, 王晓莉Methods, tools and research framework of ecosystem service trade-offs
DAIErfu, WANGXiaoli收稿日期:2016-01-21
修回日期:2016-04-24
网络出版日期:2016-06-20
版权声明:2016《地理研究》编辑部《地理研究》编辑部
基金资助:
作者简介:
-->
展开
摘要
关键词：
Abstract
Keywords：
-->0
PDF (998KB)元数据多维度评价相关文章收藏文章
本文引用格式导出EndNoteRisBibtex收藏本文-->
1 引言
自1997年Daily和Costanza等提出“生态系统服务”概念以来,不同时空尺度上生态系统服务的类型和价值评估已得到普遍的认识和研究[1,2],但生态系统服务之间此消彼长的权衡关系或相互增益的协同关系却没有得到足够的重视和分析[3-5]。一种生态系统服务供给能力的提升常常以牺牲其他生态系统服务为代价[4-6],对生态系统服务权衡/协同关系的忽视可能会导致某些生态系统服务供给能力下降,甚至威胁整个生态系统的稳定和安全[7]。因此,生态系统管理不能仅仅追逐单一生态系统服务效益,而必须权衡和兼顾多种生态系统服务,使其综合效益最大[8,9]。另一方面,随着生态系统服务研究的不断深入,“生态系统结构、过程与功能—生态系统服务—人类收益与福祉”的级联研究框架初步建立[10],多学科和跨学科生态系统服务研究的重要性日益凸显[11]。生态系统服务强调以被人类利用为核心[1,2],尤其是在当前世界人口和物质资料需求仍然在不断增长的背景下,开展生态系统服务权衡研究对优化自然资源开发和利用,遏制区域生态环境恶化和缓解生态贫困、应对全球气候变化和提升人类福祉有重要意义[12]。生态系统服务权衡研究旨在实现不同层次的生态系统服务可持续供给[8],力求在充分认识生态系统服务之间多重非线性关系、类型特征、响应速率、驱动机制和尺度效应的基础上,找到生态保护与社会—经济发展之间的平衡点,提出科学合理的生态系统服务管理策略,以实现不同利益相关方的效益最大化[9]。近年来,生态系统服务权衡研究已成为生态学、地理学和生态经济学等学科的热点和前沿[13-15]。国内外大量****对生态系统服务权衡/协同关系辨识、表现形式、时空尺度特征、驱动机制和情景变化等[16-19]内容进行了模拟分析,涌现了诸多研究方法,目前迫切需要对这些研究方法进行梳理、分析和总结,以推动生态系统服务权衡研究的理论构建和方法集成。
2 生态系统服务权衡的研究方法
根据国内外现有生态系统服务权衡研究方法的学科来源、理论基础和技术平台差异,将其分为四类：统计学方法、空间分析方法、情景模拟方法和生态系统服务流动性分析方法（表1）。Tab. 1
表1
表1生态系统服务权衡研究的方法概况
Tab. 1Description of all ecosystem services trade-off methods
| 研究方法 | 数据基础 | 方法原理 | 技术平台 | 目的 | 优点 | 不足 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 统计学方法 | 政府部门、观测站点和样地实测等数据 | 相关性分析、回归分析、聚类分析、冗余分析等 | SPSS、R、Matlab等 | 分析生态系统服务数量变化的统计特征 | 简单、快捷,对数据类型没有严格要求 | 采用离散的区域汇总数据或样点数据进行分析,掩盖了区域内部的空间异质性 |
| 空间分析方法 | 不同生态系统服务或环境因子的空间地图数据 | 地理信息系统技术 | GIS软件 | 生态系统服务之间空间格局和尺度效应对比分析 | 与空间位置相联系,利于生态系统服务权衡的机理分析 | 时空尺度和空间数据分辨率选择很重要,可能过滤掉重要的细节信息 |
| 情景模拟分析方法 | 空间化的情景预案数据 | 不同土地利用动态、农业管理模式、森林经营措施等情景下的生态系统服务动态变化模拟 | Clue-s、SWAT、InVEST等情景模拟模型和GIS软件共同实现 | 不同情景下生态系统服务之间空间格局和尺度效应的对比分析 | 生态系统服务权衡动态变化的研究和预测 | 情景预案的科学性和合理性 |
| 服务流动性分析方法 | 生态系统服务供给—传输—利用过程的所有特征数据 | 网络分析技术 原理 | ARIES模型、GIS软件 | 生态系统服务供给量、需求量、传输路径的空间格局和尺度特征的对比分析 | 涵盖了生态系统服务供给—传输—利用整个过程 | 目前只应用于粮食生产、渔业养殖等少数服务类型权衡研究,需要程序编写技术 |
新窗口打开
2.1 统计学方法
统计学方法是指采用统计方法分析多种生态系统服务价值之间的数量关系,最终确定生态系统服务管理的权衡/协同关系和优化方案。统计学方法的数据来源广泛,所有与生态系统服务价值相关的社会经济统计和调查数据、自然环境因素野外监测数据、评估数据等都可以用于服务权衡统计分析[20,21]。统计学方法在生态系统服务权衡研究中主要用于以下几方面：① 快速识别和定量比较生态系统服务之间的作用关系。例如Bai等采用相关性分析对比了白洋淀流域生物多样性、授粉服务、氮截留、磷截留、土壤保持、水源供给和植被固碳7种服务功能之间的作用关系类型和强度[22]。② 筛选典型的生态系统服务权衡/协同关系和影响因素。采用聚类分析和冗余分析可以对庞杂的生态系统服务和影响因子集合进行重要性排序和分类,将生态系统服务之间关系的研究转变为几种典型“生态系统服务簇”之间关系的研究[23,24],进而根据服务供给特征进行管理单元的聚类分析,提高权衡管理决策的针对性和工作效率。例如Turner等采用聚类分析将丹麦11种生态系统服务功能分为4类生态系统服务簇,并根据4类生态系统服务簇的供给能力差异将丹麦划分为6组生态系统服务供给类型区进行管理[25]。③ 方便采用易于操作的统计模型或多目标优化模型模拟不同类型生态系统服务价值、生态系统服务总体效益和影响因素之间的关系。例如Deines等采用赞比亚卡富埃河流域渔业产出与年径流量之间的数量模型,分析了水坝建设对渔业产出量的影响,结果表明水坝建设减小了鱼类丰富度,渔业产出每年会损失约230万美元[26];Bradford等采用生态系统服务的价值汇总和标准差计算来对比美国明尼苏达州5种森林管理方案对生态系统服务的影响,结果表明林分密度提高最有利于提升生态系统服务价值,减少服务冲突[27]。
2.2 空间分析方法
空间分析方法是采用GIS工具对单一生态系统服务和环境要素进行空间叠加、地图运算等空间处理,分析其空间上的特征,识别生态系统服务权衡/协同的类型和区域[9]。空间分析方法是揭示生态系统服务权衡/协同时空尺度特征的重要途径,有利于权衡管理决策落实在特定空间位置上,具有以下优点：① 量化单一生态系统服务的空间特征和尺度效应。例如Turner等采用空间自相关方法研究了丹麦地区11种生态系统服务的尺度特征,结果表明畜牧生产、粮食生产和淡水供给服务在150 km的空间范围内为聚集分布,其他8种生态系统服务在50 km的空间范围内为聚集分布[25]。② 对比不同生态系统服务之间的空间特征差异。例如Egoh等采用空间叠加方法研究了南非境内淡水供给、水文调节、土壤保持、土壤形成、植被固碳5种生态系统服务之间的空间重合度,结果表明两种服务之间土壤积累和水文调节的空间重合度最大,植被固碳和淡水供给的空间重合度最小,任意4种生态系统服务的空间重合度总和约为30%,5种生态系统服务的空间重合度仅为5%[28]。③ 进行生态系统服务供给能力等级划分和空间特征比较。例如Cademus等对美国东南部湿地松林碳存储、木材生产和淡水供给3种服务进行级别划分和空间叠置,表明供给能力均较低的区域面积占到19.6%,供给能力中等的区域比例仅为1.1%,任意两种生态系统服务供给能力较高的比例为1.3%[29]。④ 基于不同时段的生态系统服务空间制图揭示服务权衡/协同的时间尺度特征。例如李屹峰等基于三期（1990年、2000年、2009年）土地覆被数据研究了密云水库流域淡水供给、植被固碳、土壤保持、水质净化4种生态系统服务的价值变化,结果表明森林面积增加有利于固碳服务和土壤保持服务的增加,但减少了区域淡水供给能力,建筑用地面积的增加大幅度削弱了水质净化服务[30]。
2.3 情景模拟方法
情景模拟方法是通过制定若干气候变化、生态保护或社会经济发展优先或兼顾的情景分析生态系统服务价值及作用关系的动态变化[9],其情景制定可通过结合生物多样性保护规划模型、土地利用动态变化模拟模型、气候变化模拟模型等实现。该方法有利于揭示土地利用/覆被变化、政策管理和森林经营管理变化等对未来生态系统服务价值、作用关系和总体效益的影响,以用于指导生态系统服务管理决策。例如Egoh等采用MARXAN模型分析了南非草地生态系统4种管理情景下,生物多样性保护、淡水供给、水文调节、土壤保持、土壤形成和植被固碳5种生态系统服务供给区域的选择差异[17];Meehan等采用InVEST模型研究了美国中西部滨岸生态系统多年生牧草种植和玉米种植2种管理情景对7种生态系统服务价值和总体效益的影响,结果表明种植多年生牧草会造成粮食生产和牧草生产等供给服务减少75%,但其他5种服务功能（能量产出、淡水供给、N/P污染净化、水质净化、授粉昆虫）等均有不同程度增加（6%~33%）[31];Lautenbach等采用SWAT模型研究了德国帕特河流域26种作物种植模式对粮食产出、水量调节、生物能源和水质净化4种生态系统服务的影响,并采用NSGA-II算法构建了生态系统服务效益最优解集合[32]。
2.4 服务流动性分析方法
生态系统服务的供给量与需求量常常在空间不匹配,因而会在空间上产生流动过程[33]。服务流动性分析方法通过对单一生态系统服务的供给量、需求量和传输路径特征进行分析和建模来识别其流动特征和关键点,分析生态系统服务权衡的类型和区域[34,35]该方法首先明晰了生态系统服务的类型和供给特征,进而实现对生态系统服务空间流动过程的量化和“源”、“汇”区域识别[36-39],有利于对生态系统服务进行分类保护和管理,以及定量测度人类活动对生态系统服务供给和需求的影响[40]。例如Locatelli等对哥斯达黎加地区淡水供给和景观美学两种生态系统服务供给量和需求量的对比分析,结果表明淡水需求区域主要位于中心城市所在区域和西部的尼科亚半岛区域,而供给区域则在高海拔林地以及中部山脉林地,景观美学服务的主要需求区为森林景观边缘的旅游景点所在区域,而主要供给区域为奥萨半岛[24]。Johnson等对美国圣佩德罗河流域南部地区旅游休憩服务的供给和使用过程的分析,结果表明旅游休憩服务的供给区域和需求区域之间具有很好的空间一致性,其传输过程中服务损耗也很低[41]。目前,服务流动性分析方法主要应用在淡水供给、渔业生产、旅游休憩等供给量和需求量比较容易量化的生态系统服务权衡研究中,水源涵养、洪水调节、土壤形成等调节或支持类服务由于需求量难以量化,其应用案例尚不多见。上述四类方法从不同角度实现了生态系统服务权衡研究的定量化表达,促进了国内外生态系统服务权衡研究工作的推广,但仍存在一些限制和不足,需要在使用时加以注意和改进：① 数据的分辨率和精度。统计数据或空间数据分辨率较大时,有利于揭示不同区域上生态系统服务权衡的细节信息,但会增加数据处理难度;数据分辨率较小时,常采用汇总数据或代表性样点数据表征一个区域的生态系统服务,造成一些重要的生态系统服务权衡/协同关系可能因为相关性不显著而被忽视,也不可避免地掩盖区域内部环境异质性对生态系统服务的影响,进而降低服务权衡管理对策的区域实用性。② 时空尺度选取。时空尺度影响着生态系统服务权衡的研究对象。不同类型的生态系统服务,所对应的时空尺度范围不同。供给类的生态系统服务多依赖于生态系统尺度,而文化类的生态系统服务更多依赖于行政管理尺度。忽略两者的尺度差异会造成一些生态系统服务的价值估算误差,从而降低这些生态系统服务在权衡管理决策中的实践可行性。时空尺度也影响着情景模拟预案的关键环境因素。大尺度的土地利用动态变化模拟、景观动态变化模拟需考虑气候和城市化因素的影响;小尺度的景观动态模拟则需关注人类活动和管理措施对区域环境的影响。③ 生态系统服务需求量估算方法尚不成熟。目前,不同类型生态系统服务供给量的估算已经具有较统一、广泛接受的计算方法,但其需求量的计算方法还较少,且不同研究之间存在很大差异。如旅游休憩服务的需求量计算,有些****采用风景区一定范围内的居民数量和旅游者数量来表征[23],有些****采用单位面积的经济产出来表征[42]。因此,为了继续深入生态系统服务权衡研究,未来需要构建能够广泛接受的,普遍适用的不同类型生态系统服务需求量的计算方法,以扩展四类生态系统服务权衡研究方法的应用范围。
3 生态系统服务权衡模型
生态系统服务权衡模型的发展,极大促进了多种类型生态系统服务的价值量化、空间叠置分析和不同土地利用/覆被变化、管理决策情景下生态系统服务价值变化、权衡/协同关系和总体效益的定量模拟[43-45],为生态系统服务权衡研究提供了重要工具。本研究总结梳理国内外现有的可用于生态系统服务权衡分析的模型（表2）,并对模型机理和使用现状进行阐述。Tab. 2
表2
表2主要的生态系统服务权衡模型概述
Tab. 2Description of main ecosystem services trade-off valuation tools
| 模型名称 | 开发者 | 模型类型 | 可获得性 | 利益相关者的引入 | 适用的空间尺度 | 结果形式 | 应用地区 | 功能描述 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InVEST(Integrated Valuation of Ecosysytem services and tradeoffs) | 美国斯坦福大学和世界自然基金会 | 生态生产功能 | 公开 | 可选 | 景观或流域尺度 | 物质量/货币 | 美洲、非洲、亚洲等20个国家和地区 | 具有多个生态系统服务评估模块,可以量化土地利用/覆被变化情景下的服务功能变化 |
| ARIES(Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) | 美国佛蒙特大学、西班牙巴斯克气候变化研究中心、美国国际保护协会、墨西哥生态协会 | 价值转移 | 公开 | 可选 | 景观或流域尺度 | 物质量/货币 | 美国普及特海湾、亚利桑那州、多米尼加共和国、非洲马达加斯加岛的一些区域 | 通过人工智能和语义建模实现多种生态系统服务空间流动过程的评估和量化 |
| NAIS(Natural Assets Information system) | 国际自然资产实验室空间信息工作组（SIG-NAL） | 价值转移 | 非公开 | 可选 | 景观或流域尺度 | 货币 | 美国阿拉斯加州、加利福尼亚州、内华达州等区域 | 通过文献数据确定不同景观类型的生态系统服务价值,评估不同规划或管理情景下的生态系统服务价值变化 |
| Envision | 美国俄勒冈州立大学 | 人类偏好 | 非公开 | 需要 | 景观尺度 | 物质量/货币 | 美国太平洋西北部地区 | 基于用户、空间直观的景观变化评估不同发展情景下的生态系统服务变化 |
| EPM(Ecosystem Protfolio Model) | 美国地质调查局（USGS） | 人类偏好 | 公开 | 需要 | 景观或流域尺度 | 物质量/货币 | 美国圣克鲁斯河流域 | 基于多标准情景模拟框架、土地利用/覆被变化敏感模型等信息评价生态价值变化 |
| EcoAIM(Ecosystem services Asset, Inventory and Management) | Exponent公司 | 人类偏好 | 非公开 | 需要 | 景观或流域尺度 | 价值指数 | 美国马里兰州 | 使用风险分析方法评估不同土地管理决策、生态学修复决策情景下的生态系统服务变化 |
| ESValue(Valuing ecosystem services) | Entrix公司 | 人类偏好 | 非公开 | 需要 | 景观或流域尺度 | 价值指数 | 美国佛罗里达州南部地区 | 通过专家观点、文献数据、利益相关者偏好等确定生态系统服务相对价值,评估不同管理情景下的生态系统服务变化 |
新窗口打开
3.1 InVEST模型
InVEST模型是一种基于生态生产过程评估和权衡生态系统服务的综合模型。该模型整合了多种生态系统过程模型[39,46],能够借助土地利用/覆被数据、物理环境因子数据和社会经济因子数据评估多种生态系统服务的物质量和价值量,并能通过输入不同政策情景下的土地利用/覆被参数和空间叠置分析工具模拟生态系统服务价值的时空尺度变化和生态系统服务之间的权衡关系。InVEST模型迄今已经发布了31个版本,由9种海洋性生态系统服务（波能、风能、海岸带脆弱性、海岸侵蚀保护、渔业产品、美学欣赏、旅游休憩、生境风险评估、海水净化）和7种陆地生态系统服务（生物多样性、碳储存、土壤保持、水电生产、传粉服务、木材生产和水质净化）的评估模块组成,未来还将继续开发防洪减灾、农业生产、海水水质净化等模块[46]。InVEST模型具有使用简洁、模拟多样和被广泛认可等优点[39,47],目前已在美洲、非洲、亚洲等20个国家和地区的相关研究中得到广泛应用[18,48]。但InVEST模型对一些算法和生态过程的简化也使其具有许多局限性[49],如在生物多样性模块中对多种胁迫因子的累积作用进行简单加和处理,对域外胁迫因子的忽略和胁迫强度在边界区域的弱化;海水质量模块水流过程只考虑了水平方向的物质迁移运动,忽略了垂直方向的水质净化过程;碳储存和固碳模块将不同植被类型各个碳库的固碳速率视为常量,忽略了固碳速率的动态变化以及不同碳库之间的碳循环过程等[50],因此在应用时应谨慎评估模型结果的适用性。3.2 ARIES模型
ARIES模型是一种通过生态系统服务价值空间流动过程进行生态系统服务权衡分析的综合模型。ARIES模型采用人工智能和语义建模对具体生态系统服务的供给、使用和空间流动进行模拟计算和空间制图[34],采用贝叶斯概率模型模拟自然和社会经济因子对生态系统服务的影响[40],并通过生态系统服务供给、需求和传输路径空间制图之间的叠置分析权衡生态系统服务需求矛盾和服务之间的空间冲突,指导生态系统服务权衡管理。目前,ARIES模型包括8种生态系统服务分析模块（碳吸收和碳储存、河流洪峰调节、海岸带洪水调节、美学视域分析、渔业生产、泥沙调节、淡水供给和旅游休憩）,使用者可以通过网络浏览器访问具体的生态系统服务模块和空间数据集[34]。相比其他评估模型,ARIES模型增加了生态系统服务不同主体（提供者、使用者、传输者）和服务流动过程的动态分析,并拥有由一系列地理背景数据和生态过程算法组成的模块库,可以根据研究需要自由进行运算模块的组合[40],评估精度较高,应用前景良好。3.3 其他模型
