
中图分类号: X171
文献标识码: A
文章编号: 1000-0690(2018)03-0361-07
收稿日期: 2017-04-9
修回日期: 2017-10-18
网络出版日期: 2018-03-21
版权声明: 2018 《地理科学》编辑部 本文是开放获取期刊文献，在以下情况下可以自由使用：学术研究、学术交流、科研教学等，但不允许用于商业目的.
基金资助:
作者简介:
作者简介：彭保发（1962-）,男,湖南桃源人,教授,主要从事区域土地承载力、生态服务与生态安全研究。E-mail: pengbaofa@163.com
展开
摘要
在深入阐明生态系统服务与区域生态安全格局之间内在联系的基础上,根据人类社会与生态系统之间以生态服务流为纽带形成的反馈机制,提出基于驱动（Driver）-压力（Pressure）-状态（State）-影响（Impact）-响应（Response）区域生态安全格局研究框架。该框架有助于深入理解区域生态安全维持和区域生态安全问题形成的机制,拓展区域生态安全评估、生态安全格局维持和提升的视野。当前,耦合生态服务的区域生态安全格局研究有3个关键的前沿议题：① 生态服务需求和生态服务供给的空间耦合及其对人类活动的响应;② 维持生态系统服务流网络结构完整性和稳定性的人类活动阈值;③ 耦合人类生态服务供给和需求的区域生态安全评估模型。
关键词：
Abstract
Ecosystem services (ESs) are material and spiritual benefits obtained from the composition and functions, and processes occurred in ecosystems. They are fundamental and critical for survival and development of human society. They not only reflect the status of ecological security comprehensively from the aspect of ecosystem by ecosystem services supply, but also provide an avenue for human society to perceive the changes of ecosystem composition and function through changes in ecosystem flows. ES is inherently coupling with regional ecological security. A sustainable supply and delivery of ESs indicates a well regional ecological security. Therefore, ES concept and ES evaluation are essential in assessing regional ecological security status. However, theories and methodology related to integrating ES approach into ecological security assessment are insufficient. It is necessary to give a systematic exploring of methodology for combining ES with regional ecological security pattern. In this study, the inherent connection between ES and regional ecological security pattern is revealed. According to the feedback mechanism between the ecosystem capacity on ecosystem services provision and human societies through ES flow, a Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework (DPSIR) is outlined. In this framework, ES demand of human society is the driven force; Intensity of ES extraction indicates the pressures; Ecosystem composition and function, and integrality and stability of ES delivery network are defined as state variables; ES supply capacity and capacity to deliver ES to human society are indicators for impact. ES flow is considered as a media to feedback information on ecosystem to human society. This framework is provide a map to study regional ecological security pattern, and may broaden the view of regional ecological security assessment and the regulation of ecosystem pattern for ecological security maintenance and improvement. In the end, some critical research issues that are relevant to the DPSIR framework are given. At present, 3 key issues need to be untangled for the DPSIR framework provided here: 1) response of the spatial coupling between ES demands and ES supply capacity; 2) threshold of human activity intensity for maintaining the integrity and stability of ES flow network; 3) models for regional ecological security pattern assessment and coupling ES demands and ES supply.
Keywords：
生态安全是可持续发展的基本保障。日益增强和空间上不断扩大的人类活动剧烈改变着生态系统结构和功能,削弱生态安全得以维持和提升的物理环境基础。生态安全的维持和提升实质上是在正确对待和协调人与环境之间的关系,其前提是明晰人类活动与生态安全之间相互作用机制。传统的生态安全的涵义较为广泛,包括环境资源安全、生物与生态系统安全和自然与社会生态安全[1]。当前的生态安全研究主要从生态环境物理属性受损、胁迫的角度出发,以负向指标（如污染负荷、物种丧失等）为主[1,2]。近年来,耦合生态系统服务与生态安全逐渐成为区域生态安全研究的重要议题[3,4,5]。生态系统服务是人类从生态系统功能中直接或间接获得的益处[6,7],是人类最基本的福祉,与生态安全紧密联系[3]。过去几十年来,在生态系统服务内涵、生态服务形成和维持的生态过程机理[3,8]、生态服务评估方法[9,10]等领域的研究有了长足发展。生态系统服务已成为耦合人文影响与生态系统结构和功能的纽带[11],生态系统服务的变化也是人类感知生态安全状态最直接的途径。基于生态系统服务的概念和方法框架已成为将人类活动对自然生态系统的影响融入到制定社会可接受且有效的环境政策中工具[12,13,14]。生态服务概念的融入,为生态安全研究提供了一个正向的工具[5, 15]。
