国际生态系统服务研究动态与地域差异评价

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2021-12-29

黄利, 周密^,沈阳农业大学经济管理学院,沈阳 110866

International ecosystem service research dynamics and regional differences: A bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science data

HUANG Li, ZHOU Mi^,College of Economics and Management, Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang 110866, China

通讯作者: 周密,男,辽宁葫芦岛人,教授,研究方向为农业经济理论与政策。E-mail：zhoumi2011@syau.edu.cn

收稿日期:2019-07-19修回日期:2019-10-24网络出版日期:2020-04-25

基金资助:

国家自然科学基金项目.71903133
国家自然科学基金项目.71973100
辽宁省经济社会发展研究课题.2020lslktjdyb-030

Received:2019-07-19Revised:2019-10-24Online:2020-04-25
作者简介 About authors
黄利,女,四川岳池人,讲师,研究方向为农业资源与环境E-mail：lilyhuang@syau.edu.cn。

摘要
生态系统服务研究已得到国内外****广泛关注,揭示当前国际研究热点与发展趋势,将为国内生态系统服务研究与实践提供借鉴与参考。本文以“Web of Science核心合集”的SCI-E和SSCI数据库为样本数据源,借助CiteSpace可视化科学计量工具,对国际上生态系统服务研究领域的4208篇文献进行了系统分析,利用活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）对不同国家或地区在该领域的研究效率和学术影响力进行了评价,探讨国际上生态系统服务研究进展和动态变化规律。研究结果表明：①国际上生态系统服务研究的文献数量和被引次数随着年份变化增长显著,尤其在2012年以后,关注该问题的****不断增加;②发文期刊集中性强,排名前10位的期刊发文数量占到全部期刊发文总数的40%;③中国近年来在生态系统服务领域研究实力不断增强,但仍低于全球平均水平;④生态系统服务评估框架和方法框架是当前热点研究领域,尤其应注重将社会需求、人类福祉、生态系统调节服务纳入到生态系统服务分析框架,同时重点关注文化生态系统服务的价值和作用,以及充分运用机器学习和大数据挖掘等创新方法解决复杂社会生态问题。
关键词： 文献计量;生态系统服务;知识图谱;CiteSpace;可视化分析

Abstract

Ecosystem service research has been widely concerned by the Chinese and international scholars. Revealing the current international research hotspots and development trends will provide a reference for ecosystem service research and practice in China. Based on bibliometric analysis and CiteSpace, this study took the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) databases of the Web of Science Core Collection as sample data sources to systematically analyze the basic characteristics, main research impacts, and research hotpots in the field of ecosystem service research. The activity index (AI) and the attraction index (AAI) were used to evaluate the research efficiency and academic influence of different countries or regions in this field over time. The research results show that: (1) The number of publications and citations of international ecosystem service research increased significantly with time, especially after 2012, and the number of scholars focusing on this issue has continued to increase; (2) The concentration of published articles in relevant journals is strong; the number of published articles in the top 10 journals accounts for 40% of the total number of published articles; (3) In recent years, China’s research strength in ecosystem services has been continuously enhanced, but it is still lower than the global average. (4) The assessment framework and research method framework of ecosystem services are currently hot topics in this research field. Particular attention should be paid to integrating social needs, human well-being, and ecosystem regulation services into the analysis framework of ecosystem services while focusing on the value and role of cultural ecosystem services, and making full use of innovative methods such as machine learning and big data mining to solve complex social and ecological problems.

Keywords：bibliometric analysis;ecosystem services;knowledge mapping;CiteSpace;visualized analysis

PDF (7582KB)元数据多维度评价相关文章导出EndNote|Ris|Bibtex 收藏本文
本文引用格式
黄利, 周密. 国际生态系统服务研究动态与地域差异评价. 资源科学[J], 2020, 42(4): 607-620 doi:10.18402/resci.2020.04.02
HUANG Li, ZHOU Mi. International ecosystem service research dynamics and regional differences: A bibliometric analysis based on Web of Science data. RESOURCES SCIENCE[J], 2020, 42(4): 607-620 doi:10.18402/resci.2020.04.02

1 引言

生态系统服务具有重要价值,与人类福祉和区域可持续发展息息相关,也是当今人类生态研究三大热门课题之一^[1]。20世纪70年代末,美国率先开展了生态系统服务的研究,随后其他国家相继跟进,经过几十年的发展,国际上生态系统服务研究已经积累了丰硕的研究成果。关注国际上生态系统服务的研究进展和学术动态,追踪世界各国在该领域研究的态势和影响,分析该领域知识演进的特征和属性,对生态系统服务后续研究具有重要意义,同时也可为国内的相关研究提供借鉴和参考。

尽管已有文献从不同角度对生态系统服务研究进行了综述和回顾,例如Palomo等^[2]就生态系统服务与农业生态实践之间的联系进行了系统的综述;Sattler等^[3]对生态系统服务治理的分析方法进行了梳理和回顾;还有文献对生态系统服务感知的性别差异进行了回顾并总结了这一新兴主题的研究成果^[4]。上述研究对于****们认识生态系统服务的主要内容具有一定的价值和意义。但是,有限的文献综述仅对现有主要文献进行内容解析,并不能清晰地呈现出已有的数量庞大的生态系统服务研究之间的内在联系,不能从更为广泛的角度立体认识生态系统服务研究的全貌。

文献计量分析作为一种重要的定量分析方法,可以有效地描述一个学科或研究领域发展的总体态势,并已被广泛应用于衡量各种研究领域的表现^[5,6,7]。同时,知识图谱可以将信息可视化技术与传统文献计量学分析相结合,通过数据挖掘、信息处理、科学测量和图形绘制等手段生成不同类型的知识图谱,为研究者提供更为直观的信息展示^[8,9]。

目前已有2篇文献基于文献计量的方法对国际上的生态系统服务的文献进行了研究。然而,其中1篇文献没有对主要研究力量及其合作关系进行分析^[10]。而另1篇文献尽管考虑到上述问题,但在数据库选择上亦有偏差,比如只关注SCI-E（Science Citation Index Expanded）数据库而没有考虑SSCI（Social Science Citation Index）数据库^[11]。不仅如此,2篇文献的截止时间均为2014年。随着近年来相关研究不断涌现,本文在已有研究的基础上,充分考虑到研究力量及其合作关系以及数据库选择的完备性（既包括SCI-E又包括SSCI）,系统分析了从1994—2018年间相关文献的基本特征、主要研究力量以及研究热点等。本文还使用活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）对主要发文国家的研究效率和学术影响力进行了评价,对于有效把握该领域研究发展趋势具有一定的参考价值。

此外,考虑到检索的完备性和准确性对研究结论存在较大影响,借鉴相关研究的做法^[12,13],本文试图采用题名而不是主题的检索策略,这样做可以避免出现大量不相关的结果,提高文献的集中度。本文的检索词为TI=（“ecosystem services” or “environmental services” or “ecological services” or “ecosystem service” or “environmental service” or “ecological service”）,基本涵盖了生态系统服务的专用术语,保证了检索的完整性和准确率。

2 数据来源与研究方法

2.1 数据来源

本文以“Web of Science核心合集”为文献检索平台,选择Science Citation Index Expanded （SCI-E）和Social Science Citation Index（SSCI）数据库,检索时间跨度为1994—2018年。考虑到文献的集中度与精确度,检索策略设定为TI=（“ecosystem services” or “environmental services” or “ecological services” or “ecosystem service” or “environmental service” or “ecological service”）AND语种：（English）AND 文献类型：（Article）。选择题名而不是主题作为检索条件可避免出现大量不相关的结果,最终确定样本量为4208篇文章。将检索到的文献记录下载保存为纯文本文件,格式为“全记录和引用的参考文献（Full Record and Cited References）”,作为本文分析数据的样本。

2.2 研究方法

2.2.1 文献计量分析软件参数设置

CiteSpace软件是目前文献计量分析领域最有影响力的分析工具之一,是由美国德雷克赛尔大学华裔****陈超美研发的用于文献分析可视化的Java应用程序。该软件可以从网站http://cluster.ischool.drexel.edu/~cchen/CiteSpace /download/上免费下载,本文使用的是5.3 R2版本。

该软件的协作网络分析（作者和研究机构）、共现网络分析（关键词）以及其他统计分析功能可为****们客观了解国际上生态系统服务研究领域在时间、研究机构及成员、研究关键词等方面的现状提供帮助。为满足运用这些功能的要求,并借鉴已有研究做法^[14],本文对软件参数进行如下设置：①时间切片（Time Slicing）为1994—2018年,每个切片的年份（Years Per Slice）=1;②节点类型（Node Types）分别选择研究机构、作者、关键词;③在选择标准（Selection Criteria）上,本文从每个切片中选取了研究机构和关键词被引用最多或出现频率最高的50个条目。而对于作者,则选取了出现频率最高的20个条目以确保所获得作者的权威性;④修剪设置上本文选择了“Pathfinder”以消除一些多余的连接^[15]。其他设置仍然设置为默认设置。

