李睿倩^,1,2, 李永富^3,4, 胡恒⁵1. 中国海洋大学国际事务与公共管理学院,青岛 266100
2. 中国海洋大学海洋发展研究院,青岛 266100
3. 中国科学院海洋研究所,青岛 266071
4. 南通中国科学院海洋研究所海洋科学与技术研究发展中心,南通 226000
5. 国家海洋技术中心,天津 300112

Support of ecosystem services for spatial planning theories and practices

LI Ruiqian^,1,2, LI Yongfu^3,4, HU Heng⁵1. School of International Affairs and Public Administration, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, Shandong, China
2. Institute of Marine Development of Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, Shandong, China
3. Institute of Oceanology, CAS, Qingdao 266071, Shandong, China
4. Nantong Research and Development Center of Marine Science and Technology, Institute of Oceanology, CAS, Nantong 226019, Jiangsu, China
5. National Ocean Technology Center, Tianjin 300112, China

收稿日期:2019-09-2修回日期:2020-06-10网络出版日期:2020-11-25

基金资助:

山东省社会科学规划研究项目.19DZZJ03 中央高校基本科研业务费专项.201913002 青岛市社会科学规划研究项目.QDSKL1801007 中国海洋大学引进人才科研启动基金项目.861901013121

Received:2019-09-2Revised:2020-06-10Online:2020-11-25

Fund supported:

Shandong Social Science Planning Research Program.19DZZJ03 Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.201913002 Qingdao Social Science Planning Research Program.QDSKL1801007 Ocean University of China Initial Foundation of Scientific Research for Qualified Personnel.861901013121

作者简介 About authors
李睿倩(1986-), 女, 山东济南人, 副教授, 硕士生导师, 主要从事生态环境管理和国土空间规划研究。E-mail: liruiqian@ouc.edu.cn





摘要
空间规划体系改革是推进生态文明建设的重大举措。面向新的国土空间规划体系,如何整合不同空间尺度下的政策,如何协调人类活动并保护生态格局和自然资源,是空间规划的核心问题,亟需吸纳多学科视角和知识加以回答。生态系统服务关联生态系统与人类福祉,是优化国土空间、推动规划决策更加符合生态文明理念的重要工具。本文立足于国土空间规划体系的构建需求,通过文献梳理和理论分析,从多个维度探讨了生态系统服务对空间规划体系构建的支撑作用。首先,对生态系统服务与空间规划价值目标的关联进行了基本判断,明确了生态系统服务不仅是空间规划进行自然资源价值塑造的载体,也是空间规划面向公共福祉的政府选择。其次,针对国家、省级以及市县和乡镇各纵向层级总体规划的功能定位和内容重点,分别剖析了生态系统服务对实现规划的战略性和政策性、协调性和操作性的支撑作用,并从尺度效应视角探讨了其对构建规划协同机制的促进作用。最后,面向“多规合一”的横向衔接需求,提出生态系统服务在培育部门共同价值,协同多元主体利益及改进空间规划技术三方面的重要作用。研究为指导空间规划体系改革提供理论支持和可行路径,丰富深化了生态系统服务在政策制定中的应用。
关键词： 空间规划;生态系统服务;价值目标;规划层级;多规合一

Abstract
Spatial planning system reform is a critical strategy to promote ecosystem civilization construction in China. In view of the new spatial planning system, how to coordinate human activities and protect ecological pattern as well as natural resources are critical to the reformation, which urgently requires multi-disciplinary perspectives and knowledge. Ecosystem services bridge the ecosystem and the human well-being, serving as an important tool for land spatial optimization and decision making to better conform with the ecological civilization. In the light of construction demands from the spatial planning system, this research investigates how ecosystem services may provide relevant support from multiple dimensions through intensive literature and theoretical analyses. Firstly, this paper clarifies ecosystem services' connection with spatial planning in terms of values and goal. Not only are ecosystem services a carrier of spatial planning to shape the value of natural resources, but they are a government choice for spatial planning to promote public welfare as well. Secondly, an in-depth analysis of ecosystem services' support is performed with functions and contents, which vary across planning hierarchy, including the national, provisional, urban, county and village/town levels. To be more specific, insights are gained into ways that ecosystem services may facilitate the strategic and policy-oriented function, the coordinative function, and the operational function, respectively. From a scale-effect perspective, the vertical coordination across planning levels that could be facilitated by ecosystem services is also discussed. Finally, facing the needs of horizontal coordination emphasized by "multiple planning integration", ecosystem services may play important roles in three aspects: fostering common values among different sectors, coordinating multiple stakeholders' interests, and improving spatial planning technology. Results give theoretical supports and possible paths to direct spatial planning reforms, which may help to expand the application of ecosystem services in policy making.
Keywords：spatial planning;ecosystem services;values and goal;planning levels;multiple planning integration


PDF (1698KB)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
李睿倩, 李永富, 胡恒. 生态系统服务对国土空间规划体系的理论与实践支撑. 地理学报[J], 2020, 75(11): 2417-2430 doi:10.11821/dlxb202011011
LI Ruiqian, LI Yongfu, HU Heng. Support of ecosystem services for spatial planning theories and practices. Acta Geographica Sinice[J], 2020, 75(11): 2417-2430 doi:10.11821/dlxb202011011

1 引言

“十九大”报告指出,生态文明建设是中华民族永续发展的千年大计。空间规划作为对国土开发保护格局进行综合优化配置,以满足国家或区域社会经济发展长远需求,并不断提高人类福祉的指南^[1],是推进生态文明建设的重大改革举措。2013年以来,《生态文明体制改革总体方案》《关于加快推进生态文明建设的意见》《省级空间规划试点方案》等文件对空间规划体系改革做出了重大部署。至2019年5月,中共中央、国务院印发的《关于建立国土空间规划体系并监督实施的若干意见》,基本形成了国土空间规划体系顶层设计和“五级三类”总体架构,标志着空间规划编制和实施具备了纲领性文件。

然而,如何切实推进建成国土空间规划体系,实现生态文明理念仍是需要继续探索的重大问题。当前,空间规划的角色已从传统土地利用蓝图的传递者转变为多尺度多行业空间政策的承载者和实施平台^[2,3,4]。如何整合不同空间尺度下的政策,如何协调人类活动并保护生态格局和资源环境,是空间规划的核心问题。由此,各国空间规划实践开始强调从生态系统的整体性角度,保护生态系统结构、功能与资源可持续供给能力,通过空间层面多维度筹划,综合治理开发保护活动和复杂利益关系,对区域发展进行战略性引导^[5,6]。其中,生态系统服务因关联生态系统与人类福祉的整合思维而受到极大关注^[7],可作为资源配置和利益协调的研究载体,是实现国土空间优化,促使规划决策符合生态文明理念的重要工具^[8]。当前,国内外****开始关注规划对不同类别生态系统服务的考量^[9,10,11],揭示多尺度规划主体的价值认知和空间需求^[12,13],聚焦于生态系统服务在土地利用规划与环境影响评价、绿色基础设施和生态网络规划、生态安全格局与生态红线划定等空间决策中的应用^[14,15],以及对生态补偿、生态修复等国土保护政策与效果评估方面的技术支撑^[16,17]。面向中国新的国土空间规划体系,亟需厘清生态系统服务所取得的哪些理论方法创新可与空间规划体系的构建需求相对接,发挥理论和实践方面的支撑作用。这一问题对指导中国国土空间规划体系有效吸纳生态系统服务理论方法具有现实意义,是推进构建生态系统服务融入空间规划方法框架的重要基础和前提。本文尝试围绕实现规划价值目标、强化不同层级功能内容,以及整合“多规合一”三个方面,系统剖析生态系统服务对空间规划体系构建的支撑作用。