区域生态安全格局是保障区域生态安全和人类福祉的关键环节[16]。构建区域生态安全格局的目的是通过生态过程的有效调控来充分发挥生态系统功能及服务[16]。长期以来,生物多样性保护、生态系统结构和过程的完整性维持是区域生态安全格局构建的基本内容[17],人类的生态服务获取被视为一种干扰或区域生态安全格局的外部因素。安全状态的生态系统其结构、功能和过程应处在良好的生存和发展状态,并能支撑社会经济的持续发展,因而生态安全是对包括人在内的生物与环境关系稳定程度和生态系统可持续支撑能力的测度[15]。因此,区域生态安全格局应体现出人与环境的关系,而生态服务流是最好的纽带。尽管生态服务和生态安全的研究众多,大多以生态服务物理量或价值量作为综合性指标来指示生态安全状况[4, 18],但将生态服务融合于生态安全格局的研究鲜见,对融合的方法途径缺乏系统梳理。本文在阐明生态系统服务与生态安全格局之间的内在联系的基础上,提出耦合生态系统服务与区域生态安全格局的研究框架。
生态安全狭义上指自然和半自然生态系统的安全,是生态系统完整性和健康水平的整体反映;广义上则包括自然生态安全、经济生态安全和社会生态安全[17],本质上以人类社会的可持续发展为目的[2],设定了人类开发自然资源的规模和阈限[17],涵盖生态系统、人类社会和环境资源等方面的安全[1,2]。生态安全不只是生存的稳定性和环境结构的安全,还有发展的支撑能力和生态关系的健全[15]。目前,从生态系统面临的风险和生态系统健康两个方面建立指标体系[1,2]、基于压力-状态-响应（PSR）框架模型[19]评价是区域生态安全评价的常用的方法。尽管对生态安全及其评价研究众多,生态安全的定义仍未有共识[1, 2, 5],尚未形成成熟的理论和技术方法体系,概念性、探索性的定性分析多于定量研究[20]。当前的生态安全评价大多是基于生态风险、生态脆弱性、贫穷、生态问题等方面的指标,但这些评价指标多是负向指标[5]。
人类社会的发展需要从生态系统获取各类直接的物质产品,需要生态系统提供维持生存所需的环境条件等非物质性的支持服务。生态服务综合反映了生态系统提供人类福祉的水平。生态系统提供生态服务的能力划定了生态服务消费的上限。人类对生态服务的获取直接或间接地影响生态系统的结构和生态过程,进而改变生态服务供给能力,形成生态服务供给与消费之间的复杂反馈关系。自然或人文因素直接或间接地影响生态服务的供给能力和生态服务向人类社会的传输[21]。由此,生态服务不仅是生态系统物理属性意义上的生态安全表征,还隐含着人与自然之间的反馈,由此,生态服务供给及其传输的变化还是人类社会感知生态安全状态的重要途径[22]。区域生态安全格局维持和构建的目标是保障区域生态系统服务的可持续供给,提升区域的人类福祉[16]。健康的生态系统可持续地提供众多的生态系统服务。人类不合理或过度获取这些服务的活动可导致生态系统结构和功能的退化,削弱生态系统服务供给能力,减少生态服务向人类社会的输送,引起生态安全问题。因此,耦合生态系统服务供给与人类生态服务需求、获取和消费,是区域生态安全研究的新视角。在生态系统服务概念框架下,生态安全可定义为生态系统服务能力与人类社会经济发展对生态系统服务需求相适应的状态。在此状态下,生态系统提供生态服务的能力不因人类的生态服务消费而降低,人类获取生态服务的网络结构完整、功能正常。
生态服务供给与需求的空间失耦制约着人类对生态系统服务的获取,引发局部地区对某些生态系统服务的过度消费,区域生态系统服务消费超过供给能力,进而引起生态系统服务功能的退化,降低区域生态系统服务能力,甚至进入恶性循环,威胁区域生态安全。景观功能的地域分异决定了生态系统服务供给与需求在空间上的不匹配[23],生态系统服务供给与需求在空间上的这种关系大致包括4种类型（图1）：（a）完全重叠,如土壤形成、噪声削减等;（b）生态服务由形成区向周围的受益区各向同性流动,如固碳、氧气释放等;（c）形成区与受益区在空间上完全分离,按特定的方向流动,如水源涵养、休闲、景观美学功能;（d）相邻且生态服务沿特定方向输送,如风蚀削减、风暴潮灾害防御等服务[24]。
图 1 生态系统服务供给区（P）和受益区（B）的空间耦合形式
Fig. 1 Possible spatial relationships between service production areas (P) and service benefit areas (B)
由于生态系统服务供给与消费的空间失耦,生态系统服务从异地自然（通过自然生态过程,如空气调节、水文调节、土壤保持）和人为地输入（休闲娱乐、食物供给等）是满足生态服务需求的主要方式,建立起生态系统服务供给与需求的空间耦合关系,形成生态系统服务传输的自然路径网络和社会-经济活动网络[23],即生态系统服务流网络（图2）。传统的区域生态安全格局研究将人作为一个外部因素[17],专注于从生物多样性保护、自然生态系统结构和功能的恢复出发去构建。区域生态安全格局构建被视为对已存在的或者潜在的对于维护、控制特定地段某种生态过程有着重要意义的关键生态要素的空间识别、恢复或重建,以达到对特定生态过程的有效调控,保障生态系统功能的发挥及服务的供给[16]。而在现实的区域生态安全格局中,人已成为举足轻重的部分,甚至关键组分。区域生态安全是人类生态安全[15]。在这种情形下,生态服务流网络成了耦合人与生物和非生物环境的纽带。生态服务供给与需求空间耦合形式的多样性对应多种多样的生态服务传输方式,形成复杂的生态系统服务流网络结构。在区域社会经济功能高度分异的现代社会,维持健康生态服务流网络结构非常重要,是维持和提升区域生态安全的重要方面。因此,从生态系统服务的视角,区域生态安全格局包含生态系统服务供给能力空间格局、生态系统服务消费格局和生态系统服务流网络格局3个方面。辨识生态服务的供给区和需求热点及联系它们的生态服务传输网络,有助于识别区域生态安全关键区位。而评估生态服务传输网络的稳定性和可持续性、监测网络中的生态系统服务流量和评估它们的状况,可作为综合评价区域生态安全格局的基本途径。
图 2 生态系统服务流网络结构
Fig. 2 Diagram of the structure of ecosystem services flow network
由于提供生态服务的区域往往与生态服务受益区在空间上失耦,受益者往往无法直接感知生态系统功能和结构的状态。而通过生态系统服务流的变化,消费者可感知到生态系统服务供给能力的变化[22]。对生态系统属性（如土地覆被类型、质量）的改变是人类活动改变生态系统服务的主要方式[25,26,27],直接或间接地改变生态系统服务供给能力[28]、生态系统服务流和生态服务流网络结构,导致可消费的生态系统服务流的增加或减少。这种机制能帮助受益者更好地接受生态系统的反馈。因此,区域生态安全格局可通过生态系统服务供给能力、生态系统服务消费和生态系统服务流网络3个方面的时空动态来评价。对生态系统服务供给能力、消费者分布制图,结合生态系统服务流网络识别和生态服务流的量化,建立识别区域生态安全的关键区位的方法,是在区域尺度分析人类社会经济活动与生态安全的相互作用和开展生态安全格局综合评价和调控的基础。
由于生态安全与生态服务的内在联系,区域生态安全格局存在以生态服务流量为信息传递媒介的自我维持机制,本质上是生态系统与人类活动之间以生态系统服务流为纽带的反馈机制。在这个机制中,人类围绕生态系统活动的目的是从中获取各种益处,包括产品供给、美学感受以及安全庇护等物质或非物质形态的益处。这些活动通过对生态系统组成、物质循环等有意或无意地施加负面影响,导致生态系统的结构和功能的退化,降低生态服务供给能力,损害生态系统服务流网络结构的完整性和稳定性,进而引起生态系统服务流量的变化。通过生态系统服务流及其变化所传递的信息,人类社会可感知到生态系统结构和功能的变化,进而调整对生态服务的获取方式、类型和数量,促进生态系统的恢复和功能提升,形成耦合人与环境的驱动（Driver）-压力（Pressure）-状态（State）-影响（Impact）-响应（Response）反馈机制（图3）, 即耦合生态服务的区域DPSIR机制。
图3 耦合生态系统服务概念的生态安全格局DPSIR机制
Fig. 3 The DPSIR framework on ecological security pattern coupling ecosystem services concept