2.2.2 活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）

参照已有研究^[16,17,18],本文使用活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）两个指标来评估不同国家或地区在生态系统服务领域的研究强度（效率）和学术影响力随时间变化的情况。活力指数衡量一个国家对一个研究领域所作的相对努力的程度,计算式为：

（1）

A I_{i}^{t} = \frac{\frac{P_{i}^{t}}{\sum_{t_{0}}^{2016} P}}{T P^{t} / \sum_{t_{0}}^{2016} TP}

而吸引力指数则衡量一个国家在通过其文献被引用程度而产生的对一个研究领域的影响,计算式为：

（2）

AA I_{i}^{t} = \frac{\frac{C_{i}^{t}}{\sum_{t_{0}}^{+} C}}{T C^{t} / \sum_{t_{0}}^{+} TC}

式中：

A I_{i}^{t}

和

AA I_{i}^{t}

分别代表国家i在第t年的活力指数和吸引力指数;

P_{i}^{t}

和

C_{i}^{t}

分别表示国家i在第t年生态系统服务研究的发文数量和被引数量;

\sum_{t_{0}}^{2016} P

和

\sum_{t_{0}}^{+} C

分别表示一个时期内国家i生态系统服务研究文章总数和被引用总和,t₀为国家i在该领域发表文章的初始年份;同样,

T P^{t}

和

T C^{t}

分别代表世界范围内在第t年的总发文数量和总被引数量;

\sum_{t_{0}}^{2016} TP

和

\sum_{t_{0}}^{+} TC

则分别表示世界范围内与

\sum_{t_{0}}^{2016} P

和

\sum_{t_{0}}^{+} C

相同的时间区间的文章总数和被引用总和。

A I_{i}^{t} = 1

和

AA I_{i}^{t} = 1

分别表示国家i在第t年的研究强度和学术影响等于全球平均水平。

A I_{i}^{t} > 1

或

A I_{i}^{t} < 1

分别表示国家i在第t年的研究强度高于或低于全球平均水平;而

AA I_{i}^{t} > 1

或

AA I_{i}^{t} < 1

则表示国家i在第t年的学术影响力高于或低于全球平均水平。

3 结果与分析

3.1 文献基本特征分析

3.1.1 发文量与被引量

1994—2018年国际上生态系统服务领域的发文量和被引量均不断增加,显示出该领域得到****们广泛关注,具有较强发展潜力。首先,从发文数量上看,1994—2018年生态系统服务领域的文章数量出现了两次突破。第一次是在2005年,当年发表的文章数量首次超过20篇。此前发文量增长十分缓慢,2005年之后开始平稳增长,研究成果逐渐增多。另一次是在2012年,当年发表的文章数量首次突破了200篇,此后发文量出现快速增长。2012—2018年年均发表论文501篇,年均增长21.50%。其次,从总被引数量上看,1994—2018年间相关文章的总被引次数为121875次,平均每篇文章的被引次数为29次。和发文数量相对应,2005年之前的论文总被引量增长缓慢,年均被引量仅为98次。2005年后,总被引量稳步增长,2012年后增长更快,年均被引量分别为1629.70次（2005—2011年）和15626.70次（2012—2018年）。

3.1.2 主要来源期刊

通过分析国际上生态系统服务研究载文量排在前10位的期刊,可以发现这些期刊具有研究领域广和文章集中度高的特点。具体来讲：①在生态系统服务研究的期刊中,载文量排在前10位的期刊发文领域不仅包括生态学,还包括社会学、环境科学、生态经济、土地政策、景观生态以及综合类等多个学科,这说明该研究涉及的学科多交叉性强。②排名前10期刊的发文量（1679篇）已占到全部期刊发文总量的40%,总被引量（44568次）占到全部期刊总被引次数的36.60%,这些反映了相关研究主要发表在一些重要的期刊中,具有较高的集中度（表1）。

Table 1
表1
表1生态系统服务研究载文量排在前10位的期刊
Table 1Top 10 productive journals in ecosystem service research

期刊	发文量/篇	占总发文量百分数/%	总被引量/次	平均被引量/次	H-index	5年影响因子
Ecosystem Services	526	12.50	6909	13.13	41	6.497
Ecological Economics	278	6.61	19950	71.76	71	5.207
Ecological Indicators	191	4.54	4756	24.90	40	4.863
Ecology and Society	123	2.92	3719	30.24	35	4.969
Sustainability	107	2.54	302	2.82	10	2.801
Science of The Total Environment	102	2.42	1433	14.05	25	5.727
Land Use Policy	100	2.38	2017	20.17	28	4.236
Plos One	94	2.23	1995	21.22	27	3.337
Journal of Environmental Management	83	1.97	1761	21.22	25	4.962
Landscape Ecology	75	1.78	1726	23.01	28	4.992

新窗口打开|下载CSV

3.2 主要研究力量及合作分析

3.2.1 主要研究机构

国际上生态系统服务研究领域10大研究机构的发文量、平均被引量和影响水平（H-index）如表2所示。其中,就发文量而言,中国科学院（Chinese Academy of Sciences）以225篇发文位居榜首。发文量超过100篇的还有荷兰的瓦赫宁根大学（Wageningen University Research）和德国的亥姆霍兹环境研究中心（Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research UFZ）。就平均被引量而言,排名前10位的研究机构中,美国的明尼苏达大学（University of Minnesota）平均被引量最高,达到151.87。就影响水平而言（即H-index指数）,中国科学院是影响水平最高的研究机构（46分）,其次为亥姆霍兹环境研究中心和斯坦福大学。

Table 2
表2
表2生态系统服务研究发文量排在前10位的研究机构
Table 2Top 10 most productive institutions in ecosystem service research

研究机构	国家	发文量/篇	总被引量/篇	平均被引量/次	H-index
Chinese Academy of Sciences	中国	225	13747	61.10	46
Wageningen University Research	荷兰	168	16483	98.11	42
Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research UFZ	德国	128	3518	27.48	37
Stockholm University	瑞典	94	7703	81.95	37
Stanford University	美国	90	8091	89.90	41
Beijing Normal University	中国	84	893	10.63	17
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences	瑞典	73	2284	31.29	24
University of Minnesota	美国	69	10479	151.87	30
Autonomous University of Madrid	西班牙	67	4322	64.51	37
United States Environmental Protection Agency	美国	67	1255	18.73	20

新窗口打开|下载CSV

3.2.2 主要作者

国际上生态系统服务研究领域10大研究者及其团队特征如表3和图1所示。具体来讲：首先,就研究者而言,两位西班牙****Martin-Lopez B和Gomez-Baggethun E在排行榜上占据了主导地位,其余作者主要来自美国、加拿大以及其他欧洲国家。其次,就研究团队而言,国际上生态系统服务研究初步形成了5个团队效应较为显著、且研究成果较为突出的典型作者群。该结论可以通过对生态系统服务研究发文作者的协作网络图（图1）得出。图中每个节点代表一个作者,节点越大表示该作者的文章数量越多,节点之间的连线表示作者之间的合作,连线越粗说明合作越紧密。图1中的作者协作网络由266位作者和496条协作连线组成,展示出国际上生态系统服务研究有着大量的研究者以及广泛的协作。5个重要研究团队的合作者及研究领域如下所示：

（1）由Martin-Lopez B、Garcia-Llorente M、Gomez-Baggethun E和Palomo I等西班牙****组成的研究团队（蓝色圆圈区域）。他们致力于不同类型的生态系统服务的偏好^[19,20]、生态系统服务评估^[21,22]、半干旱流域生态系统服务供给等问题的研究^{[23,24,25,26]}。该团队提出了生态系统服务评估应将社会文化价值纳入进来,采用非货币方法来评估社会偏好,这为后续生态系统服务评估研究奠定了基础^[19,20]。

（2）以瑞士****Gret-Regamey A为核心的研究团队（绿色椭圆区域）。该团队主要致力于山区的生态系统服务研究^{[27,28,29,30]}以及生态系统服务的评估模型开发^[31,32,33],例如地理信息系统（GIS）的程序模型等。该团队基于地理信息系统（GIS）平台开发了一个评估生态系统产品和服务价值的半自动程序,并通过评估4种类型的生态系统服务来说明该方法,能够很好地帮助决策者平衡不同规划方案对区域经济核算的影响,并能够指导他们选择可持续的以及在经济上可行的发展战略^[31]。

（3）以德国****Haase D为核心的研究团队（橙色椭圆区域）。该团队主要研究城市生态系统服务的模型、评估框架和实际应用等^{[34,35,36,37]}。他们发现,城市生态系统服务的研究大多是在欧洲,北美和中国的城市进行,评估方法涉及生物物理模型、地理信息系统评估等。由于非洲大陆目前的城市增长率最高,因此有必要将城市生态系统服务的研究扩展到这些区域^[36]。此外,他们认为,城市生态系统服务的有效评估框架应该是一种可视化的、参与性的和多标准的评估框架。总的来说,该团队的研究对于城市生态系统服务领域的研究发展具有重要推动作用。