2 生态系统服务与空间规划价值目标的关联判断

2.1 生态系统服务是空间规划进行自然资源价值塑造的载体

中国正处于经济社会转型发展的重要历史时期,面临着经济增速放缓与结构调整的挑战,面临着生态文明建设需求下资源约束趋紧、生态环境承载力不足而相应体制未能健全的挑战^[1]。在此背景下,被纳入生态文明体制改革的空间规划,实质上体现了国家在资源配置的价值取向和措施方法上为适应新时代挑战做出的转变,即以资源的合理保护与有效利用为主要目标,提高发展质量和生活品质。因此,空间规划不仅是实现国家社会经济发展和提升空间竞争力的工具,更是在新价值目标引导下,重塑空间格局及自然资源价值,为发展设定基础底线及合理目标的公共过程。

价值塑造涉及保护和恢复生态系统的基本结构功能,提高自然生境承载能力、设定控制线反向限制人类开发活动,保护自然景观格局与文化价值进而提升人们的精神享受等。生态系统服务涵盖的供给、调节、文化和支持服务可与全尺度空间的自然资源对接,从而体现出人类获得的各种直接的和间接的、有形的和无形的效益。当前对生态系统服务的分类研究、价值评估、服务的形成与影响机制、供给能力的评价等,为空间规划的价值塑造提供了认知基础^[18]。例如,邓红兵等^[19]以土地生态系统服务为分析对象,提出了生态用地的内涵与分类,可为建立土地利用分类体系,保证生态环境在区域规划中的基础性地位提供支撑。朱媛媛等^[20]、李广东等^[21]分别以土地提供的生态系统服务价值量为依据,在划定管制界限、细分土地功能方面开展了系列工作。曹宇等^[22]强调了生态系统服务在国土空间生态修复中的重要地位。可见,生态系统服务可作为空间规划进行自然资源价值塑造的载体,是实现新时期空间规划价值观需关注的核心对象。

2.2 生态系统服务是空间规划面向公共福祉的政府选择

公共福祉的构成是人类为满足安全、健康、归属感等各种需求从生态系统中获取的效益^[23]。生态系统提供了食物、能源、材料、景观、文化等几乎所有的满足人类福祉的基本要素。作为人类福祉的载体,生态系统服务提供着基本的民生需求,是最公平的公共产品^[24,25]。然而,随着经济社会发展对生态环境的压力增大,以及人民对生态产品服务的多样化需求增强,生态系统服务供给不足已成为制约社会发展和进步的重要因素。国土空间规划的要义是基于一定发展阶段和国土利用的主要矛盾,综合考虑人们自身的物质、安全和精神需求,对生态系统功能进行选择性利用和空间配置^[26]。更根本地,空间规划体系中通过强调资源环境承载力、生态保护红线、生态修复任务和目标等生态环境保护内容,反映了对生态系统结构、功能和过程的考量,从而影响生态系统服务生产驱动的合理性和服务供给的公平性,以及最终人类福祉的增减。此外,生态系统服务可表征规划决策的时空效应和因果关系^[27],利于深化理解多政策指导下的空间用态和优序问题,把握规划作用下自然生态与人类之间的供给与消费关系。基于空间规划与生态系统服务之间的密切关联,Chapin等****明确提出^[28],空间规划应将人类活动和生态系统服务之间的社会—生态关系作为规划的目标导向,建议基于多元利益主体的生态系统服务框架确定资源配置,探讨不同空间尺度作用下生态系统服务与人类福祉的关系,为空间规划体系建立统一的空间治理目标。

3 生态系统服务对空间规划体系不同层级架构的支撑作用

新的国土空间规划体系划分了全国、省级、市、县、乡镇5个层级,明确了各层级总体规划的功能定位和内容重点。其中,全国国土空间规划的编制与实施要突出战略性和政策性,是国土空间保护、开发、利用、修复的政策和总纲;省级规划侧重协调性和引导性,为区域利益协调发展提供制度保障;市县和乡镇层面是对上级规划的细化和落实,强调可操作性。但如何使各层级规划功能得以落实和强化,又如何促进上下协同对话是纵向体系构建的关键。面对这些挑战,生态系统服务理论方法和相关议题提供了可行路径（图1）。

图1

新窗口打开|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT
图1生态系统服务对不同层级国土空间规划的支撑

Fig. 1Support of ecosystem services for land spatial planning at different levels

3.1 国家层面

国家空间规划的改革需要转变以问题为导向、以经济效益为主导的传统规划模式,回归国土空间的生态整体性^[29]。在国家层面,生态系统服务的战略支撑体现在：① 强化以生态系统为基础的整体性思维导向。在全球、国家和地区层面开展的大量生态系统服务监测评估工作（如千年生态系统评估、英国国家生态系统评估、中国西部生态系统评估、欧盟自然资本与生态系统服务计量等）,为大尺度空间规划及国家空间治理提供了必要的生态资源本底信息和认知基础。通过对生态系统服务产生的位置、数量、质量、流向等时空信息的测度^[30],明确宏观上国土空间和自然资源系统演变的客观规律,增强规划对生态系统服务间有机联系的整体把握。② 提高资源保护利用在时间序列上的长远性考量。长时间序列中,生态系统过程与社会经济因素间相互影响的不确定性,往往对国土开发结果的预测和关键生态系统服务的阈值判断造成巨大挑战^[31,32]。例如,对畜牧业发展的空间支持可能会使草原系统未来载畜能力及适应极端气候事件的能力下降^[33]。基于生态系统服务的时空分析,大量研究评估了现实资源的利用强度（如森林、草原、海洋等）,并结合情景模拟研判宏观政策调整、规划变更和土地利用变化下,生态系统服务的演化特征及变化趋势^[34]。同时,曹祺文等^[35]发现,以生态系统服务流为切入点,开展服务供需制图的长时间序列分析、服务的跨时间集成、服务“源”和“汇”的动态演化规律研究已成为重点。这些研究成果对寻找维持多种服务供给的有效方法,避免对部分空间功能和单一资源过度开发的短视效应,降低未来服务的减损具有重要意义^[27]。③ 增强多种规划在空间上的协调性。Kabisch^[36]、Rozas-Vásquez等^[37]和Sangiuliano^[38]分别针对德国、智利和苏格兰的多种规划（海洋规划、绿地规划、区域规划等）及相关政策进行战略分析,明确规划目标、原则和工具中对生态系统服务的综合考量有助于整合散点式的空间认知,形成协调一致的规划编制原则,从而统筹构建资源开发与生态保护新格局。