在区域生态安全格局维持的DPSIR机制中,人类活动是驱动,生态服务获取是对生态系统的压力,生态系统结构和功能、生态服务流网络结构完整性和稳定性是状态变量,生态服务的供给能力和生态服务传输能力反映出区域生态安全格局受到的影响,响应则以生态服务流量表现出来（表1）。这种反馈机制实质上是人类与区域生态安全之间关系的体现,因而可作为区域生态安全格局研究的基本方法框架。它融合了生态服务概念,包含对区域生态系统自然和人文过程的综合,是在综合的思想下开展区域生态安全格局的综合研究的方法框架,有助于更好地揭示区域人类活动与生态安全的相互作用,也为区域生态安全的综合评价提供了有效途径。
表 1 DPSIR框架下区域生态安全指标
Table 1 Indicators for regional ecological security pattern assessment under DPSIR framework
| 指标类别 | 指标 |
|---|---|
| 驱动 | 生态服务需求强度生态服务需求与供给的空间耦合关系 |
| 压力 | 生态服务获取强度 |
| 状态 | 区域生态系统服务功能区域生态服务流网络结构完整性和稳定性 |
| 影响 | 生态服务供给能力生态服务传输能力 |
| 响应 | 生态服务流量 |
在该框架下,良好的区域生态安全格局表现出一个正反馈,在满足人类生态服务需求的同时,生态系统服务供给能力和生态服务流量得到增强或维持;退化的区域生态安全格局则表现为一个负反馈,过度的人类生态服务需求导致高强度的生态服务获取,导致了生态系统服务供给能力降低,生态服务流网络结构完整性和功能稳定性受损,生态服务流量持续萎缩,最终导致人类的生态服务需求得不到满足。因此,区域生态安全格局的重建或恢复,是将一个负反馈状态的区域生态安全格局推回到正反馈的状态。因此,区域生态安全格局的构建将不仅仅是物理性的区域生态系统结构和功能单元的保护、修复和重建,还包括通过社会经济手段、行政和法律手段对人类生态服务需求、获取方式、强度及其时空格局进行的调整。
DPSIR框架涉及到许多当前尚未破解的理论、方法和技术问题。该框架包括下列关键前沿议题：
1） 生态服务需求和生态服务供给能力的空间耦合及其对人类活动的响应。区域生态服务供给与需求相适应是区域生态安全得以保证的基石。受地理环境地域分异的控制,生态服务供给具有特定的空间分布和时间动态。研究人类的生态服务需求和生态服务供给能力的空间耦合关系、辨识生态系统服务流网络是整个研究框架的第一步,而揭示生态服务需求的类型、数量及其时空动态和评估生态系统服务供给能力及其空间分异是基础。目前,对生态服务供给的时空分布的理解和表达从全球尺度到局地尺度有了很深入的认识[29,30],提出了大量生态服务供给制图工具[9, 31],但在数量的估算上仍然存在很大的不确定性[32,33]。此外,生态服务供给对驱动力变化的响应虽有一定认识,但在响应的驱动力阈值等方面尚未有充分的认知和量化。其原因既有对生态服务供给机制的认识欠缺,也有方法探索不深入的原因[34]。对生态服务需求的研究是区域生态安全格局研究的薄弱点之一。生态服务需求随人类社会的发展而不断演变。大多数基本的生态服务需求有明确的空间位置,也有相当多的生态服务需求是高度动态和空间位置不确定的,但在区域尺度上它们的演变是可以刻画的。
2） 维持生态系统服务流网络结构完整性和稳定性的人类活动阈值。生态服务流网络由生态服务供给和需求的空间耦合关系确定,大致包括
有形的空间网络和无形的社会经济活动网络,随时间和地域而表现出高度动态的特点。生态服务流网络结构是实施区域生态安全格局构建的重要的内容,其结构完整性和功能的稳定性是基本原则。人类通过生态系统服务获取和其它社会经济活动对生态系统结构和功能、生态系统服务流网络形成压力,使它们处在一个新的状态。维持区域生态安全格局需要使生态服务需求与生态服务供给在时间、数量上相适应,并维持一个完整和稳定的生态系统服务流网络。人类获取生态服务的活动可改变生态系统结构和生态系统过程,可降低或提升的生态系统服务供给能力[3],生态系统服务流网络也可能因此而加强或受损,引起生态服务流量的变化[31]。要维持和提升区域生态安全格局,需要深刻理解生态系统服务供给能力对人类生态服务获取的敏感性和承受阈值,以及维持生态系统服务流网络结构的完整性和稳定性的人类扰动临界。当前,生态服务供给能力对景观破碎化的响应研究已得到关注[35],但生态系统服务流网络结构特征及其稳定性和完整性的研究匮乏。在区域尺度上,通过地表过程传输的生态服务,其网络结构容易辨识,已发展了一些方法及工具[36,37],而通过社会经济活动网络形成的生态服务流网络的研究是难点。
3） 耦合人类生态服务需求的区域生态安全评估模型。区域生态安全格局的构建需要具有坚实科学基础的评估工具来甄选不同的方案。已有的区域生态安全评估更多地是从生态系统或景观系统本身的结构和功能恢复或重建的角度去实现[38,39],而将人类对生态服务的需求、生态服务获取方式和强度等人文因素忽略或作为外部因素,更缺乏对生态服务空间流动的表达。而区域生态安全格局的构建、维持和提升都是人与自然复合的系统工程。这导致设计的区域生态安全格局往往难以实现,或不能很好地服务和引导人类需求。发展以生态服务供需关系为基础、以生态服务流为纽带的区域生态安全评估模型是更好的途径。
生态系统服务是区域生态安全的综合体现,是人类从自身福祉的角度感知生态系统结构和功能变化的途径。生态服务与生态安全的关系正得到越来越多的关注,二者的融合成为区域生态安全研究的重要方向。但融合生态服务于生态安全的研究在理论探索和实践中仍然不够深入,对融合的方法途径缺乏系统梳理。在阐明生态系统服务与区域生态安全之间的内在联系的基础上,根据人类与生态系统之间以生态服务流为纽带形成的驱动（Driver）-压力（Pressure）-状态（State）-影响（Impact）-响应（Response）框架（DPSIR）的反馈机制,提出耦合生态系统服务概念的区域生态安全格局的研究框架。该框架耦合了人类活动与生态安全,系统地开展区域生态安全格局研究。在科学理论上可深入揭示区域生态安全维持和区域生态安全问题形成的机制,在方法上可为区域生态安全格局评价提供综合、正向的量化指标,拓展区域生态安全评估、生态安全格局调控的视野。
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
| [1] |
生态安全的涵义与尺度 [J].https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0529-6579.2004.06.006 URL [本文引用: 5] 摘要
综述了生态安全的涵义与尺度。生态安全涉及自然和社会两方面，包括环境资源安全、生物与生态系统安全和自然与社会生态安全：生态安全有自然体系的生态安全和人类社会体系的生态安全两方面，每一方面包含了多重尺度：生态安全的空间尺度，从范围大小也可分成全球生态系统、区域生态系统和微观生态系统等空间若干层次的生态安全：生态安全的生物尺度对应了生物的不同层次，包括生物细胞、组织、个体、种群、群落、生态系统、生态景观、陆(地)海(洋)生态及人类生态：其中的任一生态层次出现损害、退化、胁迫，都可以说是该层次的生态安全处于不安全状态：不同层次的生物生态安全也往往是相互影响的，往往是低尺度的生态不安全，影响高尺度的生态不安全。
Lu Hongfang et al. The meaning and scales of ecological security .https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0529-6579.2004.06.006 URL [本文引用: 5] 摘要
综述了生态安全的涵义与尺度。生态安全涉及自然和社会两方面，包括环境资源安全、生物与生态系统安全和自然与社会生态安全：生态安全有自然体系的生态安全和人类社会体系的生态安全两方面，每一方面包含了多重尺度：生态安全的空间尺度，从范围大小也可分成全球生态系统、区域生态系统和微观生态系统等空间若干层次的生态安全：生态安全的生物尺度对应了生物的不同层次，包括生物细胞、组织、个体、种群、群落、生态系统、生态景观、陆(地)海(洋)生态及人类生态：其中的任一生态层次出现损害、退化、胁迫，都可以说是该层次的生态安全处于不安全状态：不同层次的生物生态安全也往往是相互影响的，往往是低尺度的生态不安全，影响高尺度的生态不安全。
|
| [2] |
生态安全评价研究中的若干问题 [J].