（4）美国****Polasky S和瑞典****Reyers B也有较多数量的文章。他们主要研究生态系统服务标准^[38]、生态系统服务衡量、生物多样性与生态系统服务关系等问题^[39,40,41]。在生态系统服务的衡量上,他们提出应采用基于社会-生态系统的方法来衡量和管理生态系统服务和人类福祉^[39]。该研究对生态系统服务研究方法体系建构具有重要意义。

（5）值得注意的是,以Langemeyer J和Harrison P等为代表的作者群（红色椭圆区域）在过去的几年里进行了非常密切的合作,可能成为未来生态系统服务研究中潜在的重要研究力量。这些作者的文献多围绕生态系统服务的综合评估展开^[42,43,44],整合并引入了多种评估方法与指标,例如多标准决策分析法（Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis,MCDA）^[45,46,47]、决策树法（Decision Tree Approach）等^[48]。

Table 3
表3
表3生态系统服务研究发文量排在前10位的作者
Table 3Top 10 authors in ecosystem service research

作者	发文量/篇	所在单位	所在国家
Martin-Lopez B	49	Autonomous University of Madrid	西班牙
Gomez-Baggethun E	39	Autonomous University of Barcelona	西班牙
Gret-Regamey A	22	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology	瑞士
Polasky S	21	University of Minnesota	美国
Haase D	18	Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research	德国
Garcia-Llorente M	18	Autonomous University of Madrid	西班牙
Reyers B	17	Stockholm University	瑞典
Palomo I	16	Autonomous University of Madrid	西班牙
Bennett Em	16	McGill University	加拿大
Verburg Ph	16	VU University Amsterdam	荷兰

新窗口打开|下载CSV

图1

新窗口打开|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT
图1生态系统服务研究作者协作网络图

Figure 1Collaboration network of authors in ecosystem service research

3.3 生态系统服务研究的地域差异评价

在4208篇纳入分析的文献中,作者们主要来自世界100个国家和地区。为便于分析主要发文国家,表4中列出了发文量排在前10位的国家和地区。从中可以发现3个特点：第一,欧洲的****对该问题研究最多。例如,在生态系统服务研究发文量排在前10位的国家中,除了北美洲的美国、亚洲的中国和大洋洲的澳大利亚这3个国家以外,其余7个国家均来自欧洲。第二,美国的****发文量最多。美国以1320篇发文量和58469次总被引次数位居榜首,而排在次位的英国仅有582篇,与美国存在较大差距。第三,美国****的影响力最高。例如,在各个国家的****中,美国****的H-index指数值最高,远远高于其他国家。

Table 4
表4
表4生态系统服务研究发文量排在前10位的国家
Table 4Top 10 most productive countries in ecosystem service research

	国家	发文量/篇	总被引量/次	平均被引量/次	H-index
1	美国	1320	58469	44.29	113
2	英国	582	24350	41.84	75
3	中国	541	7232	13.37	43
4	德国	512	13640	26.64	62
5	澳大利亚	342	10833	31.68	57
6	西班牙	322	11863	36.84	56
7	荷兰	298	21233	71.25	58
8	法国	283	8667	30.63	45
9	意大利	251	4699	18.72	38
10	瑞典	233	12161	52.19	50

新窗口打开|下载CSV

为评价上述10个国家在生态系统服务研究方面的强度与学术影响力变化,分别使用活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）对此进行分析。在报告结果之前,需要说明的是,考虑到一篇文章的发表时间和被引用时间之间通常会存在滞后的情况^[49,50],因此本文将吸引力指数的时间范围设定为比活力指数滞后2年。两个指数变化情况的象限图如图2所示^①（①限于篇幅,感兴趣的读者可联系作者索取计算结果。）,其中I到IV象限代表4种不同的情形：第I象限的点代表该国AI和AAI指数均高于全球平均水平的年份;第II象限的点代表该国AAI指数高于全球平均水平而AI指数低于全球平均水平的年份;第III象限的点代表该国AI和AAI指数均低于全球平均水平的年份;第四象限的点则代表了该国AI指数高于全球平均水平而AAI指数低于全球平均水平的年份。

图2

新窗口打开|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT
图2前10个国家的AI与AAI指数关系图

注：参考线x=y表示一个国家生态系统服务研究的强度与影响力的平衡状态
Figure 2Relational chart of activity index (AI) and attraction index (AAI) for top 10 countries

总的来说,除美国和荷兰外,其他国家两个指数在研究期内均呈现出上升趋势。从图2可以看到,尽管美国近2年2个指数的值降到了全球平均线以下,但是在大多数年份的研究强度和学术影响均高于全球平均水平。然而,中国、意大利、德国和西班牙尽管在大多数年份的研究强度和学术影响力均低于全球平均水平,但近年来学术影响力却高于全球平均水平,说明这些国家在生态系统服务研究方面的研究实力正不断增强。此外,芬兰研究成果的学术影响力在早期一直高于世界平均水平,近年来有所下降,维持在全球平均水平附近。最后,从每个国家各点到参考线的距离来看,大多数国家折线波动比较剧烈,只有英国、意大利和法国相对接近参考线,意味着他们的研究强度与学术影响力是接近平衡的。

3.4 研究热点

3.4.1 关键词共现分析

关键词反映了作者的写作意图和兴趣,概括了文章的主要内容,人们可以从文章的关键词中获得如研究目标、方法和主要观点等有用的信息^[51]。因此,关键词的频率分析以及时期变化分析是探讨某一研究领域研究热点及其发展变化的关键^[52]。

这部分利用CiteSpace软件的关键词共现分析,绘制生态系统服务研究的关键词共现网络图,测度了该领域的主要研究热点（图3）。图中每个十字形节点代表一个关键词,较大的节点表示关键词出现的频率较高。同样,连线的宽度表示关键词共现的频率,较粗的连线表示两个关键词之间出现的频率较高。毫无疑问,“生态系统服务”（ecosystem service）作为本文检索的主要关键词,是图中最大的节点,共出现1700次,同时与“生物多样性”（biodiversity,1107次）、“保护”（conservation,1029次）、“管理”（management,933次）、“评估”（valuation,571次）密切相关。此外,“土地利用”（land use,441次）、“景观”（landscape,420次）、“影响”（impact,388次）、“框架”（framework,388次）、“气候变化”（climate change,368次）等关键词也因其出现频率较高而成为网络中的重要节点。这些重要节点基本涵盖了国际上生态系统服务研究的几个主要方面：一是生态系统服务与生物多样性关系的研究;二是生态系统服务管理与科学决策的研究;三是多种生态系统服务价值评估的研究;四是土地利用和气候变化对生态系统服务的影响研究;五是生态系统服务分析框架的研究。

图3

新窗口打开|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT
图3生态系统服务研究关键词共现网络图

Figure 3A visualization of the keyword co-occurring network in ecosystem service research

3.4.2 关键词时期变化分析

根据过去近30年有关生态系统服务研究关键词的演变规律,本文归纳出了4个不同时期中最常用的15个关键词（表5）。

Table 5
表5
表5生态系统服务研究关键词4个时期频数变化
Table 5Keyword frequency changes of four periods in ecosystem service research

序号	1994—2004年	频数	2005—2009年	频数	2010—2014年	频数	2015—2018年	频数
1	ecosystem service	15	ecosystem service	109	ecosystem service	579	ecosystem service	997
2	ecology	8	biodiversity	77	biodiversity	379	biodiversity	646
3	biodiversity	5	management	56	conservation	360	conservation	614
4	diversity	4	conservation	53	management	297	management	577
5	equity	3	valuation	32	valuation	207	valuation	332
6	dynamics	3	ecology	27	land use	138	framework	309
7	management	3	forest	27	landscape	121	land use	284
8	benefit	2	diversity	25	climate change	113	landscape	282
9	model	2	environmental service	24	environmental service	113	impact	279
10	united states	2	carbon	20	impact	99	climate change	250
11	value	2	land use	19	forest	88	decision making	218
12	pattern	2	Costa Rica	19	system	83	trade off	179
13	environmental service	2	landscape	17	model	82	policy	175
14	wetland	2	sustainability	16	benefit	81	forest	174
15	ecosystem	2	environment	15	classification	78	value	159

新窗口打开|下载CSV

在第一个时期（1994—2004年）,除生态系统服务（ecosystem service）外,生态学（ecology）和生物多样性（biodiversity）也是该领域研究的主要关键词。然而,由于这一时期的文献数量较少,对于生态系统服务的研究相对分散,不是很系统,因此较难归纳出该时期生态系统服务研究的热点问题。