政策性角度,生态系统服务对国家空间规划的支撑作用体现在：① 提高区域主导功能和指标制定的因地制宜性。生态系统服务可视为每类国土空间多元复合价值的具体体现。借助生态系统服务的价值评估理论方法,已有研究针对主体功能区划、海洋区划、“三生”空间划分等,对区域功能和价值开展主次判断^{[19, 21, 39]};同时,从生态要素与人类活动的作用方式来看,生态系统服务应作为更高级别资源环境承载力的评价对象^[40],在保证基本服务的基础上,因地制宜地制定约束性和引导性指标,提高生态系统服务空间配置结构的合理性。② 对关键生态空间和重要服务的合理判定。生态系统服务为辨析涉及国家尺度利益的生态资源和空间提供了重要视角,如气候调节服务、重要生境维持等,便于确定国土空间开发利用整治保护的重点地区和重大项目。岳文泽^[41]指出,当前中国空间管理的逻辑是将生态系统服务与人的需求相隔离,因而需优化生态空间格局,充分发挥生态系统服务价值,统筹不同空间及功能。已有研究以生态系统服务功能重要性和生态敏感性为依据,识别关键自然生态空间并提出相应的管制政策,为大尺度国土生态安全格局的构建提供支撑^[42]。

3.2 省级层面

省级层面的国土空间规划侧重公平均衡地配置区域资源,并对地区间利益进行协调。生态系统服务可为区域、流域规划内容提供有利的认知视角和管理向度^[43,44]。省级空间规划对发展战略的明确,反映了社会经济对生态系统服务供给的战略需求;并且,对空间布局的统筹,体现了规划对不同类别生态系统服务的选择性使用。Turkelboom等^[45]分析,从区域内部视角,对某种生态系统服务类型的空间利用布局会影响其他生态系统服务的生产输送,导致服务之间此消彼长或同增同减。例如,对农业粮食供给服务的关注可能会引起水质净化功能的降低,进而影响渔业和景观娱乐价值^[46]。而京津冀地区的实证分析表明,在耕地、建设用地等多种土地利用的影响下,净生产力与水源涵养两种服务间具有较强的同增同减关系^[47]。对区域间,地区利益相关者往往偏重其利益范围内生态系统服务的生产使用,缺乏与周边区域或省级之间生态系统服务功能的协同^[48]。当前的地方发展竞争模式,在协调制衡不足情况下,已经造成了对供给服务的粗放式开发、对调节服务的破坏性影响、对文化服务的同质性竞争等严重问题。

区域尺度下理解生态系统服务权衡与协同的表现类型、形成机理以及地域差异,有助于预测区域利益冲突发生的地点,进而识别相互影响,促进地区间对话,获得更公平和均衡的规划结果,对资源配置和区域协调具有重要意义^[49]。为了解决美国马萨诸塞州海洋资源的使用冲突,White等^[50]通过对近海风能、商业捕鱼、鲸鱼观赏等生态系统服务的权衡分析,提出了区域用海优化方案。Longato等^[51]针对意大利威内托省的农业用地,分析了生物能源和食物供给服务间潜在的权衡协同关系,有助于制定出适宜的区域用地发展规划,提升国土的复合功能。国内多聚焦于省域范围中具体流域或城市群的生态系统服务权衡分析。在江西省鄱阳湖地区^[52]、陕西省河谷盆地^[53]、闽三角城市群^[54]、呼包鄂榆地区^[55]等地,已通过定量模型、冷热点分析、相关性分析和情景模拟等方法,揭示了区域内主要生态系统服务的时空演化规律及其权衡协同关系,可为协调区域用地结构布局提供基本依据。我们认为,开展省级空间规划层面的生态系统服务权衡与协同分析,评估由资源配置和空间布局政策引起的多种生态系统服务的数量消长、供需不均、时空分布变化和利益主体关系,并进一步辨识特定区域内服务权衡与协同的关键环节和驱动力,有利于厘清各个区域所承担的社会、经济和生态主体功能,合理配置省域国土空间要素,制定综合的区域发展战略,在强化国土空间的区际协调方面具有重要支撑意义。

3.3 市县和乡镇层面

市县和乡镇层面的国土空间规划需落实宏观治理要求,侧重可操作性,最终落实到土地利用实践中^[56]。大量研究证实,土地利用结构及状态会对自然生境产生破碎化作用或改变景观连接度,从而影响生态系统结构与功能,改变生物多样性和生态系统服务供给^[26]。基于此,学界围绕土地类型转换对生态系统服务的影响机理,不同土地使用格局下生态系统服务供给与消费的时空变化趋势,多功能土地利用形成与维持过程中涉及的生态系统服务非线性关系及相互作用等问题展开了大量学理探讨^[57]。这些成果为指导市县和乡镇层面的国土空间规划提供了重要的理论和方法基础,有效推进了生态系统服务在地方尺度发挥多方面支撑作用：① 土地用途管制方面,以提高生态系统服务价值为目标进行空间布局调整,建立差别化、精细化的生态保护措施和用途管制规则。在湖北潜江市建设用地的空间管制研究中,徐理等^[58]从生态服务价值功能和生态风险性出发对土地生态环境质量进行分区,并与县级建设用地管制分区耦合,判定用地管制的合理性。② 土地结构调整方面,主要通过对生态系统服务价值变化的空间分析解析用地结构,进而优化地方土地发展潜力。罗彦芳等^[59]从景观格局和生态系统服务价值入手,揭示浙江淳安县土地利用特征和生态效应的空间分异,诊断土地利用格局存在的不合理问题。根据德州市2006—2014年的生态系统服务价值与土地利用变化的数据关系,魏慧等^[60]进一步从生态效益视角提出非农用地和农用地使用的调整策略。③ 生态环境保护方面,基于生态系统服务识别地方尺度重要生态源地和廊道,构建生态安全格局及变化警戒系统。在雄安新区^[61]、福建福清市^[62]、重庆两江新区^[63]等的生态安全格局构建中,生态系统服务作为主要分析对象,发挥了重要支撑作用。④ 地方规划目标设定方面,可借助收集生态系统服务信息,反映地方民众的资源利用和保护偏好,确定规划优先目标。Karrasch等^[64]运用社会影响评价方法对德国西北某地区的海岸带规划进行分析,发现地方民众的社会需求及偏好与生态系统服务供给之间具有密切关联。中国地方国土空间规划中也应注重调查并考量地方民众对不同类别生态系统服务的需求,对具体地块用途做确切安排。