生态安全评价是对生态系统完整性以及对各种风险下维持其健康的可持续能力的识别与研判,以生 态风险和生态健康评价为核心内容.并体现人类安全的主导性.生态风险识别和生态脆弱性是生态风险评价的构成要素,生态健康则表现在生态完整性、生态系统活 力与恢复力三方面生态安全评价的准则与指标体系应将生态风险与生态健康有机结合,同时兼容不同空间尺度并能体现动态变化,其中在EDI、REI和IRI分 类基础上叠加暴露分析指标是较大空间尺度生态安全指标体系建立的发展方向.文中综述了现阶段主要的生态安全评价方法,表明暴露-响应综合评价模式在现阶段 应用最为广泛,生态模型法评价不同尺度的生态安全则是未来主要发展领域,并注重生态过程安全评价.生态安全评价研究需要与生态安全预测及预警研究相结合, 并将生态安全的保障、维护与管理研究纳入其范畴.
Several problems in ecological security assessment research .
生态安全评价是对生态系统完整性以及对各种风险下维持其健康的可持续能力的识别与研判,以生 态风险和生态健康评价为核心内容.并体现人类安全的主导性.生态风险识别和生态脆弱性是生态风险评价的构成要素,生态健康则表现在生态完整性、生态系统活 力与恢复力三方面生态安全评价的准则与指标体系应将生态风险与生态健康有机结合,同时兼容不同空间尺度并能体现动态变化,其中在EDI、REI和IRI分 类基础上叠加暴露分析指标是较大空间尺度生态安全指标体系建立的发展方向.文中综述了现阶段主要的生态安全评价方法,表明暴露-响应综合评价模式在现阶段 应用最为广泛,生态模型法评价不同尺度的生态安全则是未来主要发展领域,并注重生态过程安全评价.生态安全评价研究需要与生态安全预测及预警研究相结合, 并将生态安全的保障、维护与管理研究纳入其范畴.
|
| [3] |
中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全 [J].
<p> 生态系统服务是国际生态学研究的前沿和热点，表现出向生态系统服务机理和区域集成方法两大方向发展的趋势。开展陆地生态系统服务研究，是生态系统恢复、生态功能区划和建立生态补偿机制、保障国家生态安全的重大战略需求。面向国家重大需求和生态系统服务研究的国际前沿，以主要陆地生态系统为对象，“中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全”项目拟解决3个科学问题：①生态系统结构—过程—服务功能的相互作用机理；②生态系统服务功能的尺度特征与多尺度关联；③生态系统服务功能评估的指标与模型。通过上述研究，发展生态系统服务研究的理论与方法，为国家的生态建设和环境保护提供科学支撑。<br /> </p>
<p> 生态系统服务是国际生态学研究的前沿和热点，表现出向生态系统服务机理和区域集成方法两大方向发展的趋势。开展陆地生态系统服务研究，是生态系统恢复、生态功能区划和建立生态补偿机制、保障国家生态安全的重大战略需求。面向国家重大需求和生态系统服务研究的国际前沿，以主要陆地生态系统为对象，“中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全”项目拟解决3个科学问题：①生态系统结构—过程—服务功能的相互作用机理；②生态系统服务功能的尺度特征与多尺度关联；③生态系统服务功能评估的指标与模型。通过上述研究，发展生态系统服务研究的理论与方法，为国家的生态建设和环境保护提供科学支撑。<br /> </p>
|
| [4] |
中国主要陆地生态系统服务与生态安全研究的重要进展 [J].https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-9608.2012.05.003 URL Magsci [本文引用: 2] 摘要
<p>介绍了国家重点基础研究计划项目“中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全（2009—2013）”执行三年多来的重要研究进展，包括生态系统过程与服务机理、生态系统服务区域综合研究、国家尺度生态系统结构与服务、生态系统服务价值化与生态安全等四个方面。最后概要介绍了项目的后续研究计划。</p>
Major research progresses on the ecosystem service and ecological safety of main terrestrial ecosystems in China .https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-9608.2012.05.003 URL Magsci [本文引用: 2] 摘要
<p>介绍了国家重点基础研究计划项目“中国主要陆地生态系统服务功能与生态安全（2009—2013）”执行三年多来的重要研究进展，包括生态系统过程与服务机理、生态系统服务区域综合研究、国家尺度生态系统结构与服务、生态系统服务价值化与生态安全等四个方面。最后概要介绍了项目的后续研究计划。</p>
|
| [5] |
生态系统服务与生态安全 [J].https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-9608.2012.05.004 URL Magsci [本文引用: 4] 摘要
<p>生态安全是可持续发展的保障，而生态系统服务是生态安全的表征。生态安全是在保持生态系统功能正常发展的基础上保证人类福祉的状态。随着人口的迅速增长和社会经济的快速发展，对生态系统服务的需求急剧增加，生态系统服务出现退化趋势。目前，生态系统服务的退化已成为严重制约中国社会经济可持续发展的重要因素。探讨生态系统服务与生态安全的关系是当前一项十分迫切的研究任务。笔者系统地分析了生态安全的内涵，探讨了生态系统服务与生态安全的关系及生态安全评价的核心问题。</p>
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0253-9608.2012.05.004 URL Magsci [本文引用: 4] 摘要
<p>生态安全是可持续发展的保障，而生态系统服务是生态安全的表征。生态安全是在保持生态系统功能正常发展的基础上保证人类福祉的状态。随着人口的迅速增长和社会经济的快速发展，对生态系统服务的需求急剧增加，生态系统服务出现退化趋势。目前，生态系统服务的退化已成为严重制约中国社会经济可持续发展的重要因素。探讨生态系统服务与生态安全的关系是当前一项十分迫切的研究任务。笔者系统地分析了生态安全的内涵，探讨了生态系统服务与生态安全的关系及生态安全评价的核心问题。</p>
|
| [6] |
D’Arge R, Groot Rd et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital [J].https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
The services of ecological systens and the natural capilal stocks that produce them are critical to the functiouing of the Erarth's life-support system.They contribule to human welfare.both direetly and indireetly,and therefore represent part of the totaleeononic value of the planet.We have estimated the eurrent biosphere.the value(most of which is ontside the market)is estimated to be in the range of USS16-54trillion(1012)per year,with an average of USS33 trillion per year.Because of the nature of the uncertainties,this must be considered a mininum estimate.Global gross national produet total is around USS18 trillion per year.
|
| [7] |
Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis report [M]. |
| [8] |
生态系统服务的生态学机制研究进展 [J].
全面认识和理解生态系统服务的生态学机制是加强生态系统服务功能管理的前提，但目前从生态系统服务的生态学机制研究中提供给管理者的信息还非常有限。针对生态系统服务功能的物质基础（生境、生态系统结构和生态系统过程），目前生态系统服务的生态学机制研究主要集中在3个方面：生物多样性与生态系统服务功能关系；生态系统服务功能的时空尺度特征；气候和土地利用变化对生态系统服务功能的影响机制。在综述上述3方面进展的基础上，提出了今后的研究方向。
Ecological mechanisms of ecosystem services .