在第二个时期（2005—2009年）,生态系统服务作为本研究检索的主要关键词依旧发挥主导作用,其次是生物多样性（biodiversity）、管理（management）和保护（conservation）。从这个时期开始,生物多样性开始受到了更多的关注。同时,对于生态系统服务价值“评估”（valuation）的研究也开始增多。生物多样性对于维持生态系统服务至关重要。这一时期生物多样性与生态系统服务的研究主要包括：生物多样性和生态系统服务关系的多尺度实证研究、生物多样性与生态系统的相互作用、生物多样性对生态系统服务的价值等。例如Costanza等^[53]通过研究发现在高温范围地区（平均13℃）,生物多样性每变化1%会引起对应生态系统服务价值约0.5%的变化。同时,该时期研究者们对包括森林^[54]、流域^[55]、湿地^[56]、山地^[31]、农业^[57]等在内的多种生态系统服务的经济价值进行了评估,也有****强调有必要从心理文化视角对生态系统服务价值进行评估以弥补传统评估的缺陷^[58]。不过由于生态系统的结构复杂性和功能多样性,这一时期还没有形成被普遍认可的生态系统服务价值评估方法体系。

在第三个时期（2010—2014年）,生态系统服务、生物多样性、保护、管理和评估仍然是最重要的研究热点,而土地利用（land use）、景观（landscape）生态系统服务以及气候变化（climate change）与生态系统服务也开始在这一领域发挥重要作用。全球最大的环境压力之一来自于人为活动造成的气候变化和土地利用变化,二者均成为影响生态系统服务的重要驱动因素^[59]。这一时期****们集中讨论了土地利用变化、气候变化（包括极端气候事件）对于生态系统服务价值的影响^{[60,61,62,63]},并探讨了生态系统服务价值的空间差异^[64]。例如Costanza等^[65]估计从1997年到2011年,由于土地利用变化而造成的生态服务损失为每年4.3万亿~20.2万亿美元。Hao等^[64]以及Li等^[66]研究认为从生态系统服务价值的角度来看,湿地、水域和林地由于具有较高的生态系统服务价值系数,因此应得到重点保护。这些研究成果极大丰富了土地利用、气候变化与生态系统服务的关系,为定量评估土地利用、气候变化对生态系统服务的影响奠定了一定的基础。当然这些结论的准确性还需要在未来的研究中得到进一步验证。

最后一个时期（2015—2018年）,关于生态系统服务评估框架和方法框架的研究越来越受到****们的重视,“框架”（framework）研究在这一时期已成为生态系统服务研究的一个重要课题（从排行榜外跃升到第6位）。****们一方面利用已有的比较成熟的分析框架和模型,如生态系统服务级联框架（ecosystem services cascade framework）^[67]、生态系统服务与权衡综合评估模型（InVEST）^[68,69]、土壤和水评估工具（SWAT）^[70,71]等,对不同区域的生态系统服务进行评估,并对一些框架和模型进行了评价。例如La Notte等^[72]指出,传统的生态系统服务级联框架只强调生态系统服务的最终用途收益,而忽略了生态系统的内在复杂性。Carvalho-Santos等^[71]的研究结果表明土壤和水评估工具（SWAT）是一种在流域尺度上进行生态系统服务建模和绘图的有效工具。另一方面,一些****也尝试开发新的生态系统服务分析框架。例如,Hough等^[73]提出了一个整合了社会水文学和生态系统服务概念的社会生态水文学阈值框架（SEHT）,并利用该框架识别了美国亚利桑那州的圣佩德罗河沿岸走廊社会生态水文系统的关键驱动因素和阈值,结果可为生态系统服务评估和监测提供指导。Su等^[74]提出了一个基于过程的土壤生态系统服务研究和管理框架,应用该框架评估了汾河上游流域的土壤服务价值,为土壤管理策略的制定提供参考依据。

3.4.3 关键词地域差异分析

由于气候、地理特征、历史因素和经济条件等的不同,不同国家或地区在某一领域的研究发展是不平衡的。发文量排名前10位国家相关研究的高频关键词以及主要研究类型和区域分布情况如表6所示。结果发现,在生态系统服务的研究上,各国或地区的差异不是很大,均最为关注“生态系统服务”和“生物多样性”的关系研究。从研究类型和区域特征上来看,美国和中国研究的类型和区域最为广泛。具体来看,多数国家或地区都涉及了森林生态系统服务的相关研究,包括国家森林、城市森林、森林公园、森林景观等。其次是海洋、河流、湖泊等流域生态系统服务的相关研究,像地中海、中国黄海、山东半岛、长江流域、黄河三角洲、延河流域、太湖流域、美国密西西比河等都是研究相对集中的区域。有关城市生态系统服务的研究也比较多,视角也比较多样化,包括城市园林、城市景观、城市公园、城市绿地等,也有围绕城市化与生态系统服务进行研究的文献,半数以上集中在中国地区。农业生态系统服务的研究主要包括农业景观、农业用地、农田农场、农业土壤（地）以及农林复合生态系统服务等,主要集中在美国、中国、西班牙等国家和地区。湿地生态系统服务的相关研究则以中国、美国和英国为主。此外,各国还有各自独特的研究热点,如美国的“环境服务”研究和中国“城市化”与生态系统服务的关系研究等。

Table 6
表6
表6发文量排在前10位国家的前10个高频关键词以及主要研究类型和区域
Table 6The 10 most frequently used keywords, main research types, and regions in the 10 most influential countries

国家	主要关键词	主要研究类型和区域
美国	生态系统服务,保护,生物多样性,管理,评估,土地利用,气候变化,影响,景观,环境服务	森林生态系统,牧场生态系统,农业生态系统,城市景观生态系统,淡水生态系统,草原生态系统,密西西比河流域湿地生态系统,阿拉斯加海洋生态系统
英国	生态系统服务,生物多样性,保护,管理,评估,气候变化,土地利用,框架,影响,景观	城市生态系统,城市森林生态系统,泥炭地生态系统,湿地生态系统,土地利用
中国	生态系统服务,中国,保护,影响,生物多样性,评估,土地利用,土地利用变化,管理,城市化	森林生态系统,流域生态系统,平原生态系统,高原生态系统,草原生态系统,城市生态系统,湿地生态系统,农业生态系统,土地利用
德国	生态系统服务,生物多样性,保护,管理,框架,评估,土地利用,政策,决策,景观	森林生态系统,城市生态系统,土地利用,威瑟河、莱茵河流域生态系统
澳大利亚	生态系统服务,保护,生物多样性,管理,评估,气候变化,土地利用,景观,澳大利亚,框架	草原生态系统,大堡礁海洋生态系统,湿地生态系统,农业生态系统,土地利用
西班牙	保护,生物多样性,生态系统服务,管理,评估,框架,景观,影响,西班牙,政策	农业生态系统,河流和河岸生态系统,文化景观生态系统,森林生态系统,社会生态系统
荷兰	生态系统服务,生物多样性,保护,管理,评估,框架,景观,决策,政策,土地利用	城市公园生态系统,湿地生态系统,流域生态系统,土地利用
法国	生态系统服务,生物多样性,保护,管理,框架,景观,影响,评估,生物多样性保护,决策	森林景观生态服务,地中海海洋生态系统,城市生态系统,阿尔卑斯山生态系统
意大利	生态系统服务,生物多样性,管理,框架,保护,景观,评估,影响,土地利用,政策	城市生态系统,淡水生态系统,流域生态系统,湿地生态系统
瑞典	生态系统服务,生物多样性,保护,管理,框架,景观,气候变化,弹性,土地利用,治理	城市生态系统,森林生态系统,农业生态系统

新窗口打开|下载CSV

4 结论与讨论

4.1 结论

本文以“Web of Science核心合集”的SCI-E和SSCI数据库为样本数据源,借助CiteSpace可视化软件,绘制了国际上生态系统服务研究的知识图谱,对该研究领域的基本特征、主要研究力量以及研究热点等进行了系统分析,并使用活力指数（AI）和吸引力指数（AAI）对主要国家的研究效率和学术影响力进行了评价。研究发现：

（1）国际上生态系统服务研究的文献数量和被引次数随着年份变化增长显著。发文期刊具有较高的集中性,Ecosystem Services和Ecological Economics是载文数量最多的期刊。该领域的研究者大多来自美国、中国和欧洲国家,初步形成了以西班牙、瑞士、美国、德国为中心的合作网络。

（2）不同国家或地区在生态系统服务的研究实力有所差异,美国在大多数年份的研究强度和学术影响均高于全球平均水平,而中国、意大利、德国和西班牙近年来的研究实力正在不断增强。

（3）近30年来国际上生态系统服务的研究热点变化表明：生态系统服务与生物多样性的关系、生态系统服务管理与科学决策、多种生态系统服务价值评估等方面一直是生态系统服务研究的重要主题。2010年以后,关于土地利用和气候变化对生态系统服务的影响以及生态系统服务评估框架和方法框架的研究越来越受到****们的重视。

（4）从研究类型和区域特征上来看,生态系统服务的研究聚焦于森林生态系统、流域生态系统和城市生态系统。美国和中国生态系统服务研究的类型和区域最为广泛。

4.2 讨论

在对国际上生态系统服务研究发展趋势分析的基础上,探讨未来生态系统服务研究的方向。

第一,在继续跟踪该领域的研究热点基础上,寻求生态系统服务分析方法、分析框架和决策机制的突破。具体来说：首先,在分析方法上,尽管已有研究采用了生态系统服务空间模型（Ecosystem service spatial modelling）^[75]、全球地图方法^[76]等先进的分析方法,但是详细的空间数据以及更为专业的计算模型仍十分缺乏。其次,在分析框架上,尽管有****将生态系统服务与社会需求^[77]、人类福祉^[78,79]等进行融合,发展了相应的分析框架,但还应将生态系统调节服务纳入到生态系统服务分析框架^[80]。最后,应重视文化生态系统服务在生态系统服务权衡与决策上的价值和作用^[81,82]。