3.4 纵向协同

生态系统服务形成与供给所涵盖的空间尺度不同,如粮食供给、土壤形成、文化娱乐服务多在局地尺度发挥作用,气候调节、碳循环和生境维护等调节和支持服务多在大范围尺度显现价值^[65]。因此,不同空间尺度的相关利益群体对自然资源和各类生态系统服务的需求各有侧重,对同一服务所赋予的价值存在差异,由此不同层级空间规划的目标设定与资源配置策略必然会产生利益权衡和供需变化^[66]。一般而言,宏观层面的规划和决策者往往从较高层次和更为长远的角度对国家或区域尺度利益给予优先考虑（如水源涵养等与社会福祉长期相关的服务）,极易忽视地方利益。上层规划制定的综合性地理区划与政策指导,在向下层传导进行要素管理和用途管制的过程中,必然受到地方影响,导致落地不畅和目标偏移。新的国土空间规划体系要求国家、省级的宏观管理与市县以下的微观管控必须有机结合,协同推进。在揭示纵向规划层级间的竞争与冲突、构建纵向协调机制和多层级主体参与机制的问题上,生态系统服务尺度效应方面的相关成果提供了相应策略^[67]。

Olsson等^[68]和Pittock等^[69]指出,生态系统服务概念具有促成纵向互动和新型协作决策的作用。在比利时区域总体规划^[70]、英国农业土地利用规划对湿地资源的开发利用^[71]、美国规划协会开展的土地使用规划评价^[11]、西班牙的区域资源保护规划^[72]和波多黎各瓜尼尔海湾的珊瑚礁保护规划^[44]等实践中,都基于生态系统服务建立不同层级利益相关者参与的组织框架和良性互动机制,解读功能区划和区域政策可能引起的土地结构、生态功能、服务供给等要素变化。规划过程中,多采用问卷调查、参与式心理图示、圆桌会议、情景模拟等方法,系统调查地方群体对不同生态系统服务的认知和需求,以及地方管理的成功经验,从而促使高层级规划决策进行主动调整。通过设定规划目标、调查背景信息和评估生态系统服务价值,将不同群体和市场的资源诉求纳入规划过程,建立上下层级间协商的价值基础和博弈渠道,使规划体制由自上而下的集权制转为上下结合的综合决策机制,形成具有较高认可度的规划体系和管理方法。这为中国空间规划吸纳社情民情、改善社会参与形式具有重要参考意义。

4 基于生态系统服务的“多规合一”路径方法

“多规合一”是将主体功能区规划、土地利用规划、城乡规划等空间规划融合为统一的国土空间规划,解决各类规划目标多样、决策分散、编制技术和实施保障各异的局面^[73]。原有“多规并存”导致的低效治理,根源在于空间表象下以资源为纽带的利益博弈^[74],需重点把握规划衔接的价值判断、多元利益的协同整合及方法途径。图2总结了生态系统服务对“多规合一”提供的科学支撑。

图2

新窗口打开|下载原图ZIP|生成PPT
图2生态系统服务对“多规合一”的横向支撑

Fig. 2Support of ecosystem services for horizontal cooperation within "multiple planning integration"

4.1 思想协同

生态系统服务有助于“多规合一”中各类规划之间的思想协同,即不再注重对实体空间类型在形式上的竞争调控,而是转换到通过制度设计满足不同部门对每类国土空间的多元价值需求^[75]。生态系统服务概念的优势之一是能够通过明晰占用者和使用者从国土空间的获利及相互关系,影响人们对未来空间利用和景观塑造的愿景;因此,Fürst等^[76]认为,规划行动者应具备整合生态系统过程信息、生物物理知识和国土空间多元价值的能力,通过对区域—要素的系统管理和空间用途管制等手段,协调解决不同部门和行业对空间的需求差异性,整体提升国土空间价值。国外****尝试以生态系统服务为视角,透视国土资源调控方面部门间的相互影响,如Ravar等^[77]通过伊朗水、能源和农业3个部门的政策评价,分析其对加夫库尼流域供给服务的影响,发现水资源及能源的供给高度依赖于农业部门的规划决策,研究结果对增强部门共同利益构建、促进协同规划具有积极作用。此外,在拉丁美洲的陆海综合规划^[78]、美国国家河口项目^[79]、英国海洋空间规划^[80]等多项经验研究中,充分证实了生态系统服务概念是达成生态系统整体性共识的认知基础,是引导多部门关注国土开发利用所依赖的生态要素和系统功能的主要抓手;由此,生态系统服务利于协调部门政策的利益冲突,为“多规合一”的制定提供共同的思想基础及目标指引。

4.2 实施过程

“多规合一”突出强调了规划实施中多主体的动态博弈和共同参与。生态系统服务概念的属性特点及相关研究可从几个方面提供助力。① 对于不同部门或行业,生态系统服务作为一个新的“边界式概念”（Boundary Concept）更容易被接受,即其不仅是多个自然学科探讨的对象,而且作为一种“规范维度”（Normative Dimensions）与政治和社会利益紧密相连,用以解决不同群体的利益、文化、公平、道德等方面的问题^[81],服务于政策与决策研究。van Oudenhoven等^[82]、Albert等^[49]****基于生态系统服务的这一属性,将其与驱动—压力—状态—影响—响应（DPSIR）框架结合,尝试揭示社会经济与生态环境之间的因果关系,提高规划质量。② 生态系统服务为不同群体组织的利益考量提供共同认知基础,促使各主体在相同话语体系下对目标需求进行表达和沟通^[76],尤其在主体产生利益纠纷时,可基于生态系统服务变化及价值损失进行生态补偿,建立成本分担和利益共享机制。如京津冀地区面临着环境污染转移和生态效益外溢的复杂问题,Lin等^[83]通过明确三地间生态补偿的标准,强化了区域生态环境协同保护机制的构建。③ 从生态系统服务视角识别空间规划中的多元主体角色,如潜在的或直接的供给者、需求者、受益者、共同利益者和冲突利益群体等,利于明确利益权衡与协同关系,共同监测、交流并响应资源的时空变化,增强规划适应性^[84]。澳大利亚墨累达令流域的规划管理就是基于管理者对自然资本和生态系统服务管理优先权的考量差异,将管理角色进行细分,以了解各类主体在流域规划中发挥的作用和相互关系^[85]。④ 生态系统服务决策支持手段的应用已出现在空间规划的各个阶段,此过程中所揭示的信息潜移默化地为处于“弱势”地位的部门和利益群体获取话语权,为不同观点的表达与整合提供支撑（表1）^{[80, 86-88]}。

Tab.1
表1
表1生态系统服务决策支持手段在不同规划阶段对利益相关者观点的整合
Tab.1Integration of stakeholders' viewpoints by ecosystem-service decision support tools at different planning stages