全面认识和理解生态系统服务的生态学机制是加强生态系统服务功能管理的前提，但目前从生态系统服务的生态学机制研究中提供给管理者的信息还非常有限。针对生态系统服务功能的物质基础（生境、生态系统结构和生态系统过程），目前生态系统服务的生态学机制研究主要集中在3个方面：生物多样性与生态系统服务功能关系；生态系统服务功能的时空尺度特征；气候和土地利用变化对生态系统服务功能的影响机制。在综述上述3方面进展的基础上，提出了今后的研究方向。
|
| [9] |
Voigt B et al. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: Acomprehensive approach to quantifying actual services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012 URL [本文引用: 2] 摘要
Recent ecosystem services research has highlighted the importance of spatial connectivity between ecosystems and their beneficiaries. Despite this need, a systematic approach to ecosystem service flow quantification has not yet emerged. In this article, we present such an approach, which we formalize as a class of agent-based models termed 0904Service Path Attribution Networks09 (SPANs). These models, developed as part of the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) project, expand on ecosystem services classification terminology introduced by other authors. Conceptual elements needed to support flow modeling include a service's rivalness, its flow routing type (e.g., through hydrologic or transportation networks, lines of sight, or other approaches), and whether the benefit is supplied by an ecosystem's provision of a beneficial flow to people or by absorption of a detrimental flow before it reaches them. We describe our implementation of the SPAN framework for five ecosystem services and discuss how to generalize the approach to additional services. SPAN model outputs include maps of ecosystem service provision, use, depletion, and flows under theoretical, possible, actual, inaccessible, and blocked conditions. We highlight how these different ecosystem service flow maps could be used to support various types of decision making for conservation and resource management planning.
|
| [10] |
Ricketts T H et al. Natural capital: Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services [M]. |
| [11] |
Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.001 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Spatial data on land use and land cover (LULC) are broadly available on different scales and are used widely for mapping ecosystem services as LULC and their changes impact on the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Here four spatial data sets were compared for their practicability as input data for the LULC based assessment method in the Bornh ved Lakes study area. The results for this 60 km study area are that more detailed land use information (ATKIS and a combined ATKIS/InVeKoS/Landsat data set) is preferred to CORINE land cover data due to the possibility of including spatial details (e.g. number of LULC classes and crop information) in the assessment of provisioning ecosystem services. The CORINE data set overestimated the supply of the two analyzed provisioning services crops and fodder in comparison to the combined data set which revealed information on the specific crops, making quantification with statistical information on yields easier. Spatial input data quality has an effect on the resulting provisioning service maps and quantifications of ecosystem services in the study area due to the identification/omission of ecosystem services, their extent and change. Consequently they also influence decision-making and the development of the ecosystem services concept in the future.
|
| [12] |
Goldstein J et al. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver [J].https://doi.org/10.1890/080025 URL [本文引用: 1] |
| [13] |
Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010 URL [本文引用: 1] |
| [14] |
Mace G M et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom [J].https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379 URL [本文引用: 1] |
| [15] |
对我国生态安全的若干科学思考 [J].https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2007.03.008 URL [本文引用: 4] 摘要
本文从分析生态安全的共轭内涵、系统框架、动力学机制和控制论方法入手,探讨区域、城乡和人口生态安全的战略管理和建设方法。认为生态安全的内涵不只是生存稳定性还有发展的支撑能力,不只是环境结构的安全还有生态关系的健全,生态安全不能只用自然生态风险和人类生态胁迫的负面威胁来测度,还要用自然生态服务的正面调节来测度,生态安全不仅可以通过防护修复来保障,还可以通过人工建设来强化。
Some consider ations with scientific views on ecological security in China S&T and Society ,https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2007.03.008 URL [本文引用: 4] 摘要
本文从分析生态安全的共轭内涵、系统框架、动力学机制和控制论方法入手,探讨区域、城乡和人口生态安全的战略管理和建设方法。认为生态安全的内涵不只是生存稳定性还有发展的支撑能力,不只是环境结构的安全还有生态关系的健全,生态安全不能只用自然生态风险和人类生态胁迫的负面威胁来测度,还要用自然生态服务的正面调节来测度,生态安全不仅可以通过防护修复来保障,还可以通过人工建设来强化。
|
| [16] |
区域生态安全格局构建研究进展与展望 [J].Li Yanxu et al. Research progress and prospect on regional ecological security pattern construction . |
| [17] |
区域生态安全格局:概念与理论基础. 生态学报 [J],Li Xiaoya et al. The regional pattern for ecological security (RPES): The concept and theoretical basis . |
| [18] |
基于生态系统服务价值重构的生态安全格局构建——以重庆两江新区为例 [J].https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201703003 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
生态系统服务是生态安全的前提和保障,各项服务价值变化率和集聚水平的差异,均会影响生态源地的识别结果。在对重庆两江新区生态系统服务静态价值估算的基础上,以生态系统服务价值重要度指数和空间丰富度指数,对2012年的生态系统服务静态价值进行重构,并依据重构结果建立三种安全水平上的生态安全格局。结果表明：（1）各项生态系统服务静态价值量逐年降低,其中以食物生产、土壤形成与保护和碳固定三项服务降速最快。（2）重构后生态系统服务价值范围在201~23634元/hm~2之间,且大部分区域以中低值为主。（3）低、中、高三种安全水平源地面积分别为174.73 km~2、208.69 km~2和222.20 km~2。基于生态系统服务价值的多水平生态安全格局,是城市开发和建设用地布局的重要依据。
The establishment of ecological security patterns based on the redistribution of ecosystem service value: A case study in the Liangjiang New Area .https://doi.org/10.11821/dlyj201703003 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
生态系统服务是生态安全的前提和保障,各项服务价值变化率和集聚水平的差异,均会影响生态源地的识别结果。在对重庆两江新区生态系统服务静态价值估算的基础上,以生态系统服务价值重要度指数和空间丰富度指数,对2012年的生态系统服务静态价值进行重构,并依据重构结果建立三种安全水平上的生态安全格局。结果表明：（1）各项生态系统服务静态价值量逐年降低,其中以食物生产、土壤形成与保护和碳固定三项服务降速最快。（2）重构后生态系统服务价值范围在201~23634元/hm~2之间,且大部分区域以中低值为主。（3）低、中、高三种安全水平源地面积分别为174.73 km~2、208.69 km~2和222.20 km~2。基于生态系统服务价值的多水平生态安全格局,是城市开发和建设用地布局的重要依据。
|
| [19] |
区域生态安全评价指标与标准研究 [J].https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0504.2002.01.017 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
全球范围内 ,生态安全形势越来越严峻 ,局部地区的生态安全态势甚至已经损坏了社会经济与农业生产可持续发展的基础 ,但是从学术层面上区域生态安全研究尚不充分。该文研究建立了区域生态安全评价的指标体系和评价标准 ,并对PSR框架模型作了扩展 ,制定了区域生态安全评价指标体系概念框架 ,据此建立了区域生态安全评价指标体系
Wang Wenjie et al. Study on regional ecological security assessment index and standard .https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0504.2002.01.017 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
全球范围内 ,生态安全形势越来越严峻 ,局部地区的生态安全态势甚至已经损坏了社会经济与农业生产可持续发展的基础 ,但是从学术层面上区域生态安全研究尚不充分。该文研究建立了区域生态安全评价的指标体系和评价标准 ,并对PSR框架模型作了扩展 ,制定了区域生态安全评价指标体系概念框架 ,据此建立了区域生态安全评价指标体系
|
| [20] |
区域生态安全研究的科学基础与初步框架 [J].https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2005.06.001 URL Magsci [本文引用: 1] 摘要
<p>生态安全研究涉及多种尺度（种群、生态系统、流域、区域、国家），其中区域生态安全是区域和国家可持续发展的基础，是建立和谐社会及环境友好型社会的必要条件，是人类生态安全的核心，应该处于中心的地位。但目前为止进行的区域生态安全研究多集中在综合指标评价、生物安全及土地利用变化效应的分析，比较缺乏严格的判定区域生态安全的科学基础。本文认为，地理地带性应是区域生态安全研究的基本准则；景观（土地类型）的原生态值可以作为区域生态安全的客观标准；景观退化程度是区域生态安全的重要指标；三者共同构成区域生态安全研究的科学基础。本文提出了区域生态安全研究的地理学方法，其框架体系应包括：（1）地理地带性分析及景观原生态定值；（2）景观退化程度的确定；（3）区域退化景观格局分析；（4）周围区域的生态影响分析；（5）区域生态安全水平的判别模式；（6）区域生态安全的指标体系。</p>
Zhu Yunhai et al.Scientific basis and working frame for regional ecological security research .https://doi.org/10.11820/dlkxjz.2005.06.001 URL Magsci [本文引用: 1] 摘要