EcoAIM模型能够采用风险分析方法和利益相关者的权重矩阵评估生态系统服务价值变化,可用于不同土地资源交易或生态修复决策情景下生态系统服务的权衡分析[46,49]。ESValue模型通过将生态系统服务价值已有信息、专家经验和利益相关者的偏好整合在一起来确定生态系统服务的相对价值,可以分析不同管理策略对生态系统服务价值变化和权衡关系的影响,有助于确立最适合的自然资产管理策略[46,49]。Envision模型是基于用户、空间直观的景观变化和未来可选情景分析规划工具来评估不同发展情景下生态系统服务之间的权衡关系,生态系统服务价值变化通过一系列生态系统服务指标来表征[51]。EPM模型是基于多标准情景模拟框架、GIS分析和空间直观的土地利用/覆被变化模型等信息评估不同情景下生态系统服务、土地地块、社区生活质量的价值变化及其权衡关系[49,52]。NAIS模型是一个决策支持系统框架,包括了一个为生境类型估算生态系统服务价值的GIS数据库和查询引擎[46],可以基于地理单元和土地利用/覆被类型绘制表征生态系统服务的价值流,多用于较小空间尺度的土地利用规划情景对生态系统服务价值影响和权衡关系的分析。综上,上述生态系统服务权衡模型还处于起步阶段,仍具有很多限制和不足：生态系统服务模拟算法和评估结果的不确定性分析有待提高;更多调节和支持类生态系统服务的评估模块有待开发和推广;景观格局、生态系统结构和功能状态空间异质性对生态系统服务的影响还需细化;人类活动和管理情景的模拟还具有很大的主观性和变动性;服务之间的权衡关系表达还过于简化,对输入参数的依赖性太强,也不能很好地阐述生态系统服务权衡的驱动机制和时空尺度动态变化特征。未来,生态系统服务权衡模型还需进一步完善模型机理,增强对生态过程和环境过程的模拟,更好地表达生态系统服务之间的作用特征和作用机理。
4 生态系统服务权衡的研究框架
生态系统服务权衡研究正处于初步发展阶段[53],虽然现有的研究方法和生态系统服务权衡研究模型仍不能全面地揭示生态系统服务权衡/协同关系与生态系统结构和功能以及人类活动之间的联系,有效地输出生态系统服务管理和效益优化方案,但仍可以为构建生态系统服务权衡研究的理论框架提供重要的切入点,为此提出生态系统服务权衡研究的核心内容及其逻辑关系（图1）：
显示原图|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT图1生态系统服务权衡研究理论框架
-->Fig. 1Research framework of ecosystem service trade-offs
-->
（1）生态系统服务供给/需求的时空尺度特征和相互作用研究。不同的时空尺度下,区域景观类型和社会经济条件存在差异,造成生态系统服务的类型、供给需求能力、空间特征和作用关系产生差异。量化不同时空尺度上不同类型生态系统服务的供给需求能力及空间布局、服务之间相互作用是合理确定区域生态系统服务权衡对象和目标的基本要求。国内外****针对不同时空尺度上生态系统服务的供给量和作用关系进行了大量研究,结果表明生态系统服务之间的尺度分异和权衡或协同关系是普遍存在的[17,27],且生态系统服务之间的作用关系会表现出区域差异性[22,23]。但针对生态系统服务需求量时空尺度分异和作用关系的研究还较少,多是基于空间上生态系统服务的需求等级指数和需求量调查数据进行生态系统服务需求权衡关系分析[24,33]。
（2）生态系统服务效益优化研究。权衡研究的目标是尽可能地减少生态系统服务冲突,增加服务协同效应,提升生态系统服务总体效益。量化生态系统服务价值变化与生态系统服务总体效益之间的关系为比较不同生态系统服务管理对策优劣提供了重要途径,也有利于引入经济学的理论和方法实现生态系统服务的多目标优化管理,并从市场机制的视角度量人类活动影响和生态系统服务权衡管理影响[54]。目前,生态系统服务效益研究工作集中于生态经济学领域,一些****采用经验方程、数量模型、多目标优化算法等统计学方法分析供给型生态系统服务经济效益变化与市场机制、政策管理、环境因子改变之间的权衡关系[6,26,27,42],而对于难以货币化的生态系统服务效益的权衡关系分析则重视不足。
（3）生态系统服务权衡驱动机制研究。生态系统服务变化往往伴随着景观结构与格局的改变,甚至可能有土壤理化性质、蒸发和下渗等环境机制的变化[30,55]。因此,为了维护全球环境稳定和保证生态系统服务可持续供给,需要量化生态系统服务变化与生态系统的结构和功能变化之间的动态关系、反馈机制和作用强度,量化政府政策和市场机制对生态系统服务管理的影响机制和区域差异。国内外大量****从不同的学科角度分析了宏观尺度上生态系统服务权衡的驱动机制,如采用多时期土地利用/覆被数据研究城市化过程对生态系统服务权衡的影响[30],采用抽样调查数据研究政府政策和人类选择偏好对生态系统服务权衡的影响[42],采用模型情景模拟研究市场价格浮动、管理策略对生态系统服务权衡的影响[17,31]等。小尺度上生态系统服务权衡机制以及生态系统服务价值变化与生态过程和环境过程之间的反馈机制研究仍然较少,亟待加强[32]。
5 结论与讨论
（1）量化和模拟权衡/协同关系的时空尺度特征是生态系统服务权衡研究的重要内容。目前,越来越多的生态系统服务权衡研究工作向着空间化和动态化的方向发展,并联合使用GIS软件、土地利用/覆被变化动态模拟模型、多目标优化算法模型和生态系统模拟模型等多种技术模拟生态系统服务之间相互作用的时空尺度效应和权衡管理。不同时空尺度下生态系统服务供给、传输、使用和再生产循环过程的权衡研究也逐渐受到国内外****的重视[49],生态系统服务“源”、“汇”和服务流动的空间制图和特征分析将是生态系统服务权衡研究一个新的发展方向。（2）生态系统服务权衡模型将成为生态系统服务权衡研究的重要手段。InVEST、ARIES等模型的发展为多种生态系统服务价值的空间制图和比较分析提供了便利,也促进了气候变化、土地利用/覆被变化、政府决策等不同情景下生态系统服务权衡研究的模拟分析,为自然资产管理决策者评估人类活动和社会管理对生态系统服务权衡的影响提供了重要途径。但现有生态系统服务权衡模型多从环境因子参数变化对生态系统服务价值影响的角度探讨生态系统服务之间的权衡关系,尚不能很好地解释生态系统服务权衡驱动机制和动态变化。因此在模型使用时,需结合生态学和环境学理论知识评估模型分析结果的准确性和适用性,揭示生态系统服务权衡关系机理。
（3）模型的应用和本土化是生态系统服务“量化—权衡—决策”的重要环节。当前的生态系统服务评估和权衡模型大多都是由国外****开发,引入国内相关研究中使用时都需要考虑数据的适用性和参数修正[49]。目前国内已有****引入InVEST模型进行生态系统服务评估和权衡研究[18,22,47,48],ARIES、EcoAIM等其他模型还有待被引入和进行效果评估,以促进国内权衡研究成果与国际相关研究成果之间的对比和综合[34,56],并推进中国本土化生态系统服务评估和权衡模型的开发和使用。
（4）多学科/跨学科综合研究是未来生态系统服务权衡研究的重要方向。依据“生态系统结构、过程与功能—生态系统服务—人类收益与福祉”的级联框架,提出了生态系统服务权衡研究“特征—效益—驱动机制”的理论框架,并指出生态系统服务权衡研究正逐渐向多学科/跨学科综合性方向发展。
当前,采用地理学和生态学相关理论和方法揭示生态系统服务权衡的时空特征、区域特征和驱动机制的研究较多,但结合经济学和管理学理论和方法进行生态系统服务效益量化和决策制定的研究还较少,生态系统服务总体效益和单一服务效益之间动态关系的量化和评估研究明显不足。因此,未来的生态系统服务权衡研究将更多地引入经济学和管理学的理论和方法,加强生态系统服务“地理化”研究和生态系统服务“社会经济化”研究的结合。
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
参考文献 原文顺序
文献年度倒序
文中引用次数倒序
被引期刊影响因子
| [1] | |
| [2] | . 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. |
| [3] | . Ecosystem management that attempts to maximize the production of one ecosystem service often results in substantial declines in the provision of other ecosystem services. For this reason, recent studies have called for increased attention to development of a theoretical understanding behind the relationships among ecosystem services. Here, we review the literature on ecosystem services and propose a typology of relationships between ecosystem services based on the role of drivers and the interactions between services. We use this typology to develop three propositions to help drive ecological science towards a better understanding of the relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Research which aims to understand the relationships among multiple ecosystem services and the mechanisms behind these relationships will improve our ability to sustainably manage landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services. |
| [4] | . |
| [5] | . Ecosystem service (ES) trade-offs arise from management choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude, and relative mix of services provided by ecosystems. Trade-offs occur when the provision of one ES is reduced as a consequence of increased use of another ES. In some cases, a trade-off may be an explicit choice; but in others, trade-offs arise without premeditation or even awareness that they are taking place. Trade-offs in ES can be classified along three axes: spatial scale, temporal scale, and reversibility. Spatial scale refers to whether the effects of the trade-off are felt locally or at a distant location. Temporal scale refers to whether the effects take place relatively rapidly or slowly. Reversibility expresses the likelihood that the perturbed ES may return to its original state if the perturbation ceases. Across all four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios and selected case study examples, trade-off decisions show a preference for provisioning, regulating, or cultural services (in that order). Supporting services are more likely to be “taken for granted.” Cultural ES are almost entirely unquantified in scenario modeling; therefore, the calculated model results do not fully capture losses of these services that occur in the scenarios. The quantitative scenario models primarily capture the services that are perceived by society as more important—provisioning and regulating ecosystem services—and thus do not fully capture trade-offs of cultural and supporting services. Successful management policies will be those that incorporate lessons learned from prior decisions into future management actions. Managers should complement their actions with monitoring programs that, in addition to monitoring the short-term provisions of services, also monitor the long-term evolution of slowly changing variables. Policies can then be developed to take into account ES trade-offs at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Successful strategies will recognize the inherent complexities of ecosystem management and will work to develop policies that minimize the effects of ES trade-offs. |
| [6] | . |