生态系统服务决策支持手段	规划阶段	利益相关者的观点表达与整合
物质量评估 价值评价 偏好分析 空间叠加 统计分析 情景分析 多目标分析 级联框架等	规划准备	激发对多元利益目标的协同思考,明确规划主要问题
	规划编制	表达资源的使用偏好及优序选择,识别关键服务和功能空间,反馈不同规划情景对自身福祉的影响,交流决策透明化
	草案讨论和决策	基于生态系统服务价值冲突,实现对规划编制成果的开放性探讨,拓展参与路径,增强协同成效
	实施和评价	对规划质量及效果的动态评估和积极反馈

新窗口打开|下载CSV

4.3 技术方法

当前,国土空间规划在技术方法体系和基础信息平台搭建上面临整合的挑战。纵观国内外生态系统服务在各类空间规划中的应用,其相关理论方法具备在技术层面助推多规融合的应用潜力。① 生态系统服务能够提供统一衔接的基础数据,形成数据管理与交换的共识^[49]。生态系统服务可为各类规划提供统一口径的生态系统结构、功能和过程、自然资源状况、物质能量信息流动、经济社会价值需求、时空权衡与协同、土地景观、人类福祉等数据库,为规划编制提供必要数据。其中,对生态系统服务与人类福祉关系的量化可为各类规划提供自然科学（如土壤状态、水域自净能力）与社会科学（如健康、文化）有关变量的对接和转换,有利于沟通与多元数据共享^[89]。当前,Grêt-Regamey等^[90]的研究已实现基于生态系统服务数据包和GIS的3D模型构建,从而搭建利益相关者参与的交互式规划平台,提升规划的适应性。② 基于土地的生态系统服务评估可为国土生态空间分类体系提供统一的划分标准,进而优化国土开发格局、规范空间秩序。该判断已被多项研究支持,在生态用地分类^[19]、“三生空间”分类^[39]和空间主导功能研判^{[20, 21]}方面有所应用。③ 针对各类规划空间管控底线不一致问题,“多规合一”在一定程度上需依托生态系统服务的研究成果。各种生态系统服务空间分析技术（如InVEST、QUICKScan、GIS等）有助于将不同规划决策可能产生的生态环境影响进行叠加和可视化,发现重要的功能空间,便于形成底线共识^[91]。这些量化思想和技术手段在中国生态红线的划定中已有大量探索^[92,93,94],对国土空间规划起到了重要支撑作用。

5 结论与展望

新的空间规划体系是国土空间治理体制改革的重要成果,需在发展中不断吸纳运用多学科理论方法。生态系统服务对空间规划的重要借鉴意义,已引起生态学、地理学、经济学、社会学等领域专家****的广泛关注。但是,生态系统服务理论方法的复杂性和空间规划实践的可行性间存在客观矛盾,阻碍着二者的融合。总体而言,国土空间规划体系的构建离不开生态系统服务理论方法的科学支撑,需在总纲领的指导下,克服相关障碍,不断检验完善。如何借鉴生态系统服务已有成果,助推国土空间规划体系构建仍是必须厘清的关键问题。综述当前研究进展,需围绕以下问题开展细化研究：

（1）增强生态系统服务与空间规划融合的社会维度研究。注重在国家或地区发展背景和空间规划实践特点下对生态系统服务进行“工作定义”,消除规划主体对该概念理解的模糊性和差异性,提升学界与业界的交流程度。基于社会科学方法,加强利益相关者对生态系统服务的价值认知和社会讨论,提高规划政策与社会需求的匹配度,揭示中国社会经济因素对服务的供需影响和作用机制。

（2）关注生态系统服务与空间规划融合的制度分析。从规则、制度安排、组织、绩效等不同制度分析层次入手,探究中国国土空间规划体系融合生态系统服务的制度背景、制度能力、影响路径和实施绩效,从而在优化空间规划事权、协同多元目标、搭建协商对话平台、建立综合决策机制等关键问题上进行制度创新,提高空间治理能力。

（3）构建生态系统服务与空间规划体系融合的方法框架和技术平台。以本文成果为基础,把握生态系统服务和国土空间规划体系的重要关联点,如“三区三线”的划定与管制,遵循统一生态系统服务与群众需求的管理逻辑,以生态系统服务的可持续供给和价值的充分发挥为前提,将生态系统服务标准作为划定控制线、管制人类活动的基本依据,构建生态系统服务支撑国土空间规划体系的方法框架;同时尝试构建关于生态结构、过程、功能、服务、收益与福祉的综合数据平台,增强对自然生态属性和社会经济属性数据的监测技术和分析能力,构建标准化的生态系统服务评价指标,开发并应用可操作性强、易于理解的空间规划决策工具。

参考文献 View Option 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] Yan Jinming, Chen Hao, Xia Fangzhou. Cognition, direction and path of future spatial planning based on the background of multiple planning integration
China Land Sciences, 2017,31(1):21-27.
[本文引用: 2]

[ 严金明, 陈昊, 夏方舟. “多规合一”与空间规划: 认知、导向与路径
中国土地科学, 2017,31(1):21-27.]
[本文引用: 2]

[2] Healy P. Collaborative Planning
London: Macmillan, 1997.
[本文引用: 1]

[3] Williams R H. European Union Spatial Policy and Planning
London: Paul Chapman, 1996.
[本文引用: 1]

[4] Zhang Yongjiao, Fang Chuanglin. A review on spatial planning coordination and China's "Coordinated Planning"
Urban Planning Forum, 2016(2):78-87.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 张永姣, 方创琳. 空间规划协调与多规合一研究: 评述与展望
城市规划学刊, 2016(2):78-87.]
[本文引用: 1]

[5] Rutherford R J, Herbert G J, Coffen S S. Integrated ocean management and the collaborative planning process: The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative
Marine Policy, 2005,29(1):75-83.
[本文引用: 1]

[6] Warnken J, Mosadeghi R. Challenges of implementing integrated coastal zone management into local planning policies:A case study of Queensland, Australia
Marine Policy, 2018,91:75-84.
[本文引用: 1]

[7] Jiang Bo, Wang Xiaoyuan, Yang Mengfei, et al. Application of ecosystem services research on a protection effectiveness evaluation of the ecological redline policy
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(9):3365-3371.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 江波, 王晓媛, 杨梦斐, 等. 生态系统服务研究在生态红线政策保护成效评估中的应用
生态学报, 2019,39(9):3365-3371.]
[本文引用: 1]

[8] Ouyang Z, Zheng H, Xiao Y, et al. Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital
Science, 2016,352(6292):1455-1459.
DOI:10.1126/science.aaf2295URLPMID:27313045 [本文引用: 1]
In response to ecosystem degradation from rapid economic development, China began investing heavily in protecting and restoring natural capital starting in 2000. We report on China's first national ecosystem assessment (2000-2010), designed to quantify and help manage change in ecosystem services, including food production, carbon sequestration, soil retention, sandstorm prevention, water retention, flood mitigation, and provision of habitat for biodiversity. Overall, ecosystem services improved from 2000 to 2010, apart from habitat provision. China's national conservation policies contributed significantly to the increases in those ecosystem services.