<p>生态安全研究涉及多种尺度（种群、生态系统、流域、区域、国家），其中区域生态安全是区域和国家可持续发展的基础，是建立和谐社会及环境友好型社会的必要条件，是人类生态安全的核心，应该处于中心的地位。但目前为止进行的区域生态安全研究多集中在综合指标评价、生物安全及土地利用变化效应的分析，比较缺乏严格的判定区域生态安全的科学基础。本文认为，地理地带性应是区域生态安全研究的基本准则；景观（土地类型）的原生态值可以作为区域生态安全的客观标准；景观退化程度是区域生态安全的重要指标；三者共同构成区域生态安全研究的科学基础。本文提出了区域生态安全研究的地理学方法，其框架体系应包括：（1）地理地带性分析及景观原生态定值；（2）景观退化程度的确定；（3）区域退化景观格局分析；（4）周围区域的生态影响分析；（5）区域生态安全水平的判别模式；（6）区域生态安全的指标体系。</p>
|
| [21] |
Dunbar M B et al. Safeguarding ecosystem services and livelihoods: Understanding the impact of conservation strategies on benefit flows to society [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.004 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Society has always benefited from ecosystems through the provision of ecosystem services. To ensure a continuous flow of these benefits, different strategies aimed at safeguarding ecosystem services are proposed. In this paper we explore how biodiversity conservation measures, particularly protected areas, influence the flow of ecosystem services to different members of society. We highlight the impact of these measures on the poorer members of society because of their strong dependence on ecosystem services to sustain their livelihood. For the Democratic Republic of Congo we mapped five ecosystem services (food production, tourism, carbon, timber and fuel wood production) using spatial landscape indicators, within and outside protected areas, and identified their direct beneficiaries. This illustration was used to feed a round-table discussion on the impact of different conservation strategies on society, held with ecosystem services professionals during the 4th Ecosystem Service Partnership Conference in the Netherlands. The discussion highlighted the need for spatial methods to assess ecosystem service trade-offs, as well as the main challenges for conservation measures to contribute to both livelihood improvement and conservation gains. We argue that, ecosystem services maps can play a crucial role in understanding and managing the trade-offs in ecosystem service flows resulting from conservation strategies.
|
| [22] |
Zaccarelli N et al. People perception of landscape change effects on ecosystem services in small mediterranean islands: A combination of subjective and objective assessments [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.010 URL [本文引用: 2] 摘要
Humans constantly modify their environment to better fit their needs. These changes are even more important in small Mediterranean islands, where the flow and type of ecosystem services (ES) is constrained by insularity and heavily exploited by economic activities. We evaluated the dynamics of ES from 1954 to 2007 linked to the changes of the landscape of the Vulcano Island (southern Italy) and related such transformation to the perception of the local communities. We estimated the changes in the total economic value of ES and we coupled this objective assessment with a survey among inhabitants to measure the perception of driving forces and ES. The results show that agriculture Was replaced by tourism, which simultaneously has profoundly affected the landscape and brought economic benefits to local population. Despite the urban-sprawl related to tourism development there is an increase of the flow of ES over time because of the conversion of some land-cover classes into others that provide a greater amount of ES. Local communities are aware of landscape and ES dynamics, but they do not perceive tourism as a driving force, which affects the natural attractiveness and cultural identity of their island. This approach integrates a commonly accepted objective technique to assign value to ES, with a subjective assessment taking into account how local people value the flow of ES. Effective strategies for ES management and governance need to address and incorporate local population expectations so to empower local stakeholders in the achievement of higher level of quality of life. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
| [23] |
Voigt B et al. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: Acomprehensive approach to quantifying actual services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.012 URL [本文引用: 2] 摘要
Recent ecosystem services research has highlighted the importance of spatial connectivity between ecosystems and their beneficiaries. Despite this need, a systematic approach to ecosystem service flow quantification has not yet emerged. In this article, we present such an approach, which we formalize as a class of agent-based models termed 0904Service Path Attribution Networks09 (SPANs). These models, developed as part of the Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) project, expand on ecosystem services classification terminology introduced by other authors. Conceptual elements needed to support flow modeling include a service's rivalness, its flow routing type (e.g., through hydrologic or transportation networks, lines of sight, or other approaches), and whether the benefit is supplied by an ecosystem's provision of a beneficial flow to people or by absorption of a detrimental flow before it reaches them. We describe our implementation of the SPAN framework for five ecosystem services and discuss how to generalize the approach to additional services. SPAN model outputs include maps of ecosystem service provision, use, depletion, and flows under theoretical, possible, actual, inaccessible, and blocked conditions. We highlight how these different ecosystem service flow maps could be used to support various types of decision making for conservation and resource management planning.
|
| [24] |
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
The concept of ecosystems services has become an important model for linking the functioning of ecosystems to human welfare. Understanding this link is critical for a wide-range of decision-making contexts. While there have been several attempts to come up with a classification scheme for ecosystem services, there has not been an agreed upon, meaningful and consistent definition for ecosystem services. In this paper we offer a definition of ecosystem services that is likely to be operational for ecosystem service research and several classification schemes. We argue that any attempt at classifying ecosystem services should be based on both the characteristics of the ecosystems of interest and a decision context for which the concept of ecosystem services is being mobilized. Because of this there is not one classification scheme that will be adequate for the many contexts in which ecosystem service research may be utilized. We discuss several examples of how classification schemes will be a function of both ecosystem and ecosystem service characteristics and the decision-making context.
|
| [25] |
Rounsevell M D A, Acosta-Michlik L et al. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change [J]. |
| [26] |
1990~2000年中国土壤碳氮蓄积量与土地利用变化 [J].https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.2004.04.001 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
基于2473个土壤剖面资料和1980年代末～1990年代末陆地卫星TM影像分析中国1990～2000年林地、草地、耕地之间的土地利用变化对土壤碳氮蓄积量的影响.IPCC建议的国家温室气体清单方法计算表明从1990～2000年中国林地、草地、耕地土壤(30 cm)有机碳氮库分别损失了77.6±35.2 TgC(1Tg=106 t)和5.6±2.6 TgN,年均损失约7.76 TgC/yr和0.56TgN/yr,其中耕地土壤碳库分别增加了79.0±7.7 TgC和9.0±0.7 TgN,草地土壤碳氮蓄积量分别损失了100.7±25.9 TgC和9.8±2.2 TgN,林地土壤碳氮蓄积量分别损失了55.9±17.0TgC和4.9±1.1 TgN.同时根据中国6大行政区林地、耕地和草地之间的相互转换面积、土壤有机碳氮密度的变化率进行估算,表明土壤(30 cm和100 cm)有机碳氮蓄积量分别损失了53.7 TgC、5.1 TgN和99.5 TgC、9.4 TgN.由于中国不同地区土地利用变化的空间格局差异显著,从而导致东北地区土壤碳氮蓄积量变化较大,而华东地区变化较小.