| [7] | . As the human population grows and natural resources decline, there is pressure to apply increasing levels of top-down, command-and-control management to natural resources. This is manifested in attempts to control ecosystems and in socioeconomic institutions that respond to erratic or surprising ecosystem behavior with more control. Command and control, however, usually results in unforeseen consequences for both natural ecosystems and human welfare in the form of collapsing resources, social and economic strife, and losses of biological diversity. We describe the “pathology of natural resource management,” defined as a loss of system resilience when the range of natural variation in the system is reduced encapsulates the unsustainable environmental, social, and economic outcomes of command-and-control resource management. If natural levels of variation in system behavior are reduced through command-and-control, then the system becomes less resilient to external perturbations, resulting in crises and surprises. We provide several examples of this pathology in management. An ultimate pathology emerges when resource management agencies, through initial success with command and control, lose sight of their original purposes, eliminate research and monitoring, and focus on efficiency of control. They then become isolated from the managed systems and inflexible in structure. Simultaneously, through overcapitalization, society becomes dependent upon command and control, demands it in greater intensity, and ignores the underlying ecological change or collapse that is developing. Solutions to this pathology cannot come from further command and control (regulations) but must come from innovative approaches involving incentives leading to more resilient ecosystems, more flexible agencies, more self-reliant industries, and a more knowledgeable citizenry. We discuss several aspects of ecosystem pattern and dynamics at large scales that provide insight into ecosystem resilience, and we propose a “Golden Rule” of natural resource management that we believe is necessary for sustainability: management should strive to retain critical types and ranges of natural variation in resource systems in order to maintain their resiliency. A medida que la población humana crece y los recursos naturales declinan, existen presiones para aplicar niveles crecientes de manejo de recursos naturales verticalistas y de comando-y-control. Esto se manifesta en los intentos de controlar los ecosistemas y en instituciones socioeconómicas que responden a los comportamientos erráticos o sorpresivos de los ecosistemas con más control. Sin embargo, el comando-y-control tiene usualmente resultados imprevistos tanto para los ecosistemas naturales como para el bienestar humano, tales resultados toman la forma de recursos que colapsan, conflictos sociales y económicos y pérdidas de la diversidad biológica. En el presente trabajo, describimos la “patología del manejo de los recursos naturales” (definida como una pérdida de la elasticidad del sistema cuando la magnitud de la variación natural en el sistema es reducida), que condensa los resultados ambientales-sociales-económicos insostenibles producidos por el manejo de recursos con una óptica de comando-y-control. Si los niveles de variación natural en el comportamiento de un sistema son reducidos a través de comando-y-control, entonces el sistema se hace menos elastico a las perturbaciones externas, lo cual resulta en crisis y sorpresas. Nosotros proveemos de varios ejemplos de esta patología en el manejo. Una patología extrema surge cuando las agencias de manejo de recursos, pierden de vista sus propósitos originales debido al éxito del uso de comando-y-control, eliminando la investigación y el monitoreo y concentrándose en la eficiencia y el control. De esta forma, estas agencias se aislan de los sistemas bajo manejo y se hacen mas inflexibles en su estructura. Simultaneamente y por medio de la sobrecapitalizacion, la sociedad se hace más dependiente del comando-y-control, demanda con mayores intensidades e ignora los cambios ecológicos subyacentes o el colapso que se esta desarrollando. Las soluciones a esta patología no pueden provenir de un mayor comando-y-control (reglamentos), sino que deben provenir de estrategias innovativas que involucren incentivos que lleven a ecosistemas mas elasticos, agencias más flexibles, industrias más autosuficientes y una ciudadania más instruída. Discutimos varios aspectos del patrón y dinámica de los ecosistemas a gran escala que proveen una comprensión de la elasticidad del ecosistema y proponemos una “regla de oro” sobre el manejo de los recursos naturales, la cual creemos es necesaria para la sostenibilidad: El manejo debe esforzarse para retener los tipos y magnitudes de variación natural críticos en los sistemas de recursos a los efectos de mantener su elasticidad. |
| [8] | . 生态系统给人类提供了自然资源和生存环境两个方面的多种服务功能,这些服务功能的可持续供给是经济社会可持续发展的基础。然而,生态系统服务功能从认知走向管理实践面临着严峻挑战,包括:定量测度、多种服务功能权衡、生态系统服务功能多尺度关联、生态系统服务功能与政策设计的结合。针对这些难点,近年来生态系统服务功能管理研究主要集中在以下领域:生态系统服务功能度量;生态系统服务功能与人类福祉的关系;多种生态系统服务功能权衡;生态系统服务功能保护规划;基于生态系统服务功能的生态补偿机制。为了进一步推动生态系统服务功能管理实践,应该进一步加强生态系统服务功能供给的理论研究;增加生态系统服务研究结果表达的多样性;增加与社会学、经济学、人口统计学等领域跨学科研究;进一步探索生态系统服务功能研究的结果如何运用到管理决策中,促进在管理实践中的应用。 . 生态系统给人类提供了自然资源和生存环境两个方面的多种服务功能,这些服务功能的可持续供给是经济社会可持续发展的基础。然而,生态系统服务功能从认知走向管理实践面临着严峻挑战,包括:定量测度、多种服务功能权衡、生态系统服务功能多尺度关联、生态系统服务功能与政策设计的结合。针对这些难点,近年来生态系统服务功能管理研究主要集中在以下领域:生态系统服务功能度量;生态系统服务功能与人类福祉的关系;多种生态系统服务功能权衡;生态系统服务功能保护规划;基于生态系统服务功能的生态补偿机制。为了进一步推动生态系统服务功能管理实践,应该进一步加强生态系统服务功能供给的理论研究;增加生态系统服务研究结果表达的多样性;增加与社会学、经济学、人口统计学等领域跨学科研究;进一步探索生态系统服务功能研究的结果如何运用到管理决策中,促进在管理实践中的应用。 |
| [9] | . 由于生态系统服务的多样性、空间分布的不均衡性以及人类使用的选择性,在人为活动和自然因素作用下,服务之间的关系出现了此消彼长的权衡、相互增益的协同等变化。理解服务权衡与协同的表现类型、形成机理、尺度依存和区域差异,对于制定区域发展与生态保护"双赢"的政策措施具有重要意义。从相互作用与联系、类型与形成机制、研究方法与工具、尺度效应以及不确定性等方面评述了生态系统服务权衡与协同的国内外研究进展和局限性,并对研究趋势进行了展望。在此基础上,提出从地理学视角研究生态系统服务权衡与协同的主要议题,包括服务供需的时空异质性、权衡与协同的形成机制、尺度依存和区域差异等。可为拓展生态系统服务权衡与协同研究的深度和广度,提升地理学综合研究水平提供借鉴与参考。 . 由于生态系统服务的多样性、空间分布的不均衡性以及人类使用的选择性,在人为活动和自然因素作用下,服务之间的关系出现了此消彼长的权衡、相互增益的协同等变化。理解服务权衡与协同的表现类型、形成机理、尺度依存和区域差异,对于制定区域发展与生态保护"双赢"的政策措施具有重要意义。从相互作用与联系、类型与形成机制、研究方法与工具、尺度效应以及不确定性等方面评述了生态系统服务权衡与协同的国内外研究进展和局限性,并对研究趋势进行了展望。在此基础上,提出从地理学视角研究生态系统服务权衡与协同的主要议题,包括服务供需的时空异质性、权衡与协同的形成机制、尺度依存和区域差异等。可为拓展生态系统服务权衡与协同研究的深度和广度,提升地理学综合研究水平提供借鉴与参考。 |
| [10] | . 生态系统服务研究现已成为国内外的研究热点。回顾生态系统服务研究的历程可以发现,研究范式正在从自然科学研究范式向自然科学与社会科学综合研究范式转向。生态系统服务研究更加重视时空异质性、更加关注流动性与区域效应,更加强调生态系统服务对人类福祉的作用。在生态系统结构、过程与功能─服务─人类收益与福祉级联框架中,地理学的主要分支都可以找到自身的研究议题。在此过程中,逐渐建构起来的生态系统服务地理学,不仅可以为生态系统服务研究提供学科支撑,同时可以丰富和拓展地理学的研究内容。本文在评述生态系统服务研究历程和发展趋势的基础上,分析了地理学参与生态系统服务研究的逻辑必然性以及面临的机遇与挑战。为了推进生态系统服务研究的“地理化”转向,我们提议发展生态系统服务地理学,并初步描绘了生态系统服务地理学的学科框架,包括定义、研究范畴、研究内容及主要研究议题等。 . 生态系统服务研究现已成为国内外的研究热点。回顾生态系统服务研究的历程可以发现,研究范式正在从自然科学研究范式向自然科学与社会科学综合研究范式转向。生态系统服务研究更加重视时空异质性、更加关注流动性与区域效应,更加强调生态系统服务对人类福祉的作用。在生态系统结构、过程与功能─服务─人类收益与福祉级联框架中,地理学的主要分支都可以找到自身的研究议题。在此过程中,逐渐建构起来的生态系统服务地理学,不仅可以为生态系统服务研究提供学科支撑,同时可以丰富和拓展地理学的研究内容。本文在评述生态系统服务研究历程和发展趋势的基础上,分析了地理学参与生态系统服务研究的逻辑必然性以及面临的机遇与挑战。为了推进生态系统服务研究的“地理化”转向,我们提议发展生态系统服务地理学,并初步描绘了生态系统服务地理学的学科框架,包括定义、研究范畴、研究内容及主要研究议题等。 |
| [11] | . Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. will.steffen@anu.edu.au |
| [12] | . Nature is the international weekly journal of science: a magazine style journal that publishes full-length research papers in all disciplines of science, as well as News and Views, reviews, news, features, commentaries, web focuses and more, covering all branches of science and how science impacts upon all aspects of society and life. |
| [13] | . A framework for exploring regional-scale trade-offs among ecosystem services and biodiversity protection has been established for some time, and it is clear that optimizing these trade-offs provides a strategy to address targets for a reduced rate of biodiversity loss. Recent trade-off studies have highlighted the need for better biodiversity measures, to complement measures of ecosystem services. Biodiversity typically has been linked in this context to existence and other non-use values. We argue that biodiversity will have a stronger role in such trade-off analyses if measures of biodiversity better reflect additional current and future services. These 鈥榚vosystem services鈥 have been, and, if we are careful, can continue to be provided by the evolutionary process. Some services have been provided through evolution operating in the past, and a phylogenetic diversity measure can help us to quantify these current and potential future benefits derived from the tree of life. Furthermore, a variety of evosystem services are delivered through ongoing contemporary evolution, and value should therefore be placed on the maintenance of healthy evosystems. We argue that the concept of evosystem services could be useful as a complement to the traditional concept of ecosystem services. Together, these reflect a fuller range of the services supported by biodiversity, and thereby provide a sounder basis for conservation planning and decision-making. |