[9] Piwowarczyk J, Kronenberg J, Dereniowska M A. Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: Do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance?
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013,109(1):85-93.
[本文引用: 1]

[10] Hansen R, Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, et al. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities
Ecosystem Services, 2015,12:228-246.
[本文引用: 1]

[11] Woodruff S C, Bendor T K. Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016,152:90-100.
[本文引用: 2]

[12] Hauck J, G?rg C, Varjopuro R, et al. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives
Environmental Science & Policy, 2013,25:13-21.
[本文引用: 1]

[13] Beery T, St?lhammar S, J?nsson K I, et al. Perceptions of the ecosystem services concept: Opportunities and challenges in the Swedish municipal context
Ecosystem Services, 2016,17:123-130.
[本文引用: 1]

[14] Xue Fei, Jia Liuyao, Zhong Le, et al. State of art on integrated research of ecosystem services with spatial planning by literature information analysis
Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2019,35(10):95-100.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 薛飞, 贾刘耀, 钟乐, 等. 基于文献计量分析的生态系统服务与空间规划交叉研究评述
中国园林, 2019,35(10):95-100.]
[本文引用: 1]

[15] Xie Xiangxiang, Zhang Anlu, Yang Meng. Spatial differences in land consolidation performance and investment priority in Hubei Province
Resources Science, 2016,38(11):2058-2071.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 谢向向, 张安录, 杨蒙. 土地整治绩效空间差异及投入优先序: 以湖北省为例
资源科学, 2016,38(11):2058-2071.]
[本文引用: 1]

[16] Wang Nüjie, Liu Jian, Wu Daqian, et al. Regional eco-compensation based on ecosystem service assessment: A case study of Shandong Province
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2010,30(23):6646-6653.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 王女杰, 刘建, 吴大千, 等. 基于生态系统服务价值的区域生态补偿: 以山东省为例
生态学报, 2010,30(23):6646-6653.]
[本文引用: 1]

[17] Lien A M, Schlager E, Lona A. Using institutional grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs
Ecosystem Services, 2018,31:21-31.
[本文引用: 1]

[18] Carpenter S R, Mooney H A, Agard J, et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
PNAS, 2009,106(5):1305-1312.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.0808772106URLPMID:19179280 [本文引用: 1]
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) introduced a new framework for analyzing social-ecological systems that has had wide influence in the policy and scientific communities. Studies after the MA are taking up new challenges in the basic science needed to assess, project, and manage flows of ecosystem services and effects on human well-being. Yet, our ability to draw general conclusions remains limited by focus on discipline-bound sectors of the full social-ecological system. At the same time, some polices and practices intended to improve ecosystem services and human well-being are based on untested assumptions and sparse information. The people who are affected and those who provide resources are increasingly asking for evidence that interventions improve ecosystem services and human well-being. New research is needed that considers the full ensemble of processes and feedbacks, for a range of biophysical and social systems, to better understand and manage the dynamics of the relationship between humans and the ecosystems on which they rely. Such research will expand the capacity to address fundamental questions about complex social-ecological systems while evaluating assumptions of policies and practices intended to advance human well-being through improved ecosystem services.

[19] Deng Hongbing, Chen Chundi, Liu Xin, et al. Conception and function classification of regional ecological land
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2009,29(3):1519-1524.
[本文引用: 3]

[ 邓红兵, 陈春娣, 刘昕, 等. 区域生态用地的概念及分类
生态学报, 2009,29(3):1519-1524.]
[本文引用: 3]

[20] Zhu Yuanyuan, Yu Bin, Zeng Juxin, et al. Spatial optimization from three spaces of production, living and ecology in national restricted zones: A case study of Wufeng County in Hubei Province
Economic Geography, 2015,35(4):26-32.
[本文引用: 2]

[ 朱媛媛, 余斌, 曾菊新, 等. 国家限制开发区“生产—生活—生态”空间的优化: 以湖北省五峰县为例
经济地理, 2015,35(4):26-32.]
[本文引用: 2]

[21] Li Guangdong, Fang Chuanglin. Quantitative function identification and analysis of urban ecological-production-living spaces
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016,71(1):49-65.
[本文引用: 3]

[ 李广东, 方创琳. 城市生态—生产—生活空间功能定量识别与分析
地理学报, 2016,71(1):49-65.]
[本文引用: 3]

[22] Cao Yu, Wang Jiayi, Li Guoyu. Ecological restoration for territorial space: Basic concepts and foundations
China Land Science, 2019,33(7):1-10.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 曹宇, 王嘉怡, 李国煜. 国土空间生态修复: 概念思辨与理论认知
中国土地科学, 2019,33(7):1-10.]
[本文引用: 1]

[23] Li Yan, Li Shuangcheng, Gao Yang, et al. Ecosystem services and hierarchic human well-being: Concepts and service classification framework
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013,68(8):1038-1047.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 李琰, 李双成, 高阳, 等. 连接多层次人类福祉的生态系统服务分类框架
地理学报, 2013,68(8):1038-1047.]
[本文引用: 1]

[24] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our Human Planet: Summary for Decision-makers Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.
[本文引用: 1]

[25] Wang Min, Feng Xiangzhao, Liu Zhe. Discussions on feasibility of mainstreaming ecosystem service decision-making
World Environment, 2016(3):57-59.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 王敏, 冯相昭, 刘哲. 生态系统服务决策主流化的可行性探讨
世界环境, 2016(3):57-59.]
[本文引用: 1]

[26] Liu Lyuyi, Liu Huimin, Ren Jiayan, et al. Research progress on the mechanism of ecosystem services generation
Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2017,28(8):2731-2738.
[本文引用: 2]

[ 刘绿怡, 刘慧敏, 任嘉衍, 等. 生态系统服务形成机制研究进展
应用生态学报, 2017,28(8):2731-2738.]
[本文引用: 2]

[27] Rodríguez J P, Douglas B T, Bennett E M, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services
Ecology and Society, 2006,11(1):28. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.5751/ES-01667-110128.
[本文引用: 2]

[28] Chapin F S, Folke C, Kofinas G P. A framework for understanding change//Folke C, Kofinas G P, Chapin F S. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World
New York: Springer, 2009: 3-28.
[本文引用: 1]

[29] Yu Feng, Zhang Lijun. Following the concept of ecological civilization and strengthening the land spatial planning
Land and Resources Information, 2013(2):2-4.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 喻锋, 张丽君. 遵循生态文明理念, 加强国土空间规划
国土资源情报, 2013(2):2-4.]
[本文引用: 1]

[30] Paavola J, Hubacek K. Ecosystem services, governance and stakeholder participation: An introduction
Ecology and Society, 2013,18(4):42. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.5751/ES-06019-180442.
[本文引用: 1]

[31] Holling C S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1973,4:1-23.
[本文引用: 1]

[32] Rockstr?m J, Steffen W, Noone K, et al. A safe operating space for humanity
Nature, 2009,461(7263):472-475.
DOI:10.1038/461472aURLPMID:19779433 [本文引用: 1]