Chen Jingming et al. Storages of soil organic carbon and nitrogen and land use changes in China: 1990-2000 .https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0375-5444.2004.04.001 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
基于2473个土壤剖面资料和1980年代末～1990年代末陆地卫星TM影像分析中国1990～2000年林地、草地、耕地之间的土地利用变化对土壤碳氮蓄积量的影响.IPCC建议的国家温室气体清单方法计算表明从1990～2000年中国林地、草地、耕地土壤(30 cm)有机碳氮库分别损失了77.6±35.2 TgC(1Tg=106 t)和5.6±2.6 TgN,年均损失约7.76 TgC/yr和0.56TgN/yr,其中耕地土壤碳库分别增加了79.0±7.7 TgC和9.0±0.7 TgN,草地土壤碳氮蓄积量分别损失了100.7±25.9 TgC和9.8±2.2 TgN,林地土壤碳氮蓄积量分别损失了55.9±17.0TgC和4.9±1.1 TgN.同时根据中国6大行政区林地、耕地和草地之间的相互转换面积、土壤有机碳氮密度的变化率进行估算,表明土壤(30 cm和100 cm)有机碳氮蓄积量分别损失了53.7 TgC、5.1 TgN和99.5 TgC、9.4 TgN.由于中国不同地区土地利用变化的空间格局差异显著,从而导致东北地区土壤碳氮蓄积量变化较大,而华东地区变化较小.
|
| [27] |
Pennington D et al. The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: A case study in the state of Minnesota [J].https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9407-0 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Land-use change has a significant impact on the world's ecosystems. Changes in the extent and composition of forests, grasslands, wetlands and other ecosystems have large impacts on the provision of ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation and returns to landowners. While the change in private returns to landowners due to land-use change can often be measured, changes in the supply and value of ecosystem services and the provision of biodiversity conservation have been harder to quantify. In this paper we use a spatially explicit integrated modeling tool (InVEST) to quantify the changes in ecosystem services, habitat for biodiversity, and returns to landowners from land-use change in Minnesota from 1992 to 2001. We evaluate the impact of actual land-use change and a suite of alternative land-use change scenarios. We find a lack of concordance in the ranking of baseline and alternative land-use scenarios in terms of generation of private returns to landowners and net social benefits (private returns plus ecosystem service value). Returns to landowners are highest in a scenario with large-scale agricultural expansion. This scenario, however, generated the lowest net social benefits across all scenarios considered because of large losses in stored carbon and negative impacts on water quality. Further, this scenario resulted in the largest decline in habitat quality for general terrestrial biodiversity and forest songbirds. Our results illustrate the importance of taking ecosystem services into account in land-use and land-management decision-making and linking such decisions to incentives that accurately reflect social returns.
|
| [28] |
Liang Y C et al. Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program [J].https://doi.org/10.1073/iti0113110 URL [本文引用: 1] |
| [29] |
Nedkov S et al. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
The inconsistency in methods to quantify and map ecosystem services challenges the development of robust values of ecosystem services in national accounts and broader policy and natural resource management decision-making. In this paper we develop and test a blueprint to give guidance on modelling and mapping ecosystem services. The primary purpose of this blueprint is to provide a template and checklist of information needed for those beginning an ecosystem service modelling and mapping study. A secondary purpose is to provide, over time, a database of completed blueprints that becomes a valuable information resource of methods and information used in previous modelling and mapping studies. We base our blueprint on a literature review, expert opinions (as part of a related workshop organised during the 5th ESP conference22090308http://www.espconference.org/previous_editions/80045/5/0/60090309. ) and critical assessment of existing techniques used to model and map ecosystem services. While any study that models and maps ecosystem services will have its unique characteristics and will be largely driven by data and model availability, a tool such as the blueprint presented here will reduce the uncertainty associated with quantifying ecosystem services and thereby help to close the gap between theory and practice.
|
| [30] |
Costanza R et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities [J].https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707823105 URL PMID: 18621701 [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Abstract Global efforts to conserve biodiversity have the potential to deliver economic benefits to people (i.e., "ecosystem services"). However, regions for which conservation benefits both biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be identified unless ecosystem services can be quantified and valued and their areas of production mapped. Here we review the theory, data, and analyses needed to produce such maps and find that data availability allows us to quantify imperfect global proxies for only four ecosystem services. Using this incomplete set as an illustration, we compare ecosystem service maps with the global distributions of conventional targets for biodiversity conservation. Our preliminary results show that regions selected to maximize biodiversity provide no more ecosystem services than regions chosen randomly. Furthermore, spatial concordance among different services, and between ecosystem services and established conservation priorities, varies widely. Despite this lack of general concordance, "win-win" areas-regions important for both ecosystem services and biodiversity-can be usefully identified, both among ecoregions and at finer scales within them. An ambitious interdisciplinary research effort is needed to move beyond these preliminary and illustrative analyses to fully assess synergies and trade-offs in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services.
|
| [31] |
Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.130 URL PMID: 28363174 [本文引用: 2] 摘要
Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services
|
| [32] |
Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Despite the growing body of literature on ecosystem services, still many challenges remain to structurally integrate ecosystem services in landscape planning, management and design. This paper therefore aims to provide an overview of the challenges involved in applying ecosystem service assessment and valuation to environmental management and discuss some solutions to come to a comprehensive and practical framework. First the issue of defining and classifying ecosystem services is discussed followed by approaches to quantify and value ecosystem services. The main part of the paper is focussed on the question how to analyze trade-offs involved in land cover and land use change, including spatial analysis and dynamic modelling tools. Issues of scale are addressed, as well as the question how to determine the total economic value of different management states. Finally, developments and challenges regarding the inclusion of ecosystem services in integrative landscape planning and decision-making tools are discussed. It is concluded that the ecosystem service approach and ecosystem service valuation efforts have changed the terms of discussion on nature conservation, natural resource management, and other areas of public policy. It is now widely recognized that nature conservation and conservation management strategies do not necessarily pose a trade-off between the “environment” and “development”. Investments in conservation, restoration and sustainable ecosystem use are increasingly seen as a “win-win situation” which generates substantial ecological, social and economic benefits.
|
| [33] |
Albert C, von Haaren C. From regional environmental planning to implementation: Paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.031 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Planning and governance at the regional scale is a promising field for the application of the ecosystem service (ES) concept. The objective of this paper is to explore the potential implications of integrating the ES concept into regional planning and governance. We focus on two pathways of influence: (i) information on ES and their values as decision-support in planning and management, ii) the ES concept as a boundary object for facilitating cross-sectoral interaction and collaboration.