| [14] | . 1. Ecosystems have a critical role in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality, but management to change an ecosystem process in support of one regulating ecosystem service can either provide co-benefits to other services or can result in trade-offs. 2. We examine the role of ecosystems in delivering these regulating ecosystem services, using the UK as our case study region. We identify some of the main co-benefits and trade-offs of ecosystem management within, and across, the regulating services of climate regulation, and soil, water and air quality regulation, and where relevant, we also describe interactions with other ecosystem services. Our analysis clearly identifies the many important linkages between these different ecosystem services. 3. However, soil, water and air quality regulation are often governed by different legislation or are under the jurisdiction of different regulators, which can make optimal management difficult to identify and to implement. Policies and legislation addressing air, water and soil are sometimes disconnected, with no integrated overview of how these policies interact. This can lead to conflicting messages regarding the use and management of soil, water and air. Similarly, climate change legislation is separate from that aiming to protect and enhance soil, water and air quality, leading to further potential for policy conflict. 4. All regulating services, even if they are synergistic, may trade off against other ecosystem services. At a policy level, this may well be the biggest conflict. The fact that even individual regulating services comprise multiple and contrasting indicators (e.g. the various components of water quality such as nutrient levels, acidity, pathogens and sediments), adds to the complexity of the challenge. 5. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that although there are some good examples of integrated ecosystem management, some aspects of ecosystem management could be better coordinated to deliver multiple ecosystem services, and that an ecosystem services framework to assess co-benefits and trade-offs would help regulators, policy-makers and ecosystem managers to deliver more coherent ecosystem management strategies. In this way, an ecosystem services framework may improve the regulation of climate, and soil, water and air quality, even in the absence of economic valuation of the individual services |
| [15] | . |
| [16] | . Not Available |
| [17] | . Grasslands provide many ecosystem services required to support human well-being and are home to a diverse fauna and flora. Degradation of grasslands due to agriculture and other forms of land use threaten biodiversity and ecosystem services. Various efforts are underway around the world to stem these declines. The Grassland Programme in South Africa is one such initiative and is aimed at safeguarding both biodiversity and ecosystem services. As part of this developing programme, we identified spatial priority areas for ecosystem services, tested the effect of different target levels of ecosystem services used to identify priority areas, and evaluated whether biodiversity priority areas can be aligned with those for ecosystem services. We mapped five ecosystem services (below ground carbon storage, surface water supply, water flow regulation, soil accumulation and soil retention) and identified priority areas for individual ecosystem services and for all five services at the scale of quaternary catchments. Planning for individual ecosystem services showed that, depending on the ecosystem service of interest, between 4% and 13% of the grassland biome was required to conserve at least 40% of the soil and water services. Thirty-four percent of the biome was needed to conserve 40% of the carbon service in the grassland. Priority areas identified for five ecosystem services under three target levels (20%, 40%, 60% of the total amount) showed that between 17% and 56% of the grassland biome was needed to conserve these ecosystem services. There was moderate to high overlap between priority areas selected for ecosystem services and already-identified terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity priority areas. This level of overlap coupled with low irreplaceability values obtained when planning for individual ecosystem services makes it possible to combine biodiversity and ecosystem services in one plan using systematic conservation planning. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| [18] | . Policy makers and scientists consider that land use strategies are designed to provide direct benefits to people by protecting vital ecosystem services. However, due to lack of information and evaluation methods, there is no effective and systematic tool for assessing tradeoffs between direct human benefits and ecosystem services. Land use changes influence ecosystem properties, processes and components, which are the basis for providing services. Five alternative land use scenarios (no conversion of agricultural lands, no urban expansion, agricultural expansion, forestry expansion, and riparian reforestation) were modeled for the Baiyangdian watershed, China, a densely populated, highly modified watershed with serious water shortage and pollution problems. The model InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is designed to inform decisions about natural resource management, with an aim to align economic forces with conservation. Three ecosystem services (agricultural production, hydropower production, and water quality) were modeled to balance direct benefits and hydrological ecosystem services using InVEST. The results showed that: hydropower production was the greatest in the forestry expansion, but the lowest in agricultural expansion; agricultural production was reduced the most in forestry expansion, while retained the most in riparian reforestation. Riparian reforestation also provided the highest N and P retention and lowest N and P exportation. Riparian reforestation was the optimal land use strategy, since it protected and enhanced the vital ecosystem services without undermining direct human benefits. This research presents an initial analytical framework for integrating direct human benefits and ecosystem services in policy planning and illustrates its application. Although there are important potential tradeoffs between ecosystem services, this systematic planning framework offers a means for identifying valuable synergies between conservation and development. |
| [19] | . <p>根据千年生态系统评估提出的评估概念框架,考察鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能的形成机理,构建了鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能表征指标体系,并利用多主题1km栅格成分数据模型,采用主成分分析法提取了鄱阳湖湖区核心生态系统服务功能综合表征指标。在此基础上,通过空间聚类分析,形成了鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能分区,实现了各分区单元上生态系统服务功能的空间辨识。研究结果表明,鄱阳湖湖区核心生态系统服务功能包括了支持功能、供给功能、调节功能和文化功能,它们在空间上的排列组合形成了鄱阳湖湖区的10个生态系统服务功能分区,本文辨识了鄱阳湖湖区精细栅格水平上核心生态系统服务功能之间的差异及其空间分异特征。本研究提出的生态系统服务功能分区及其空间辨识方案,为鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能的开发与保育提供决策参考信息。</p> . <p>根据千年生态系统评估提出的评估概念框架,考察鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能的形成机理,构建了鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能表征指标体系,并利用多主题1km栅格成分数据模型,采用主成分分析法提取了鄱阳湖湖区核心生态系统服务功能综合表征指标。在此基础上,通过空间聚类分析,形成了鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能分区,实现了各分区单元上生态系统服务功能的空间辨识。研究结果表明,鄱阳湖湖区核心生态系统服务功能包括了支持功能、供给功能、调节功能和文化功能,它们在空间上的排列组合形成了鄱阳湖湖区的10个生态系统服务功能分区,本文辨识了鄱阳湖湖区精细栅格水平上核心生态系统服务功能之间的差异及其空间分异特征。本研究提出的生态系统服务功能分区及其空间辨识方案,为鄱阳湖湖区生态系统服务功能的开发与保育提供决策参考信息。</p> |