[33] Li Shuangcheng, Zhang Caiyu, Liu Jinlong, et al. The tradeoffs and synergies of ecosystem services: Research progress, development trend, and themes of geography
Geographical Research, 2013,32(8):1379-1390.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 李双成, 张才玉, 刘金龙, 等. 生态系统服务权衡与协同研究进展及地理学研究议题
地理研究, 2013,32(8):1379-1390.]
[本文引用: 1]

[34] Fisher B, Turner R K, Burgess N D, et al. Measuring, modeling and mapping ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania
Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 2011,35(5):595-611.
[本文引用: 1]

[35] Cao Qiwen, Wei Xiaomei, Wu Jiansheng. A review on the tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services
Chinese Journal of Ecology, 2016,35(11):3102-3111.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 曹祺文, 卫晓梅, 吴健生. 生态系统服务权衡与协同研究进展
生态学杂志, 2016,35(11):3102-3111.]
[本文引用: 1]

[36] Kabisch N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning: The case of Berlin, Germany
Land Use Policy, 2015,42:557-567.
[本文引用: 1]

[37] Rozas-Vásquez D, Fürst C, Geneletti D, et al. Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment across spatial planning scales
Land Use Policy, 2018,71:303-310.
[本文引用: 1]

[38] Sangiuliano S J. Analysing the prevalence of ecosystem services in the objectives and policies of Scotland's National Marine Plan
Marine Policy, 2019,104:37-52.
[本文引用: 1]

[39] Huang Jinchuan, Lin Haoxi, Qi Xiaoxiao. A literature review on optimization of spatial development pattern based on ecological-production-living space
Progress in Geography, 2017,36(3):378-391.
[本文引用: 2]

[ 黄金川, 林浩曦, 漆潇潇. 面向国土空间优化的三生空间研究进展
地理科学进展, 2017,36(3):378-391.]
[本文引用: 2]

[40] Yue Wenze, Wang Tianyu. Logical problems on the evaluation of resources and environment carrying capacity for territorial spatial planning
China Land Science, 2019,33(3):1-8.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 岳文泽, 王田雨. 资源环境承载力评价与国土空间规划的逻辑问题
中国土地科学, 2019,33(3):1-8.]
[本文引用: 1]

[41] Yue Wenze, Wang Tianyu. Rethinking on the basic issues of territorial and spatial use control in China
China Land Science, 2019,33(8):8-15.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 岳文泽, 王田雨. 中国国土空间用途管制的基础性问题思考
中国土地科学, 2019,33(8):8-15.]
[本文引用: 1]

[42] Huang Xinyi, Zhao Xiaomin, Guo Xi, et al. The natural ecological spatial management zoning based on ecosystem service function and ecological sensitivity
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020,40(3):1065-1076.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 黄心怡, 赵小敏, 郭熙, 等. 基于生态系统服务功能和生态敏感性的自然生态空间管制分区研究
生态学报, 2020,40(3):1065-1076.]
[本文引用: 1]

[43] Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, et al. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany
Ecology and Society, 2012,17(3):22. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.5751/ES-04853-170322.
[本文引用: 1]

[44] Smith A, Yee S H, Russell M, et al. Linking ecosystem service supply to stakeholder concerns on both land and sea: An example from Guánica Bay watershed, Puerto Rico
Ecological Indicators, 2017,74:371-383.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.036URL [本文引用: 2]

[45] Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, et al. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning
Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:566-578.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011URL [本文引用: 1]

[46] Tilman D, Cassman K G, Matson P A, et al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices
Nature, 2002,418(6898):671-677.
DOI:10.1038/nature01014URLPMID:12167873 [本文引用: 1]
A doubling in global food demand projected for the next 50 years poses huge challenges for the sustainability both of food production and of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide to society. Agriculturalists are the principal managers of global usable lands and will shape, perhaps irreversibly, the surface of the Earth in the coming decades. New incentives and policies for ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ecosystem services will be crucial if we are to meet the demands of improving yields without compromising environmental integrity or public health.

[47] Zhang Yushuo, Wu Dianting. Multi-scale analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and associated influencing factors in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region
Areal Research and Development, 2019,38(3):141-147.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 张宇硕, 吴殿廷. 京津冀地区生态系统服务权衡的多尺度特征与影响因素解析
地域研究与开发, 2019,38(3):141-147.]
[本文引用: 1]

[48] Onaindia M, Fernández de M B, Madariaga I, et al. Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation
Forest Ecology & Management, 2013,289(1):1-9.
[本文引用: 1]

[49] Galler C, Albert C, Haaren C V. From regional environmental planning to implementation: Paths and challenges of integrating ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services, 2016,18:118-129.
[本文引用: 3]

[50] White C, Halpern B S, Kappel C V. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses
PNAS, 2012,109(12):4696-4701.
URLPMID:22392996 [本文引用: 1]

[51] Longato D, Gaglio M, Boschetti M, et al. Bioenergy and ecosystem services trade-offs and synergies in marginal agricultural lands: A remote-sensing-based assessment method
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019,237:1-15.
[本文引用: 1]

[52] Ran Fengwei, Luo Zhijun, Wu Jiaping, et al. Spatiotemporal patterns of the trade-off and synergy relationship among ecosystem services in Poyang Lake Region, China
Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019,30(3):995-1004.
DOI:10.13287/j.1001-9332.201903.005URLPMID:30912393 [本文引用: 1]
Poyang Lake region is the largest freshwater lake impacted area in China. Quantitative analysis of trade-off and synergy in ecosystem service is of great significance for realizing regional sustainable development. Based on multi-source data of remote sensing, soil, meteorology and DEM, we quantitatively measured food supply service, soil conservation service and water yield service in Poyang Lake region from 2005 to 2015, and analyzed their spatiotemporal patterns and evolution characteristics. The spatial and temporal characteristics of trade-off and synergy between services on the scale of 1 kmx1 km were analyzed by using correlation analysis, hot spot analysis and spatial mapping method. The differences of ecosystem services and their relationships in the perspective of land use were studied. The results showed that food supply service increased, soil conservation service decreased, and water yield service increased first and then decreased during the study period. In terms of spatial distribution, food supply service presented
[ 冉凤维, 罗志军, 吴佳平, 等. 鄱阳湖地区生态系统服务权衡与协同关系的时空格局
应用生态学报, 2019,30(3):995-1004.]
PMID:30912393 [本文引用: 1]

[53] Sun Yijie, Ren Zhiyuan, Zhao Shengnan, et al. Spatial and temporal changing analysis of synergy and trade-off between ecosystem services in valley basins of Shaanxi province
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(3):521-532.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 孙艺杰, 任志远, 赵胜男, 等. 陕西河谷盆地生态系统服务协同与权衡时空差异分析
地理学报, 2017,72(3):521-532.]
[本文引用: 1]