|
| [34] |
青藏高原高寒草地生态系统服务价值评估 [J].https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2003.01.007 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
基于Constaza等提出的方法,在对青藏高原天然草地生态系统服务价值根据其生物量订正的基础上,逐项估算了各种草地类型的各项生态服务价值,得出青藏高原天然草地生态系统每年提供的生态服务价值为2571 78×108元,占全国草地生态系统每年服务价值的17 68%。受各类草地生物群落分布广度和单位面积生态服务功能强弱的综合影响,各类草地的生态服务价值贡献率有很大差异,其中,高寒草甸、山地草甸、高寒草原对草地生态系统总服务价值的贡献率分别为62 52%、14 14%、12 92%。根据高寒草地的地域分异特征分亚区进行的生态价值估算结果表明,亚区生态服务价值具有沿东南向西北迅速减小的趋势,这与青藏高原气候条件自东南向西北由温暖湿润转向寒冷干旱是一致的。说明生态系统的地域分布条件对生态服务价值的大小有直接的影响。对毁草种田所产生的生态价值损失估算表明,仅青海和西藏两省区的生态损失每年高达2 29×108元,占两省区GDP总值的0 9%。
Xiao Yu et al.The economic evaluation of grassland ecosystem services in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau .https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-2786.2003.01.007 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
基于Constaza等提出的方法,在对青藏高原天然草地生态系统服务价值根据其生物量订正的基础上,逐项估算了各种草地类型的各项生态服务价值,得出青藏高原天然草地生态系统每年提供的生态服务价值为2571 78×108元,占全国草地生态系统每年服务价值的17 68%。受各类草地生物群落分布广度和单位面积生态服务功能强弱的综合影响,各类草地的生态服务价值贡献率有很大差异,其中,高寒草甸、山地草甸、高寒草原对草地生态系统总服务价值的贡献率分别为62 52%、14 14%、12 92%。根据高寒草地的地域分异特征分亚区进行的生态价值估算结果表明,亚区生态服务价值具有沿东南向西北迅速减小的趋势,这与青藏高原气候条件自东南向西北由温暖湿润转向寒冷干旱是一致的。说明生态系统的地域分布条件对生态服务价值的大小有直接的影响。对毁草种田所产生的生态价值损失估算表明,仅青海和西藏两省区的生态损失每年高达2 29×108元,占两省区GDP总值的0 9%。
|
| [35] |
Reframing landscape fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem services [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.011 URL PMID: 25716547 [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Landscape structure and fragmentation have important effects on ecosystem services, with a common assumption being that fragmentation reduces service provision. This is based on fragmentation's expected effects on ecosystem service supply, but ignores how fragmentation influences the flow of services to people. Here we develop a new conceptual framework that explicitly considers the links between landscape fragmentation, the supply of services, and the flow of services to people. We argue that fragmentation's effects on ecosystem service flow can be positive or negative, and use our framework to construct testable hypotheses about the effects of fragmentation on final ecosystem service provision. Empirical efforts to apply and test this framework are critical to improving landscape management for multiple ecosystem services.
|
| [36] |
Snapp R R et al. Service path attribution networks (spans): A network flow approach to ecosystem service assessment [J].https://doi.org/10.4018/jaeis.2012070104 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Ecosystem services are the effects on human well-being of the flow of benefits from ecosystems to people over given extents of space and time. The Service Path Attribution Network ( span ) model provides a spatial framework for quantifying these flows, providing a new means of estimating these economic benefits. This approach discovers dependencies between provision and usage endpoints, spatial competition among users for scarce resources, and landscape effects on ecosystem service flows. Particularly novel is the model ability to identify the relative density of these flows throughout landscapes and to determine which areas are affected by upstream flow depletion. span descriptions have been developed for a number of services(aesthetic viewsheds, proximity to open space, carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, nutrient cycling, and avoided sedimentation/deposition), which vary in scale of effect, mechanism of provision and use, and type of flow. Results using real world data are shown for the US Puget Sound region.
|
| [37] |
Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery [J].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
Ecosystem services provide an instinctive way to understand the trade-offs associated with natural resource management. However, despite their apparent usefulness, several hurdles have prevented ecosystem services from becoming deeply embedded in environmental decision-making. Ecosystem service studies vary widely in focal services, geographic extent, and in methods for defining and measuring services. Dissent among scientists on basic terminology and approaches to evaluating ecosystem services create difficulties for those trying to incorporate ecosystem services into decision-making. To facilitate clearer comparison among recent studies, we provide a synthesis of common terminology and explain a rationale and framework for distinguishing among the components of ecosystem service delivery, including: an ecosystem's capacity to produce services; ecological pressures that interfere with an ecosystem's ability to provide the service; societal demand for the service; and flow of the service to people. We discuss how interpretation and measurement of these four components can differ among provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Our flexible framework treats service capacity, ecological pressure, demand, and flow as separate but interactive entities to improve our ability to evaluate the sustainability of service provision and to help guide management decisions. We consider ecosystem service provision to be sustainable when demand is met without decreasing capacity for future provision of that service or causing undesirable declines in other services. When ecosystem service demand exceeds ecosystem capacity to provide services, society can choose to enhance natural capacity, decrease demand and/or ecological pressure, or invest in a technological substitute. Because regulating services are frequently overlooked in environmental assessments, we provide a more detailed examination of regulating services and propose a novel method for quantifying the flow of regulating services based on estimates of ecological work. We anticipate that our synthesis and framework will reduce inconsistency and facilitate coherence across analyses of ecosystem services, thereby increasing their utility in environmental decision-making.
|
| [38] |
区域生态安全空间格局评价模型的研究 [J].https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2008.01.004 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
生态安全是区域社会经济可持续发展的重要保障,区域生态安全评价是区域可持续发展的科学基础。通过分析影响区域生态安全的主要因素,采用少量、有代表性的指标,建立生态安全空间格局模型;提出了用区位系数表达自然地域差异在生态环境方面的特征,为定量化表达地理空间生态环境特征和评价区域生态安全支持系统能力提供了新方法;用GDP和人口数量两个指标,描述区域人类社会系统所产生的生态安全负荷量;用区域森林分布生物量作为生态安全支持系统的能力指标。以福建省长汀县为例,对以水土流失为特征的长汀县生态安全问题进行了定量评价,结果为生态安全和比较安全的区域占全县面积的87.75%。文中讨论了区域森林资源、地理特征和人为活动等因素对区域生态安全的影响,其中,人为活动是影响区域生态安全的关键因素。
Spatial pattern modelling of ecological security assessment in a region .https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-1522.2008.01.004 URL [本文引用: 1] 摘要
生态安全是区域社会经济可持续发展的重要保障,区域生态安全评价是区域可持续发展的科学基础。通过分析影响区域生态安全的主要因素,采用少量、有代表性的指标,建立生态安全空间格局模型;提出了用区位系数表达自然地域差异在生态环境方面的特征,为定量化表达地理空间生态环境特征和评价区域生态安全支持系统能力提供了新方法;用GDP和人口数量两个指标,描述区域人类社会系统所产生的生态安全负荷量;用区域森林分布生物量作为生态安全支持系统的能力指标。以福建省长汀县为例,对以水土流失为特征的长汀县生态安全问题进行了定量评价,结果为生态安全和比较安全的区域占全县面积的87.75%。文中讨论了区域森林资源、地理特征和人为活动等因素对区域生态安全的影响,其中,人为活动是影响区域生态安全的关键因素。
|
| [39] |
景观生态恢复与重建是区域生态安全格局构建的关键途径 [J].A vital method for constructing regional ecological security pattern: landscape ecological restoration and rehabil itation . |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