| [20] | . Shifting societal needs drive and shape landscapes and the provision of their services. This paper presents a modelling approach to visualize the regional spatial and temporal dynamics in landscape service supply as a function of changing landscapes and societal demand. This changing demand can result from different policy targets. In this paper we conceptualise the system in which these dynamics take place by explicitly addressing (i) the multifunctional character of a landscape, (ii) the different spatial levels at which interactions between landscape service supply, demand, and land management occur, and (iii) trade-offs in service supply as a result of land management actions. Next, we translate the resulting conceptual framework into an operational model. As a demonstration, this model is applied to simulate changes in landscape service supply driven by regional policies in a rural region of the Netherlands. This application demonstrates potential trade-offs, which emerge in a spatially explicit way in the region over time. It illustrates the potential relevance of modelling landscape service dynamics for environmental management and decision making. |
| [21] | |
| [22] | . Biodiversity and ecosystem services are intrinsically linked. Since human activities have both intensive and extensive impacts on the environment, it is critical to understand spatial relationships between conservation priorities for biodiversity and ecosystem services. The manner in which various aspects of biodiversity relate to ecosystem services and the spatial congruence between biodiversity and these services, is, however, unclear. In the present study in the Baiyangdian watershed, China, we investigated spatial characteristics of biodiversity and ecosystem services using correlation, overlap, and principal component, analyses. The spatial correlations between biodiversity and ecosystem services were found to be high. Biodiversity was positively correlated with soil retention, water yield and carbon sequestration and negatively correlated with N/P retention and pollination. Pairwise overlap was found to be the highest between N and P retention, biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and biodiversity and water yield. Other couples indicated moderate or small overlap. Principal component analysis indicated that biodiversity and six ecosystem services could be divided into two groups, which could be managed and conserved separately. It can be concluded that biodiversity priorities co-occur with water yield, soil retention and carbon sequestration, and do not co-occur with N/P retention and pollination. Conservation of a biodiversity hotspot was associated with maintaining 45.02% of a carbon sequestration hotspot, 42.05% of a water yield hotspot, and 23.29% of a soil retention hotspot, indicating that conserving biodiversity will also result in the protection of these services. The bundling of biodiversity and ecosystem services is thus both possible and practical. Our findings provide valuable information on congruence and divergence among conservation hotspots and the protection of ecosystem services. They also indicate that a systematic and comprehensive approach that can have wide-ranging policy implications in terms of optimizing conservation strategies for multiple ecosystem services. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
| [23] | . Abstract A key challenge of ecosystem management is determining how to manage multiple ecosystem services across landscapes. Enhancing important provisioning ecosystem services, such as food and timber, often leads to tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling, flood protection, and tourism. We developed a framework for analyzing the provision of multiple ecosystem services across landscapes and present an empirical demonstration of ecosystem service bundles, sets of services that appear together repeatedly. Ecosystem service bundles were identified by analyzing the spatial patterns of 12 ecosystem services in a mixed-use landscape consisting of 137 municipalities in Quebec, Canada. We identified six types of ecosystem service bundles and were able to link these bundles to areas on the landscape characterized by distinct social-ecological dynamics. Our results show landscape-scale tradeoffs between provisioning and almost all regulating and cultural ecosystem services, and they show that a greater diversity of ecosystem services is positively correlated with the provision of regulating ecosystem services. Ecosystem service-bundle analysis can identify areas on a landscape where ecosystem management has produced exceptionally desirable or undesirable sets of ecosystem services. |
| [24] | . Ecosystems services have become a key concept in understanding the way humans benefit from ecosystems. In Costa Rica, a pioneer national scheme of payment provides compensation for forest conservation that is assumed to jointly produce services related to biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, water and scenic beauty, but little is known about the spatial correlations among these services. A spatial assessment, at national scale and with fine resolution, identified the spatial congruence between these services, by considering the biophysical potential of service provision and socioeconomic demand. Services have different spatial distributions but are positively correlated. Spatial synergies exist between current policies (national parks and the payment scheme) and the conservation of ecosystem services: national parks and areas receiving payments provide more services than other areas. Biodiversity hotspots have the highest co-benefits for other services, while carbon hotspots have the lowest. This finding calls for cautiousness in relation to expectations that forest-based mitigation initiatives such as REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) can automatically maximize bundled co-benefits for biodiversity and local ecosystem services. |
| [25] | . We made a spatial analysis of 11 ecosystem services at a 10km脳10km grid scale covering most of Denmark. Our objective was to describe their spatial distribution and interactions and also to analyze whether they formed specific bundle types on a regional scale in the Danish cultural landscape. We found clustered distribution patterns of ecosystem services across the country. There was a significant tendency for trade-offs between on the one hand cultural and regulating services and on the other provisioning services, and we also found the potential of regulating and cultural services to form synergies. We identified six distinct ecosystem service bundle types, indicating multiple interactions at a landscape level. The bundle types showed specialized areas of agricultural production, high provision of cultural services at the coasts, multifunctional mixed-use bundle types around urban areas and forest recreation bundle types with high hunting potential. Thus we found that the distributions were both determined by historical and current socio-ecological influences. This gives a better understanding of the interactions between multiple services in the landscape and the way the landscape has been managed. However, the number, types and spatial distribution of such bundles are quite sensitive to the individual ecosystem services selected and the input data available to define these services. This should be taken into consideration in further research on how to utilize the existing synergies and the mitigating potential of trade-offs for a more holistic approach to landscape-scale ecosystem service management. |