第二,随着信息时代的到来和互联网技术在各个领域的深入,未来应考虑将机器学习和大数据挖掘等创新方法纳入到该领域的研究中来。目前,已有文献在这方面进行了尝试^[83],但是,随着机器学习算法的不断优化以及大数据信息量的日益丰富,运用机器学习方法进行国际生态系统服务建模尤其是建立跨学科模型,将为系统解决复杂社会生态问题提供重要思路。

需要指出的是,CiteSpace软件尽管已经广泛应用于文献计量研究,该软件也存在一些缺点。例如,第一作者和通讯作者没有进行清楚地区分等。此外,目前还有许多其他的文献可视化分析工具,可以结合不同的可视化技术,为生态系统服务研究提供一个更加综合的知识图谱。当然,本文是基于客观文献数据进行的文献计量分析,研究结果稳定可靠且总体上不受经验主义的影响。因此,本文的研究结论对于生态系统服务领域研究动态及进展的把握具有一定的理论价值和参考意义。

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]

Hossain M

, Pogue S

, Trenchard

, et al. Identifying future research directions for biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability: Perspectives from early-career researchers
[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2018,25(3):249-261.

DOI:10.1080/13504509.2017.1361480 URL [本文引用: 1]

[2]

Palomo-Campesino

, Gonzalez J

, Garcia-Llorente

. Exploring the connections between agroecological practices and ecosystem services: A systematic literature review
[J]. Sustainability, 2018, doi: http://www.resci.cn/article/2020/1007-7588/10.%203390/su10124339.

[本文引用: 1]

[3]

Sattler

, Loft

, Carsten

, et al. Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,34:155-168.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.007 URL [本文引用: 1]

[4]

Yang Y C

, Passarelli

, Lovell R

, et al. Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,31:58-67.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.015 URL [本文引用: 1]

[5]

Wang Z

, Zhao Y

, Wang

. A bibliometric analysis of climate change adaptation based on massive research literature data
[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,199:1072-1082.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.183 URL [本文引用: 1]

[6]

Ekundayo T

, Okoh A

. A global bibliometric analysis of Plesiomonas-related research (1990-2017)
[J]. Plos One, 2018,13(11):e0207655.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0207655 URL [本文引用: 1]

[7]

谢伶, 王金伟, 吕杰华 . 国际黑色旅游研究的知识图谱: 基于CiteSpace的计量分析
[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(3):454-466.

DOI:10.18402/resci.2019.03.04 URL [本文引用: 1]

近年来,“黑色旅游”广受学术界关注,相关研究成果大量涌现,现已成为一个不断发展演进的重要知识领域。本文以“Web of Science^TM核心合集”为数据源,利用科学计量工具CiteSpace刻画了国际黑色旅游研究的知识图谱。研究发现：①国际黑色旅游研究的文献数量随着年份变化呈逐渐增长趋势,大量文献出现于2008年之后;②发文期刊集中于Annals of Tourism Research、Tourism Management等旅游学科传统的知名期刊;③发文作者多来自欧美和东亚地区,但各研究者之间合作较少;④样本中有17篇文献在该领域的知识演进过程中起到了关键作用,是最重要的知识基础;⑤研究内容集中于黑色旅游“供给”方面,对作为“需求”方的旅游者研究相对较少。通过对国际黑色旅游研究现状及进展的分析,本文认为未来国内黑色旅游研究应重点关注理论体系的构建、研究方法的创新以及研究的合作交流等方面。本文对深入认识国际黑色旅游研究领域的知识结构及其演化关系具有一定价值,同时也能为国内黑色旅游研究与实践提供参考。

[ Xie

, Wang J

, Lv J

. Knowledge mapping of international dark tourism research: A bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace
[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(3):454-466.]

DOI:10.18402/resci.2019.03.04 URL [本文引用: 1]

Shiffrin R

, B?rner

. Mapping knowledge domains
[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004,101:5183-5185.

[本文引用: 1]

[9]

李杰, 陈超美 . CiteSpace: 科技文本挖掘及可视化[M]. 北京: 首都经济贸易出版社, 2016.

[本文引用: 1]

[ Li

, Chen C

. CiteSpace: Text Mining and Visualization in Scientific Literature[M]. Beijing: Capital University of Economics and Business Press, 2016.]

[本文引用: 1]

[10]

冷疏影, 高锡章, 裴韬 , 等. 地理科学三十年: 从经典到前沿[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2016.

[本文引用: 1]

[ Leng S

, Gao X

, Pei

, et al. 30 Years of Geographic Science: From Classic to Frontier[M]. Beijing: Commercial Press, 2016.]

[本文引用: 1]

[11]

张玲玲, 巩杰, 张影 . 基于文献计量分析的生态系统服务研究现状及热点
[J]. 生态学报, 2016,36(18):5967-5977.

DOI:10.5846/stxb201504060688 URL [本文引用: 1]

生态系统服务是生态学研究的核心和热点议题。近年来，各国和各相关机构对生态系统服务的研究力度不断加大。基于SCI-E和CNKI数据库，利用文献计量方法，分析了国内外生态系统服务研究的发展特征和变化趋势。研究结果表明：（1）国内外生态系统服务研究的发文量不断增加，发展态势良好。（2）发达国家是生态系统服务领域的主要研究力量，美国占据绝对领先地位；美国的加利福尼亚大学是主要研究机构；总体来看，国家和机构间的合作正在不断增强。（3）当前该领域的8类研究热点分别是生态系统服务机理研究，保护管理及可持续性、生物多样性、脆弱性、土地利用及景观变化、评估与模型、气候变化、政策与决策分析。从各个时期国内外研究热点整体分布情况来看，国际更侧重于生态系统服务及生态系统服务与人类福祉的依存关系的研究，国内则更加关注生态系统服务评估。（4）近年来中国在生态系统服务研究领域的国际地位有所提升，科研产出量显著增加，累积发文量居世界第5位，中国科学院是全球主要研究机构之一，但论文被引频次相对偏低，国际合作亟待加强和提升。

[ Zhang L

, Gong

, Zhang

. A review of ecosystem services: A bibliometric analysis based on web of science
[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016,36(18):5967-5977.]

DOI:10.5846/stxb201504060688 URL [本文引用: 1]

Aleixandre-Benavent

, Aleixandre-Tudo

J L

, Castello-Cogollos

, et al. Trends in global research in deforestation: A bibliometric analysis
[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018,72:293-302.

DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.060 URL [本文引用: 1]

[13]

Peng B

, Guo D

, Qiao

, et al. Bibliometric and visualized analysis of China’s coal research 2000-2015
[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,197:1177-1189.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.283 URL [本文引用: 1]

[14]

Wang

, Xue X

, Zhang Y

, et al. Exploring the emerging evolution trends of urban resilience research by scientometric analysis
[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, DOI: http://www.resci.cn/article/2020/1007-7588/10.%203390/ijerph15102181.

[本文引用: 1]

[15]

Song J

, Zhang H

, Dong W

. A review of emerging trends in global PPP research: Analysis and visualization
[J]. Scientometrics, 2016,107:1111-1147.

DOI:10.1007/s11192-016-1918-1 URL [本文引用: 1]

[16]

Shi

, Cheng C

, Jing

, et al. Visualized analysis of developing trends and hot topics in natural disaster research
[J]. Plos One, 2018,13(1):e0191250.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0191250 URL [本文引用: 1]

[17]

Schubert

, Braun

. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact
[J]. Scientometrics, 1986,9(5-6):281-291.

DOI:10.1007/BF02017249 URL [本文引用: 1]

[18]

Chen K

, Guan J

. A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals
[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011,5(2):233-247.

DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.007 URL [本文引用: 1]

The three important research domains, nanotechnology, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, integratedly breed a promising multidisciplinary domain in the post-genomic age, which was recently defined by the term "nanobiopharmaceuticals". In this paper, we firstly investigate its general development profiles, and then implement cross-country comparisons in its research performances, with the focus on the world share, relative research effort, impact and quality of five productive countries. Furthermore, from the science mapping perspective, we build the co-word and co-citation networks respectively for detecting its intellectual structure as well as evolution footprints of intellectual turning points. The growth examinations based on the datasets from WoS, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Review confirm the exponential growth of publications and citations in nanobiopharm-research. The cross-country comparisons show that USA is the leading country, and China is an up-and-coming contributor. The visual mapping structures by co-occurrence analyses show that nanobiopharm-research is currently focused on the drug development for improving biodistribution, bioavailability and pharmacokinetics, and the drug delivery for improving delivery of existing drugs. Some pivot publications is identified by CiteSpace, which work as structural holes, research fronts and intellectual bases for the nanobiopharm-research development in the given time window. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

[19]

Martín-López

, García-Llorente

, Ignacio

, et al. The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Donana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain)
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2011,70(8):1481-1491.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.009 URL [本文引用: 2]

The ecosystems of the Donana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain) provide numerous ecosystem services to society. We valued the most important ecosystem services through a market-based approach, revealed-preference and stated-preference methods to assess the conservation effectiveness of the Donana Protected Area, with consideration of existing human activities in surrounding lands. We also analysed the spatial distribution of the ecosystem services beneficiaries and the scale of their related markets. We found a clear trade-off between the local and global market values of ecosystem services because landscape management outside of the Donana Protected Area promotes the provision of ecosystem services associated with international markets. Our results suggest that a conservation against development model occurs in the Donana social-ecological system, in which land use intensification takes place outside of the Protected Area borders as a result of promoting marketed ecosystem services, while biodiversity conservation is the main activity inside the Protected Area. We conclude that protected areas should be part of a larger-scale, adaptive landscape management strategy in which conservation planning should be the focal element in coordinating sectoral policies in the context of social-ecological systems. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V.

[20]

Martín-López

, Iniesta-Arandia

, García-Llorente

, et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences
[J]. Plos One, 2012,7(6):e38970.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 URL [本文引用: 2]

[21]

Martin-Lopez

, Gomez-Baggethun

, Garcia-Llorente

, et al. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment
[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014,37:220-228.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003 URL [本文引用: 1]

One of the key challenges for ecosystem services research is to develop a comprehensive methodological approach in which biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary value-domains can be explicitly considered and integrated into decision making processes. This paper operationalizes a methodological approach for ecosystem service assessment on the basis of value pluralism. We assessed eleven ecosystem services delivered in the Do (n) over tilde ana social-ecological system (SW Spain). We found that different ecosystem service trade-offs came into view depending the value-domain in which services were assessed. The use Of different valuation methods uncovers the fact that methods to elicit value actually shape and define the values being elicited. In this context, the prevalence of biophysical and monetary value-domains in scientific literature entails two main concerns: (1) the ecosystem service concept reflect in a limited extent the concerns of their beneficiaries, and (2) ecosystem service assessment results are biased towards the information provided by markets at the expense of other value-articulating institutions. Recognizing the role of ecosystem service assessment methods as value-articulating institutions, we call for a methodological framework able to contemplate the multidimensional nature of ecosystem services. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

[22]

Gomez-Baggethun

, Kelemen

, Martín-López

, et al. Scale misfit in ecosystem service governance as a source of environmental conflict
[J]. Society & Natural Resources, 2013,26(10):1202-1216.

[本文引用: 1]

[23]

Garca-Llorente

, Iniesta-Arandia

, Willaarts B

, et al. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds
[J]. Ecology and Society, 2015, DOI: http://www.resci.cn/article/2020/1007-7588/10.%205751/ES-07785-200339.

[本文引用: 1]

[24]

Garca-Llorente

, Martín-López

, Iniesta-Arandia

, et al. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach
[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2012, 19-20:136-146.

[本文引用: 1]

[25]

Garcia-Llorente

, Castro A

, Quintas-Soriano

, et al. The value of time in biological conservation and supplied ecosystem services: A willingness to give up time exercise
[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2016,124:13-21.

DOI:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.004 URL [本文引用: 1]

[26]

García-Llorente

, Harrison P

, Berry

, et al. What can conservation strategies learn from the ecosystem services approach? Insights from ecosystem assessments in two Spanish protected areas
[J]. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2018,27(7):1575-1597.

DOI:10.1007/s10531-016-1152-4 URL [本文引用: 1]

[27]

Grêt-Regamey

, Walz

, Bebi

. Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions
[J]. Mountain Research and Development, 2008,28(2):156-165.

DOI:10.1659/mrd.0951 URL [本文引用: 1]

[28]

Grêt-Regamey

, Brunner S

, Kienast

. Mountain ecosystem services: Who cares?
[J]. Mountain Research and Development, 2012,32(S1):S23-S34.

DOI:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00115.S1 URL [本文引用: 1]

[29]

Gret-Regamey

, Brunner S

, Altwegg

, et al. Integrating expert knowledge into mapping ecosystem services trade-offs for sustainable forest management
[J]. Ecology and Society, 2013, DOI: http://www.resci.cn/article/2020/1007-7588/10.%205751/ES-05800-180334.

[本文引用: 1]

[30]

Grêt-Regamey

, Brunner S

, Altwegg

, et al. Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management
[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013,127(S1):145-154.

[本文引用: 1]

[31]

Grêt-Regamey

, Bebi

, Bishop I

, et al. Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an alpine region
[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2008,89(3):197-208.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.05.019 URL [本文引用: 3]

Planning frequently fails to include the valuation of public goods and services. This can have long-term negative economic consequences for a region. This is especially the case in mountainous regions such as the Alps, which depend on tourism and where land-use changes can negatively impact key ecosystem services and hence the economy. In this study, we develop a semi-automatic procedure to value ecosystem goods and services. Several existing process-based models linked to economic valuation methods are integrated into a geographic information system (GIS) platform. The model requires the input of a digital elevation model, a land-cover map, and a spatially explicit temperature dataset. These datasets are available for most regions in Europe. We illustrate the approach by valuing four ecosystem services: avalanche protection, timber production, scenic beauty, and habitat, which are supplied by the “Landschaft Davos”, an administrative district in the Swiss Alps. We compare the impacts of a human development scenario and a climate scenario on the value of these ecosystem services. Urban expansion and tourist infrastructure developments have a negative impact on scenic beauty and habitats. These impacts outweigh the benefits of the developments in the long-term. Forest expansion, predictable under a climate change scenario, favours natural avalanche protection and habitats. In general, such non-marketed benefits provided by the case-study region more than compensate for the costs of forest maintenance. Finally, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the approach. Despite its limitations, we show how this approach could well help decision-makers balance the impacts of different planning options on the economic accounting of a region, and guide them in selecting sustainable and economically feasible development strategies.

[32]

Grêt-Regamey

, Celio

, Klein T

, et al. Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning
[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013,109(1):107-116.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011 URL [本文引用: 1]

Given the accelerating rate of urbanization worldwide, the sustainable provision of urban ecosystem services becomes increasingly important for the growing number of city dwellers. Attempts to increase a single ecosystem service however often lead to reduction or losses of others. For making sound decisions about sustainable urban development, knowledge and awareness of the interactions between ecosystem services are thus necessary. In this paper, we show how interactive rulers embedded in a 3D GIS-based procedural modeling environment can assist in making urban ecosystem services trade-offs explicit for sustainable urban planning. The interactive rulers are slider bars that offer stakeholders the possibility to explore trade-offs in ecosystem services reflected in different urban designs. The approach is illustrated in a case study in Abu Dhabi, Masdar City, a new city designed from scratch. An interactive 3D visualization approach links parametric shape grammars for the design of generative urban patterns and the reporting of urban ecosystem services. We show how various urban design scenarios can be generated in an interactive manner allowing a balance between the esthetics of the urban designs and a set of indicators describing the provision of relevant ecosystem services. With this approach, the space for actions and behavioral alternatives become explicit – a crucial step for sustainable urban planning which calls for innovative strategies to adapt to these uncertain and rapid changes.

[33]

Grêt-Regamey

, Altwegg J

, Elina

, et al. Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning: A spatial decision support tool
[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017,165:206-219.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003 URL [本文引用: 1]

[34]

Haase

, Schwarz

, Strohbach

, et al. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany
[J]. Ecology and Society, 2012, DOI: http://www.resci.cn/article/2020/1007-7588/10.%205751/es-04853-17%200322.

[本文引用: 1]

[35]

Haase

, Frantzeskaki

, Elmqvist

. Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: Practical applications and governance implications
[J]. Ambio, 2014,43(4):407-412.

DOI:10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1 URL [本文引用: 1]

Urban landscapes are the everyday environment for the majority of the global population, and almost 80 % of the Europeans live in urban areas. The continuous growth in the number and size of urban areas along with an increasing demand on resources and energy poses great challenges for ensuring human welfare in cities while preventing an increasing loss of biodiversity. The understanding of how urban ecosystems function, provide goods and services for urban dwellers; and how they change and what allows and limits their performance can add to the understanding of ecosystem change and governance in general in an ever more human-dominated world. This Special Issue aims at bridging the knowledge gap among urbanization, demand creation, and provisioning of ecosystem services in urban regions on the one hand and schemes of urban governance and planning on the other.

[36]

Haase

, Larondelle

, Andersson

, et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation
[J]. Ambio, 2014,43(4):413-433.