| [26] | . 1.Freshwater resource managers are increasingly obligated to consider the impacts of large river engineering projects on ecosystem services. We evaluated the effect of altered water regime from the operation of a large dam on the production of the downstream tropical floodplain fishery of the Kafue River, Zambia. We compared the benefits of increased hydropower relative to potentially lost fishery production. 2.We compiled a long-term data set consisting of experimental gillnet catches, artisanal harvesting effort and monthly river flows for 25years prior to and 29years after the 1977 completion of the upstream Itezhi-Tezhi Dam. As a metric of the flood regime, we calculated a canonical correlation score for each hydrological year before and after dam closure. For the period following dam construction, we used the Muskingum method of flood routing to estimate no-dam' flows through the fishery area and downstream hydroelectric turbines at the Kafue Gorge Dam. 3.We compared 16 alternative models of catch per unit effort (CPUE) with and without an effect of water regime on fish population growth rate. Using the two best fitting models, we estimated the total observed fishery harvest and simulated no-dam' fisheries harvest and found no significant effect of altered water regime on fishery production. 4.We estimate that the large upstream dam increases downstream hydropower production by about $18million USD per annum. The reduction in fishery production caused by the altered water regime is not significantly different than zero, although the average reduction amounts to about $2.3million annually. The total estimated value of harvest ranges from $1.3 million to $56 million annually. 5.Large observed declines in fish abundance over the 54-year study period are attributed primarily with similarly large increases in total fishing effort in this mostly open-access artisanal fishery. 6.These results contrast with other examples of the effects of flow alteration on fish, probably because levels of fisheries exploitation on the Kafue River are very high relative to better studied regions on other continents; our focus on the whole fish community; and the unprecedented length of the time series we considered. If the goal is to sustain fishery production, investments in altering flow regime are likely to be less effective than investments to decrease fishing effort. |
| [27] | . |
| [28] | . This study mapped the production of five ecosystem services in South Africa: surface supply, flow regulation, soil accumulation, soil retention, and storage. The relationship and spatial congruence between services were assessed. The congruence between primary production and these five services was tested to evaluate its value as a surrogate or proxy ecosystem service measure. This study illustrates that (1) most of South Africa's land surface is important for supplying at least one service, (2) there are low levels of congruence between the service ranges and even lower levels between the hotspots for different ecosystem services, and (3) primary production appears to show some potential as a surrogate for ecosystem service distribution. The implications of a heterogeneous landscape for the provision of ecosystem services and their management are highlighted and the potential for managing such services in a country like South Africa is discussed. |
| [29] | . |
| [30] | . 生态系统服务功能与人类福利息息相关,土地利用变化是生态系统服务功能退化的主要驱动力之一,以人地关系紧张,生态系统服务功能变化剧烈的密云水库流域为对象,分析流域1990-2009年土地利用的变化,采用空间显式的生态系统服务功能评估软件InVEST中的"产水量"、"土壤保持"、"水质净化"模型,研究流域土地利用变化对生态系统服务功能的影响。结果表明1990-2009年密云水库流域土地利用变化剧烈,农田、草地和水体的面积分别减少了30%、48%、61%,林地、建筑用地和裸地的面积增加,增幅分别为30%、230%、282%。随着土地利用变化,生态系统服务功能相应产生着显著变化,研究期内,土壤保持功能和固碳服务分别增加46%和19%,但水资源供给服务和水质净化功能分别减少了3%和25%。农田面积的减少和森林的扩张改善了土壤保持服务,森林面积的增加同时也改善了固碳服务,但会削弱水资源供给服务,建筑用地的扩张会大幅度削弱水质净化功能,为维持和改善流域整体的生态系统服务功能,应加强对森林和建筑用地的控制。其研究为密云水库流域土地利用科学管理决策提供参考。 . 生态系统服务功能与人类福利息息相关,土地利用变化是生态系统服务功能退化的主要驱动力之一,以人地关系紧张,生态系统服务功能变化剧烈的密云水库流域为对象,分析流域1990-2009年土地利用的变化,采用空间显式的生态系统服务功能评估软件InVEST中的"产水量"、"土壤保持"、"水质净化"模型,研究流域土地利用变化对生态系统服务功能的影响。结果表明1990-2009年密云水库流域土地利用变化剧烈,农田、草地和水体的面积分别减少了30%、48%、61%,林地、建筑用地和裸地的面积增加,增幅分别为30%、230%、282%。随着土地利用变化,生态系统服务功能相应产生着显著变化,研究期内,土壤保持功能和固碳服务分别增加46%和19%,但水资源供给服务和水质净化功能分别减少了3%和25%。农田面积的减少和森林的扩张改善了土壤保持服务,森林面积的增加同时也改善了固碳服务,但会削弱水资源供给服务,建筑用地的扩张会大幅度削弱水质净化功能,为维持和改善流域整体的生态系统服务功能,应加强对森林和建筑用地的控制。其研究为密云水库流域土地利用科学管理决策提供参考。 |
| [31] | . Integration of energy crops into agricultural landscapes could promote sustainability if they are placed in ways that foster multiple ecosystem services and mitigate ecosystem disservices from existing crops. We conducted a modeling study to investigate how replacing annual energy crops with perennial energy crops along Wisconsin waterways could affect a variety of provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. We found that a switch from continuous corn production to perennial-grass production decreased annual income provisioning by 75%, although it increased annual energy provisioning by 33%, decreased annual phosphorous loading to surface water by 29%, increased below-ground carbon sequestration by 30%, decreased annual nitrous oxide emissions by 84%, increased an index of pollinator abundance by an average of 11%, and increased an index of biocontrol potential by an average of 6%. We expressed the tradeoffs between income provisioning and other ecosystem services as benefit-cost ratios. Benefit-cost ratios averaged 12.06 GJ of additional net energy, 0.84 kg of avoided phosphorus pollution, 18.97 Mg of sequestered carbon, and 1.99 kg of avoided nitrous oxide emissions for every $1,000 reduction in income. These ratios varied spatially, from 2- to 70-fold depending on the ecosystem service. Benefit-cost ratios for different ecosystem services were generally correlated within watersheds, suggesting the presence of hotspots - watersheds where increases in multiple ecosystem services would come at lower-than-average opportunity costs. When assessing the monetary value of ecosystem services relative to existing conservation programs and environmental markets, the overall value of enhanced services associated with adoption of perennial energy crops was far lower than the opportunity cost. However, when we monitized services using estimates for the social costs of pollution, the value of enhanced services far exceeded the opportunity cost. This disparity between recoverable costs and social value represents a fundamental challenge to expansion of perennial energy crops and sustainable agricultural landscapes. |
| [32] | . Political agendas worldwide include increased production of biofuel, which multiplies the trade-offs among conflicting objectives, including food and fodder production, water quantity, water quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Quantification of trade-offs among objectives in bioenergy crop production is most frequently accomplished by a comparison of a limited number of plausible sce... |
| [33] | . |
| [34] | . 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 鈥淪ervice Path Attribution Networks鈥 (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. |
| [35] | . Sites that are important for biodiversity conservation can also provide significant benefits (i.e. ecosystem services) to people. Decision-makers need to know how change to a site, whether development or restoration, would affect the delivery of services and the distribution of any benefits among stakeholders. However, there are relatively few empirical studies that present this information. One reason is the lack of appropriate methods and tools for ecosystem service assessment that do not require substantial resources or specialist technical knowledge, or rely heavily upon existing data. Here we address this gap by describing the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA). It guides local non-specialists through a selection of relatively accessible methods for identifying which ecosystem services may be important at a site, and for evaluating the magnitude of benefits that people obtain from them currently, compared with those expected under alternative land-uses. The toolkit recommends use of existing data where appropriate and places emphasis on enabling users to collect new field data at relatively low cost and effort. By using TESSA, the users could also gain valuable information about the alternative land-uses; and data collected in the field could be incorporated into regular monitoring programmes. |
| [36] | . <h2 class="secHeading" id="section_abstract">Abstract</h2><p id="">Research in ecology increasingly relies on the integration of small, focused studies, to produce larger datasets that allow for more powerful, synthetic analyses. The results of these synthetic analyses are critical in guiding decisions about how to sustainably manage our natural environment, so it is important for researchers to effectively discover relevant data, and appropriately integrate these within their analyses. However, ecological data encompasses an extremely broad range of data types, structures, and semantic concepts. Moreover, ecological data is widely distributed, with few well-established repositories or standard protocols for their archiving and retrieval. These factors make the discovery and integration of ecological data sets a highly labor-intensive task. Metadata standards such as the Ecological Metadata Language and Darwin Core are important steps for improving our ability to discover and access ecological data, but are limited to describing only a few, relatively specific aspects of data content (<em>e.g.</em>, data owner and contact information, variable “names”, keyword descriptions, <em>etc.</em>). A more flexible and powerful way to capture the semantic subtleties of complex ecological data, its structure and contents, and the inter-relationships among data variables is needed.</p><p id="">We present a formal ontology for capturing the semantics of generic scientific observation and measurement. The ontology provides a convenient basis for adding detailed semantic annotations to scientific data, which crystallize the inherent “meaning” of observational data. The ontology can be used to characterize the context of an observation (<em>e.g.</em>, space and time), and clarify inter-observational relationships such as dependency hierarchies (<em>e.g.</em>, nested experimental observations) and meaningful dimensions within the data (<em>e.g.</em>, axes for cross-classified categorical summarization). It also enables the robust description of measurement units (<em>e.g.</em>, grams of carbon per liter of seawater), and can facilitate automatic unit conversions (<em>e.g.</em>, pounds to kilograms). The ontology can be easily extended with specialized domain vocabularies, making it both broadly applicable and highly customizable. Finally, we describe the utility of the ontology for enriching the capabilities of data discovery and integration processes.</p> |
| [37] | . |
| [38] | |
| [39] | |
| [40] | . Ecosystem Services (ES) are an established conceptual framework for attributing value to the benefits that nature provides to humans. As the promise of robust ES-driven management is put to the test, shortcomings in our ability to accurately measure, map, and value ES have surfaced. On the research side, mainstream methods for ES assessment still fall short of addressing the complex, multi-scale biophysical and socioeconomic dynamics inherent in ES provision, flow, and use. On the practitioner side, application of methods remains onerous due to data and model parameterization requirements. Further, it is increasingly clear that the dominant 鈥渙ne model fits all鈥 paradigm is often ill-suited to address the diversity of real-world management situations that exist across the broad spectrum of coupled human-natural systems. This article introduces an integrated ES modeling methodology, named ARIES (ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services), which aims to introduce improvements on these fronts. To improve conceptual detail and representation of ES dynamics, it adopts a uniform conceptualization of ES that gives equal emphasis to their production, flow and use by society, while keeping model complexity low enough to enable rapid and inexpensive assessment in many contexts and for multiple services. To improve fit to diverse application contexts, the methodology is assisted by model integration technologies that allow assembly of customized models from a growing model base. By using computer learning and reasoning, model structure may be specialized for each application context without requiring costly expertise. In this article we discuss the founding principles of ARIES - both its innovative aspects for ES science and as an example of a new strategy to support more accurate decision making in diverse application contexts. |
| [41] | . 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鈥檚 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. |
| [42] | . Protected areas are used to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, protected areas can create tradeoffs spatially and temporally among ecosystem services, which can affect the welfare of dependent local communities. This study examines the effect of a protected area on the tradeoff between two extractive ecosystem services from mangrove forests: cutting mangroves (fuelwood) and harvesting the shrimp and fish that thrive if mangroves are not cut. We demonstrate the effect in the context of Saadani National Park (SANAPA) in Tanzania, where enforcement of prohibition of mangrove harvesting was strengthened to preserve biodiversity. Remote sensing data of mangrove cover over time are integrated with georeferenced household survey data in an econometric framework to identify the causal effect of mangrove protection on income components directly linked to mangrove ecosystem services. Our findings suggest that many households experienced an immediate loss in the consumption of mangrove firewood, with the loss most prevalent in richer households. However, all wealth classes appear to benefit from long-term sustainability gains in shrimping and fishing that result from mangrove protection. On average, we find that a 10% increase in the mangrove cover within SANAPA boundaries in a 5-km(2) radius of the subvillage increases shrimping income by approximately twofold. The creation of SANAPA shifted the future trajectory of the area from one in which mangroves were experiencing uncontrolled cutting to one in which mangrove conservation is providing gains in income for the local villages as a result of the preservation of nursery habitat and biodiversity. |
| [43] | . |
| [44] | . We intend to estimate the value of ecosystem services in the U.S. State of New Jersey using spatially explicit benefit transfer. The aggregated net rent, a conservative underestimate for the total economic value of the state’s natural environment, ranged from <span class="latex"><span class="ss">11.6 <i>to</i></span><span class="cs"><span class="math">11.6 to </span></span></span>19.6 billion/year, conditional on how inclusive we were in selecting the primary studies used to calculate the central tendency values to transfer. In addition to calculating the range, mean, and standard deviation for each of 12 ecosystem services for 11 Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) types, we also conduct a gap analysis of how well ecosystem service values are represented in the literature. We then map these values by assuming a mean value for each LULC and apply this to spatial data. As to sensitivity analysis, we calculate the net present value of New Jersey’s natural environment utilizing three different methods of discounting. These research results provide a useful, albeit imperfect, basis for assessing the value of ecosystem services and natural capital, and their comparison with the value of conventional human and built capitals. |