DOI:10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0 URL [本文引用: 2]

Although a number of comprehensive reviews have examined global ecosystem services (ES), few have focused on studies that assess urban ecosystem services (UES). Given that more than half of the world's population lives in cities, understanding the dualism of the provision of and need for UES is of critical importance. Which UES are the focus of research, and what types of urban land use are examined? Are models or decision support systems used to assess the provision of UES? Are trade-offs considered? Do studies of UES engage stakeholders? To address these questions, we analyzed 217 papers derived from an ISI Web of Knowledge search using a set of standardized criteria. The results indicate that most UES studies have been undertaken in Europe, North America, and China, at city scale. Assessment methods involve bio-physical models, Geographical Information Systems, and valuation, but few study findings have been implemented as land use policy.

[37]

Haase

, Haase

, Rink

. Conceptualizing the nexus between urban shrinkage and ecosystem services
[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014,132:159-169.

DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.003 URL [本文引用: 1]

Urban shrinkage has become an issue for urban planning and policy in Europe because approximately 40% of its large cities are currently losing population. Shrinkage implies dramatic land-use impacts, including under-utilisation, vacancy, demolition, emerging brownfield sites, and de-densification. However, shrinkage also offers great potential to "re-create" that is, to enhance and implement urban green space including the ecosystem services it provides: Local climate and air quality regulation by trees that grow on abandoned land, carbon sequestration and storage by vegetation on vacant lots, preservation or enhancement of urban biodiversity, and recreational facilities that support the mental and physical health of the inhabitants through the enlargement of parks and woodlands. This paper argues that there is a linkage a nexus between shrinkage and ecosystem services provisioning. We develop a matrix approach that links the potentials of land use (change) related to urban shrinkage with ecosystem services provisioning in cities. Through a discussion of these potentials, challenges, and the relevant strategies of urban planning such as interim uses, urban afforestation, or community gardens, we show how planning policy in shrinking cities could benefit from considering the nexus between shrinkage and urban ecosystem services provision. Empirical evidence comes from Leipzig, Germany, a city that has, until very recently, experienced decades of shrinkage and still faces many of the resulting challenges. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V.

[38]

Polasky

, Tallis

, Reyers

. Setting the bar: Standards for ecosystem services
[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015,112(24):7356-7361.

DOI:10.1073/pnas.1406490112 URL [本文引用: 1]

[39]

Reyers

, Biggs

, Cumming G

, et al. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: A social-ecological approach
[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2013,11(5):268-273.

DOI:10.1890/120144 URL [本文引用: 2]

Despite growing interest and investment in ecosystem services across global science and policy arenas, it remains unclear how ecosystem services - and particularly changes in those services - should be measured. The social and ecological factors, and their interactions, that create and alter ecosystem services are inherently complex. Measuring and managing ecosystem services requires a sophisticated systems-based approach that accounts for how these services are generated by interconnected social-ecological systems (SES), how different services interact with each other, and how changes in the total bundle of services influence human well-being (HWB). Furthermore, there is a need to understand how changes in HWB feedback and affect the generation of ecosystem services. Here, we outline an SES-based approach for measuring ecosystem services and explore its value for setting policy targets, developing indicators, and establishing monitoring and assessment programs.

[40]

Reyers

, O’Farrell

P J

, Cowling

R M

, et al. Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: Finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot
[J]. Ecology & Society, 2009,14(1):1698-1707.

[本文引用: 1]

[41]

Reyers

, Polasky

, Tallis

, et al. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services
[J]. Bioscience, 2012,62(5):503-507.

DOI:10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12 URL [本文引用: 1]

Recently, some members of the conservation community have used ecosystem services as a strategy to conserve biodiversity. Others in the community have criticized this strategy as a distraction from the mission of biodiversity conservation. The debate continues, and it remains unclear whether the concerns expressed are significant enough to merit the opposition. Through an exploration of the science of biodiversity and ecosystem services, we find that narrow interpretations of metrics, values, and management drive much of the tension and make the common ground appear small. The size of this common ground depends on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services and how they respond to management interventions. We demonstrate how understanding this response can be used to delimit common ground but highlight the importance of differentiating between objectives and approaches to meeting those objectives in conservation projects.

[42]

Barton D

, Kelemen

, Dick

, et al. (Dis) integrated valuation: Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:529-541.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021 URL [本文引用: 1]

[43]

Dick

, Turkelboom

, Woods

. Stakeholders’perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:552-565.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015 URL [本文引用: 1]

[44]

Saarikoski

, Primmer

, Sanna-Riikka

, et al. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:579-598.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019 URL [本文引用: 1]

[45]

Langemeyer

, Gomez-Baggethun

, Haase

, et al. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 2018,62(S1):45-56.

[本文引用: 1]

[46]

Langemeyer

, Palomo

, Baraibar

, et al. Participatory multi-criteria decision aid: Operationalizing an integrated assessment of ecosystem services
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,30:49-60.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.012 URL [本文引用: 1]

[47]

Saarikoski

, Mustajoki

, Barton D

, et al. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2016,22:238-249.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.014 URL [本文引用: 1]

[48]

Harrison P

, Dunford

, Barton D

, et al. Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:481-498.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016 URL [本文引用: 1]

[49]

Glanzel

, Danell

, Persson

. The decline of Swedish neuroscience: Decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator
[J]. Scientometrics, 2003,57(2):197-213.

DOI:10.1023/A:1024185601555 URL [本文引用: 1]

Recent studies have reported on a steady decline of Sweden's relative citation impact in almost all science fields, above all in the life sciences. The authors attempt to shed light on the observed decline in Swedish neuroscience through a detailed citation analysis at different level of aggregations. Thus national citation data are decomposed to the institutional, departmental and individual level. Both, the decomposition of national science indicators and changing collaboration patterns in Swedish neuroscience reveal interesting details on the 'anatomy' of a decline.

[50]

Qiu

, Chen Y

. Bibliometric analysis of biological invasions research during the period of 1991 to 2007
[J]. Scientometrics, 2009,81(3):601-610.

DOI:10.1007/s11192-008-2207-4 URL [本文引用: 1]

The objective of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of all biological invasions-related publications in the Science Citation Index (SCI) from 1991 to 2007. The indicator citation per publication (CPP) was used to evaluate the impact of articles, journals, and institutions. In the 3323 articles published in 521 journals, 7261 authors from 1905 institutions of 100 countries participated. As the most productive country of biological invasions research, the US will benefit from more collaboration between institutions, countries, and continents. In addition, analysis of keywords was applied to reveal research trends.

[51]

Tian

, Geng

, Sarkis

, et al. Trends and features of embodied flows associated with international trade based on bibliometric analysis
[J]. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 2018,131:148-157.

DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.002 URL [本文引用: 1]

[52]

Wang Z

, Zhao Y

, Wang

. A bibliometric analysis of climate change adaptation based on massive research literature data
[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018,199:1072-1082.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.183 URL [本文引用: 1]

[53]

Costanza

, Fisher

, Mulder

, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2007,61(2-3):478-491.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.021 URL [本文引用: 1]

[54]

Barbier E

. Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs
[J]. Economic Policy, 2007,49:178-229.

[本文引用: 1]

[55]

Butler J R

, Radford

, Riddington

, et al. Evaluating an ecosystem service provided by Atlantic salmon, sea trout and other fish species in the River Spey, Scotland: The economic impact of recreational rod fisheries
[J]. Fisheries Research, 2009,96(2-3):259-266.

DOI:10.1016/j.fishres.2008.12.006 URL [本文引用: 1]

[56]

Hein

, van Koppen

, de Groot R

, et al. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2006,57(2):209-228.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 URL [本文引用: 1]

[57]

Dong X

, Gao W

, Chen Y

, et al. Valuation of fragile agro-ecosystem services in the Loess region: A case study of Ansai County in China
[J]. Outlook on Agriculture, 2007,36(4):247-253.

DOI:10.5367/000000007783418561 URL [本文引用: 1]

[58]

Kumar

, Kumar

. Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2008,64(4):808-819.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008 URL [本文引用: 1]

[59]

Lorencova

, Frelichova

, Nelson

, et al. Past and future impacts of land use and climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic
[J]. Land Use Policy, 2013,33:183-194.

DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012 URL [本文引用: 1]

Climatic and land use change are amongst the greatest global environmental pressures resulting from anthropogenic activities. Both significantly influence the provision of crucial ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, water flow regulation, and food and fibre production, at a variety of scales. The aim of this study is to provide spatially explicit information at a national level on climate and land use change impacts in order to assess changes in the provision of ecosystem services. This work provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the impacts on selected ecosystem services (carbon sequestration, food production and soil erosion) in the agricultural sector of the Czech Republic. This assessment shows that, historical land use trends and land use under projected climate scenarios display some shared spatial patterns. Specifically, these factors both lead to a significant decrease of arable land in the border fringes of the Czech Republic, which is to some extent replaced by grasslands, in turn affecting the provision of ecosystem services. Moreover, this assessment contributes to a useful method for integrating spatially explicit land use and climate change analysis that can be applied to other sectors or transition countries elsewhere. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

[60]

Ditt E

, Mourato

, Ghazoul

, et al. Forest conversion and provision of ecosystem services in the Brazilian Atlantic forest
[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2010,21(6):591-603.