| [45] | . Great interest currently exists for developing ecosystem models to forecast how ecosystem services may change under alternative land use and climate futures. Ecosystem services are diverse and include supporting services or functions (e.g., primary production, nutrient cycling), provisioning services (e.g., wildlife, groundwater), regulating services (e.g., water purification, floodwater retention), and even cultural services (e.g., ecotourism, cultural heritage). Hence, the knowledge base necessary to quantify ecosystem services is broad and derived from many diverse scientific disciplines. Building the required interdisciplinary models is especially challenging as modelers from different locations and times may develop the disciplinary models needed for ecosystem simulations, and these models must be identified and made accessible to the interdisciplinary simulation. Additional difficulties include inconsistent data structures, formats, and metadata required by geospatial models as well as limitations on computing, storage, and connectivity. Traditional standalone and closed network systems cannot fully support sharing and integrating interdisciplinary geospatial models from variant sources. To address this need, we developed an approach to openly share and access geospatial computational models using distributed Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques and open geospatial standards. We included a means to share computational models compliant with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Web Processing Services (WPS) standard to ensure modelers have an efficient and simplified means to publish new models. To demonstrate our approach, we developed five disciplinary models that can be integrated and shared to simulate a few of the ecosystem services (e.g., water storage, waterfowl breeding) that are provided by wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America. |
| [46] | . To enter widespread use, ecosystem service assessments need to be quantifiable, replicable, credible, flexible, and affordable. With recent growth in the field of ecosystem services, a variety of decision-support tools has emerged to support more systematic ecosystem services assessment. Despite the growing complexity of the tool landscape, thorough reviews of tools for identifying, assessing, modeling and in some cases monetarily valuing ecosystem services have generally been lacking. In this study, we describe 17 ecosystem services tools and rate their performance against eight evaluative criteria that gauge their readiness for widespread application in public- and private-sector decision making. We describe each of the tools′ intended uses, services modeled, analytical approaches, data requirements, and outputs, as well time requirements to run seven tools in a first comparative concurrent application of multiple tools to a common location – the San Pedro River watershed in southeast Arizona, USA, and northern Sonora, Mexico. Based on this work, we offer conclusions about these tools′ current ‘readiness’ for widespread application within both public- and private-sector decision making processes. Finally, we describe potential pathways forward to reduce the resource requirements for running ecosystem services models, which are essential to facilitate their more widespread use in environmental decision making. |
| [47] | . <p>土壤保持是生态系统的重要服务功能之一。黄土高原是世界上水土流失最严重的地区,黄河中游地区是黄河泥沙的主要来源,继续开展黄河中游地区土壤保持研究,对于当地的水土保持、土地利用结构调整、退耕还林、生态补偿以及水库管理具有重大意义。以黄河一级支流无定河的源头(营盘山库区)为研究区,采用生态系统服务和交易的综合评估模型InVEST(Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs),从水文和土地利用两个角度出发,对研究区地块截留能力、输出能力和保持能力进行对比研究,重点探讨哪种角度的结果更科学合理,并进一步研究清淤情境下2010年营盘山库区的土壤保持能力及其空间格局特征。结果表明：① 基于子流域边界和土地利用边界的计算结果差异悬殊,水文学意义的子流域边界可以保证沉积物沿水文路径迁移过程的完整性,评价结果更科学合理;InVEST沉积物模型应该采用水文意义上的自然流域边界,而不宜将土地利用边界作为子流域单元进行评价。② 2010年营盘山库区在清淤情境下的沉积物截留总量为586482.60 t,输出总量为129868.61 t,平均输出量为12.93 t/hm<sup>2</sup>,保留总量为1559198.40 t,平均保留量为151.57 t/hm<sup>2</sup>。③ 地块的沉积物截留能力从上游至下游逐渐增强,而沉积物输出能力却刚好相反。无定河西侧支流的土壤保持能力比东侧支流偏高,两大支流平均土壤保持量低值区均出现在河流上游地区。</p> . <p>土壤保持是生态系统的重要服务功能之一。黄土高原是世界上水土流失最严重的地区,黄河中游地区是黄河泥沙的主要来源,继续开展黄河中游地区土壤保持研究,对于当地的水土保持、土地利用结构调整、退耕还林、生态补偿以及水库管理具有重大意义。以黄河一级支流无定河的源头(营盘山库区)为研究区,采用生态系统服务和交易的综合评估模型InVEST(Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs),从水文和土地利用两个角度出发,对研究区地块截留能力、输出能力和保持能力进行对比研究,重点探讨哪种角度的结果更科学合理,并进一步研究清淤情境下2010年营盘山库区的土壤保持能力及其空间格局特征。结果表明：① 基于子流域边界和土地利用边界的计算结果差异悬殊,水文学意义的子流域边界可以保证沉积物沿水文路径迁移过程的完整性,评价结果更科学合理;InVEST沉积物模型应该采用水文意义上的自然流域边界,而不宜将土地利用边界作为子流域单元进行评价。② 2010年营盘山库区在清淤情境下的沉积物截留总量为586482.60 t,输出总量为129868.61 t,平均输出量为12.93 t/hm<sup>2</sup>,保留总量为1559198.40 t,平均保留量为151.57 t/hm<sup>2</sup>。③ 地块的沉积物截留能力从上游至下游逐渐增强,而沉积物输出能力却刚好相反。无定河西侧支流的土壤保持能力比东侧支流偏高,两大支流平均土壤保持量低值区均出现在河流上游地区。</p> |
| [48] | . <p>三江源是我国最大的水源供给和涵养生态功能区.近年来，受多种驱动因素的影响，三江源区生态系统退化严重，水源供给能力受到一定影响.本文探讨了1981—2010年三江源区降水和径流系数的变化规律，基于InVEST模型定量估算了1980—2005年三江源区生态系统的水源供给量，分析了不同时期水源供给量的时空变化特征及其成因.结果表明： 1981—2010年，三江源区的降水量整体呈先降低后增加的趋势，降水径流系数的递减趋势比较显著，表明区域地表产流能力下降；潜在蒸散发有减少趋势，但并不明显，其变化趋势为-0.226 mm·a<sup>-1</sup>.1980—2005年，三江源区水源供给量整体呈下降趋势，且黄河源区的下降趋势最明显.三江源区水源供给量的时空变化是气候变化和土地利用共同作用的结果，气候因子主要通过改变降水和潜在蒸散来影响水源供给量；气候变化和土地利用导致的生态系统退化及下垫面改变可能是三江源区水源供给量下降的主要驱动力.</p> . <p>三江源是我国最大的水源供给和涵养生态功能区.近年来，受多种驱动因素的影响，三江源区生态系统退化严重，水源供给能力受到一定影响.本文探讨了1981—2010年三江源区降水和径流系数的变化规律，基于InVEST模型定量估算了1980—2005年三江源区生态系统的水源供给量，分析了不同时期水源供给量的时空变化特征及其成因.结果表明： 1981—2010年，三江源区的降水量整体呈先降低后增加的趋势，降水径流系数的递减趋势比较显著，表明区域地表产流能力下降；潜在蒸散发有减少趋势，但并不明显，其变化趋势为-0.226 mm·a<sup>-1</sup>.1980—2005年，三江源区水源供给量整体呈下降趋势，且黄河源区的下降趋势最明显.三江源区水源供给量的时空变化是气候变化和土地利用共同作用的结果，气候因子主要通过改变降水和潜在蒸散来影响水源供给量；气候变化和土地利用导致的生态系统退化及下垫面改变可能是三江源区水源供给量下降的主要驱动力.</p> |
| [49] | . <p>生态系统服务功能关系到人类福祉，对其进行评估和研究有助于生态系统的可持续管理。本文介绍了InVEST、ARIES、SolVES等10种生态系统服务功能评估模型的概况，并探讨了评估模型的适用范围、数据需求以及模型评估结果的不确定性问题，为生态系统服务功能评估模型的引进以及在国内的应用提供参考。10种评估模型中，InVEST模型的发展最为成熟，是目前应用最多的生态系统服务功能评估模型；ARIES和MIMES等模型的开发尚不成熟，但具有良好的应用前景；另外，在利用模型进行生态系统服务功能评估时应加强不确定性分析。最后，对生态系统服务功能评估模型的发展进行了展望。</p> . <p>生态系统服务功能关系到人类福祉，对其进行评估和研究有助于生态系统的可持续管理。本文介绍了InVEST、ARIES、SolVES等10种生态系统服务功能评估模型的概况，并探讨了评估模型的适用范围、数据需求以及模型评估结果的不确定性问题，为生态系统服务功能评估模型的引进以及在国内的应用提供参考。10种评估模型中，InVEST模型的发展最为成熟，是目前应用最多的生态系统服务功能评估模型；ARIES和MIMES等模型的开发尚不成熟，但具有良好的应用前景；另外，在利用模型进行生态系统服务功能评估时应加强不确定性分析。最后，对生态系统服务功能评估模型的发展进行了展望。</p> |
| [50] | |
| [51] | . |
| [52] | . |
| [53] | . 生态系统服务作为生态系统评估的核心领域,是生态学的研究热点。生态系统提供服务的形式与能力受人类活动强烈影响,反之,生态系统服务的变化又影响着人类相关决策的制定。不同生态系统服务之间很难甚至不可能同时达到利益最大化,即存在着不同程度此消彼长的竞争关系。此外,不同生态系统服务之间也可能形成相互促进或抑制的协同作用。探讨不同生态系统服务的相互关系(竞争与协同作用),有利于揭示不同尺度利益相关方与生态系统服务之间的作用与反馈机制,避免生态系统服务的重复估算;同时可为制定与实施生态补偿、提高人类福祉提供科学依据,优化生态系统服务管理。综合研究了近期国外生态系统服务竞争关系与协同作用的相关文献,在简述当前生态系统服务研究若干问题的基础上,以生态系统服务竞争与协同为视角,厘清了生态系统服务竞争与协同的基本内涵,总结了生态系统服务竞争与协同的主要类型,探讨了生态系统服务竞争与协同的空间与时间尺度效应;介绍并总结了生态系统服务竞争与协同两种主要研究方法(生态-经济综合模型方法、基于土地利用的情景分析法)的特点与适应范围。 . 生态系统服务作为生态系统评估的核心领域,是生态学的研究热点。生态系统提供服务的形式与能力受人类活动强烈影响,反之,生态系统服务的变化又影响着人类相关决策的制定。不同生态系统服务之间很难甚至不可能同时达到利益最大化,即存在着不同程度此消彼长的竞争关系。此外,不同生态系统服务之间也可能形成相互促进或抑制的协同作用。探讨不同生态系统服务的相互关系(竞争与协同作用),有利于揭示不同尺度利益相关方与生态系统服务之间的作用与反馈机制,避免生态系统服务的重复估算;同时可为制定与实施生态补偿、提高人类福祉提供科学依据,优化生态系统服务管理。综合研究了近期国外生态系统服务竞争关系与协同作用的相关文献,在简述当前生态系统服务研究若干问题的基础上,以生态系统服务竞争与协同为视角,厘清了生态系统服务竞争与协同的基本内涵,总结了生态系统服务竞争与协同的主要类型,探讨了生态系统服务竞争与协同的空间与时间尺度效应;介绍并总结了生态系统服务竞争与协同两种主要研究方法(生态-经济综合模型方法、基于土地利用的情景分析法)的特点与适应范围。 |
| [54] | . . |
| [55] | . 利用西安市土地利用解译图及社会经济数据，在界定都市农业景观的前提下，分析西安市都市农业景观破碎化过程，在此基础上分析都市农业景观破碎化对生态系统服务价值的影响。结果表明：① 1999-2011 年，西安市都市农业景观的斑块密度、分离度指数增加，都市农业景观呈破碎化趋势；② 都市农业景观分离度与都市农业生态系统服务总价值及各项价值均呈较强的负相关关系；破碎化过程中废物处理及土壤形成价值减少量最大，同时食物生产价值减少率最大，减少了12.73%，娱乐文化减少的价值量及减少率最小，为1.93%；③ 耕地、林地、水域呈景观破碎化趋势，而园地聚集度上升，同时耕地、林地、水域的生态系统服务价值下降，园地生态系统服务价值增加。 . 利用西安市土地利用解译图及社会经济数据，在界定都市农业景观的前提下，分析西安市都市农业景观破碎化过程，在此基础上分析都市农业景观破碎化对生态系统服务价值的影响。结果表明：① 1999-2011 年，西安市都市农业景观的斑块密度、分离度指数增加，都市农业景观呈破碎化趋势；② 都市农业景观分离度与都市农业生态系统服务总价值及各项价值均呈较强的负相关关系；破碎化过程中废物处理及土壤形成价值减少量最大，同时食物生产价值减少率最大，减少了12.73%，娱乐文化减少的价值量及减少率最小，为1.93%；③ 耕地、林地、水域呈景观破碎化趋势，而园地聚集度上升，同时耕地、林地、水域的生态系统服务价值下降，园地生态系统服务价值增加。 |
| [56] | . Over the past decade, efforts to value and protect ecosystem services have been promoted by many as the last, best hope for making conservation mainstream - att |