[本文引用: 1]

[61]

Polasky

, Nelson

, Pennington

, 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]. Environmental & Resource Economics, 2011,48(2):219-242.

[本文引用: 1]

[62]

Matthews S

, Iverson L

, Peters M

, et al. Assessing and comparing risk to climate changes among forested locations: Implications for ecosystem services
[J]. Landscape Ecology, 2014,29(2):213-228.

DOI:10.1007/s10980-013-9965-y URL [本文引用: 1]

Forests provide key ecosystem services (ES) and the extent to which the ES are realized varies spatially, with forest composition and cultural context, and in breadth, depending on the dominant tree species inhabiting an area. We address the question of how climate change may impact ES within the temperate and diverse forests of the eastern United States. We quantify the vulnerability to changes in forest habitat by 2100, based on the overall pressures of community change from an aggregation of current and potential future habitats for 134 tree species at each of 149 US Department of Defense installations. To do so, we derive an index, Forest-Related Index of Climate Vulnerability, composed of several indicators of vulnerability for each site. Further, a risk matrix (likelihood 9 consequences) provides a visual cue to compare vulnerabilities among species (example from Pennsylvania) or among sites [example for Acer saccharum (sugar maple) in Vermont vs. Kentucky]. Potential changes in specific ES can then be qualitatively examined. For example in Pennsylvania, the loss of the provisioning services (wood products) of Prunus serotina (black cherry) and Fraxinus americana (white ash) habitat projected for the future will not likely be compensated for by concomitant increases in Juniperus virginiana (redcedar) and Pinus echinata (shortleaf pine) habitat. Taken together, this approach provides a conceptual framework that allows for consideration of how potential changes in tree species habitats, as impacted by climate change, can be combined to explore relative changes in important ES that forests provide.

[63]

Terrado

, Acuna

, Ennaanay

, et al. Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin
[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2014,37:199-209.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.016 URL [本文引用: 1]

Climate change projections in the Mediterranean region are associated with more frequent extreme climate conditions, which could alter water availability and impact the delivery of ecosystem services. We assess the change in the delivery of three hydrological ecosystem services, one provisioning (water), and two regulating (water purification and erosion control), in the heavily humanized Llobregat River basin (Catalonia, NE Spain) in recently observed extreme wet and dry years. Results indicate that impacts on the delivery of services were especially important in dry years. The main sources of water supply were located in the northern part of the basin and they were the most affected by annual rainfall reduction. Drinking water and hydropower production were highly threatened in dry years, when benefits were almost 100% reduced with respect to the benefits obtained in normal years. The regulating service water purification provided higher benefits in dry years, when water quality was more likely to be compromised due to a decreased dilution capacity. Water purification benefits in normal years increased 127% in dry years. According to our results, no benefit was provided by water purification in wet years. Collectively, our findings emphasize that hydrological ecosystem services in semi-arid basins which are subject to chronic human pressure are very sensitive to the climate conditions of extreme years. We also find a spatial decoupling among areas of service supply and areas where the service is demanded. Management efforts in Mediterranean basins should consider both of these aspects. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

[64]

Hao F

, Lai X

, Ouyang

, et al. Effects of land use changes on the ecosystem service values of a reclamation farm in northeast China
[J]. Environmental Management, 2012,50(5):888-899.

DOI:10.1007/s00267-012-9923-5 URL [本文引用: 2]

Intensive agricultural development can change land use, which can further affect regional ecosystem services and functions. With the rapid growth of the population and the national demand for food, the northeast of China, which is located in the high latitudes, has experienced four agricultural developments since the 1950s. The original wetlands of this area were developed for farmland. The evaluation of ecosystem services is conducted to reveal the ecosystem status and variable trends caused by land reclamation. The aim of this study is to provide scientific basis for environmental management and for the sustainable development of agriculture in Northeast China. With GIS-RS technology, a typical farm was chosen to analyze variations in the ecosystem service value in response to land use changes during the study period. The total ecosystem service value of the farm decreased from 7523.10 million Yuan in 1979 to 4023.59 million Yuan in 2009 with an annual rate of -1.6 % due to the decreasing areas of woodland and wetland. The increased areas of cropland, water area and grassland partly offset the loss of the total value, but the loss was still greater than the compensation. Waste treatment and climate regulation were the top two service functions with high service values, contributing to approximately 50 % of the total service value. The spatial difference of the ecosystem service value also was analyzed. The wetlands located in the central and northeastern sections of the farm changed significantly. From the aspect of ecosystem service value, the wetland and water area should be conserved, as they have the highest value coefficients. The accuracy of the value coefficient, however, needs to be studied further in future research.

[65]

Costanza

, de Groot

, Sutton

, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
[J]. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 2014,26:152-158.

DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 URL [本文引用: 1]

In 1997, the global value of ecosystem services was estimated to average $33 trillion/yr in 1995 $US ($46 trillion/yr in 2007 $US). In this paper, we provide an updated estimate based on updated unit ecosystem service values and land use change estimates between 1997 and 2011. We also address some of the critiques of the 1997 paper. Using the same methods as in the 1997 paper but with updated data, the estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr (assuming updated unit values and changes to biome areas) and $145 trillion/yr (assuming only unit values changed), both in 2007 $US. From this we estimated the loss of eco-services from 1997 to 2011 due to land use change at $4.3-20.2 trillion/yr, depending on which unit values are used. Global estimates expressed in monetary accounting units, such as this, are useful to highlight the magnitude of eco-services, but have no specific decision-making context. However, the underlying data and models can be applied at multiple scales to assess changes resulting from various scenarios and policies. We emphasize that valuation of eco-services (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

[66]

Li T

, Li W

, Qian Z

. Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2010,69(7):1427-1435.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.018 URL [本文引用: 1]

[67]

Andersson-Skold

, Klingberg

, Gunnarsson

, et al. A framework for assessing urban greenery’s effects and valuing its ecosystem services
[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018,205:274-285.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.071 URL [本文引用: 1]

[68]

Arunyawat

, Shrestha R

. Simulating future land use and ecosystem services in Northern Thailand
[J]. Journal of Land Use Science, 2018,13(1-2):146-165.

DOI:10.1080/1747423X.2018.1496157 URL [本文引用: 1]

[69]

Dai E

, Zhu J

, Wang X

, et al. Multiple ecosystem services of monoculture and mixed plantations: A case study of the Huitong experimental forest of Southern China
[J]. Land Use Policy, 2018,79:717-724.

DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.014 URL [本文引用: 1]

[70]

Dennedy-Frank P

, Muenich R

, Chaubey

, et al. Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions
[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016,177:331-340.

DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.012 URL [本文引用: 1]

[71]

Carvalho-Santos

, Sousa-Silva

, Goncalves

, et al. Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation under forestation scenarios: Options to improve management in the Vez watershed, NW Portugal
[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2016,16(6):1557-1570.

DOI:10.1007/s10113-015-0892-0 URL [本文引用: 2]

[72]

La Notte

, D’Amato

, Makinen

, et al. Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework
[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2017,74:392-402.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030 URL [本文引用: 1]

[73]

Hough

, Pavao-Zuckerman

M A

, Scott

C A

. Connecting plant traits and social perceptions in riparian systems: Ecosystem services as indicators of thresholds in social-ecohydrological systems
[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2018,566:860-871.

DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.005 URL [本文引用: 1]

[74]

Su C

, Liu H

, Wang

. A process-based framework for soil ecosystem services study and management
[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2018,627:282-289.

DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.244 URL [本文引用: 1]

[75]

Zulian

, Stange

, Woods

, et al. Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:465-480.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.005 URL [本文引用: 1]

[76]

Wolff

, Schulp

C J E

, Kastner

, et al. Quantifying spatial variation in ecosystem services demand: A global mapping approach
[J]. Ecological Economics, 2017,136:14-29.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.005 URL [本文引用: 1]

[77]

Wei H

, Liu H

, Xu Z

, et al. Linking ecosystem services supply, social demand and human well-being in a typical mountain-oasis-desert area, Xinjiang, China
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,31:44-57.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.012 URL [本文引用: 1]

[78]

Wang B

, Tang H

, Xu

. Integrating ecosystem services and human well-being into management practices: Insights from a mountain-basin area, China
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2017,27:58-69.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.018 URL [本文引用: 1]

[79]

Vaz A

, Kueffer

, Kull C

, et al. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: Insights from plant invasions
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2017,23:94-107.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017 URL [本文引用: 1]

[80]

Sutherland I

, Villamagna A

, Dallaire C

, et al. Undervalued and under pressure: A plea for greater attention toward regulating ecosystem services
[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2018,94:23-32.

DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.047 URL [本文引用: 1]

[81]

Bullock

, Joyce

, Collier

. An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,31:142-152.

[本文引用: 1]

[82]

Turkelboom

, Leone

, Jacobs

. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,26:566-578.

[本文引用: 1]

[83]

Willcock

, Martinez-Lopez

, Hooftman

D A P

, et al. Machine learning for ecosystem services
[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,33:165-174.

[本文引用: 1]