[54] Shui Wei, Du Yong, Wang Yanan, et al. Spatio-temporal dynamics and scenarios simulation of trade-offs between ecosystem services in Min Delta urban agglomeration
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(14):5188-5197.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 税伟, 杜勇, 王亚楠, 等. 闽三角城市群生态系统服务权衡的时空动态与情景模拟
生态学报, 2019,39(14):5188-5197.]
[本文引用: 1]

[55] Sun Zexiang, Liu Zhifeng, He Chunyang, et al. Multi-scale analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs in urbanizing drylands of China: A case study in the Hohhot-Baotou-Ordos-Yulin region
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016,36(15):4881-4891.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 孙泽祥, 刘志锋, 何春阳, 等. 中国快速城市化干燥地区的生态系统服务权衡关系多尺度分析: 以呼包鄂榆地区为例
生态学报, 2016,36(15):4881-4891.]
[本文引用: 1]

[56] Gao Jie, Liu Chang. Ethics and order: Value-oriented thinking of spatial planning reform
Urban Development Studies, 2018,25(2):1-7.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 高洁, 刘畅. 伦理与秩序: 空间规划改革的价值导向思考
城市发展研究, 2018,25(2):1-7.]
[本文引用: 1]

[57] Li Shuangcheng, Liu Jinlong, Zhang Caiyu, et al. The research trends of ecosystem services and the paradigm in geography
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2011,66(12):1618-1630.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 李双成, 刘金龙, 张才玉, 等. 生态系统服务研究动态及地理学研究范式
地理学报, 2011,66(12):1618-1630.]
[本文引用: 1]

[58] Xu Li, Zhou Yong, Xu Beishen. Evaluation of spatial control division of construction lands based on land eco-environmental quality
Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012,32(1):222-226.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 徐理, 周勇, 许倍慎. 基于土地生态环境质量的建设用地空间管制分区评价
水土保持通报, 2012,32(1):222-226.]
[本文引用: 1]

[59] Luo Yanfang, Qian Yi, Wang Xiuzhen. Analysis on the characteristics of landscape pattern of land use and its ecological effect in Chun'an County
Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2007,14(6):371-375.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 罗彦芳, 钱翌, 王秀珍. 淳安县土地利用景观格局特征及其生态效应研究
水土保持研究, 2007,14(6):371-375.]
[本文引用: 1]

[60] Wei Hui, Zhao Wenwu, Zhang Xiao, et al. Regional ecosystem service value evaluation based on land use changes: A case study in Dezhou, Shandong Provience, China
Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(11):3830-3839.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 魏慧, 赵文武, 张骁, 等. 基于土地利用变化的区域生态系统服务价值评价: 以山东省德州市为例
生态学报, 2017,37(11):3830-3839.]
[本文引用: 1]

[61] Peng Jian, Li Huilei, Liu Yanxu, et al. Identification and optimization of ecological security pattern in Xiong'an New Area
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018,73(4):701-710.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 彭建, 李慧蕾, 刘焱序, 等. 雄安新区生态安全格局识别与优化策略
地理学报, 2018,73(4):701-710.]
[本文引用: 1]

[62] Li Guoyu, Lin Liqun, Wu Shidai, et al. Recognition of ecological source and ecological security pattern construction: A case study of Fuqing City
Areal Research and Development, 2018,37(3):120-125.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 李国煜, 林丽群, 伍世代, 等. 生态源地识别与生态安全格局构建研究: 以福建省福清市为例
地域研究与开发, 2018,37(3):120-125.]
[本文引用: 1]

[63] Wu Jiansheng, Yue Xinxin, Qin Wei. The establishment of ecological security patterns based on the redistribution of ecosystem service value: A case study in the Liangjiang New Area, Chongqing
Geographical Research, 2017,36(3):429-440.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 吴健生, 岳新欣, 秦维. 基于生态系统服务价值重构的生态安全格局构建: 以重庆两江新区为例
地理研究, 2017,36(3):429-440.]
[本文引用: 1]

[64] Karrasch L, Klenke T, Woltjer J. Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management: A planning approach
Land Use Policy, 2014,38:522-532.
[本文引用: 1]

[65] Peng Jian, Hu Xiaoxu, Zhao Mingyue, et al. Research progress on ecosystem service trade-offs: From cognition to decision-making
Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(6):960-973.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 彭建, 胡晓旭, 赵明月, 等. 生态系统服务权衡研究进展: 从认知到决策
地理学报, 2017,72(6):960-973.]
[本文引用: 1]

[66] Loft L, Mann C, Hansjürgens B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities
Ecosystem Services, 2015,16:150-157.
[本文引用: 1]

[67] Schleyer C, G?rg C, Hauck J, et al. Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU
Ecosystem Services, 2015,16:174-181.
[本文引用: 1]

[68] Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes T P. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
PNAS, 2008,105(28):9489-9494.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.0706905105URLPMID:18621698 [本文引用: 1]
We analyze the strategies and actions that enable transitions toward ecosystem-based management using the recent governance changes of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a case study. The interplay among individual actors, organizations, and institutions at multiple levels is central in such transitions. A flexible organization, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, was crucial in initiating the transition to ecosystem-based management. This agency was also instrumental in the subsequent transformation of the governance regime and provided leadership throughout the process. Strategies involved internal reorganization and management innovation, leading to an ability to coordinate the scientific community, to increase public awareness of environmental issues and problems, to involve a broader set of stakeholders, and to maneuver the political system for support at critical times. The transformation process was induced by increased pressure on the Great Barrier Reef (from terrestrial runoff, overharvesting, and global warming) that triggered a new sense of urgency to address these challenges. The focus of governance shifted from protection of selected individual reefs to stewardship of the larger-scale seascape. The study emphasizes the significance of stewardship that can change patterns of interactions among key actors and allow for new forms of management and governance to emerge in response to environmental change. This example illustrates that enabling legislations or other social bounds are essential, but not sufficient for shifting governance toward adaptive comanagement of complex marine ecosystems.

[69] Pittock J, Cork S, Maynard S. The state of the application of ecosystems services in Australia
Ecosystem Services, 2012,1(1):111-120.
[本文引用: 1]

[70] Keune H, Dendoncker N, Popa F, et al. Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice
Ecosystem Services, 2015,16:212-219.
[本文引用: 1]

[71] Maltby E, Acreman M, Blackwell M S A, et al. The challenges and implications of linking wetland science to policy in agricultural landscapes: Experience from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment
Ecological Engineering, 2013,56(7):121-133.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.086URL [本文引用: 1]

[72] Moreno J, Palomo I, Escalera J, et al. Incorporating ecosystem services into ecosystem-based management to deal with complexity: A participative mental model approach
Landscape Ecology, 2014,29(8):1407-1421.
DOI:10.1007/s10980-014-0053-8URL [本文引用: 1]
Integrating ecosystem services into ecosystem-based management (EBM) is currently one of the most relevant challenges for management. For that purpose, it is necessary to depict the relationships established between ecosystems and society considering the delivery, use and governance of ecosystem services. One effective way of doing so involves collaboration between researchers, who scientifically study the system, and managers, who have specific experience and technical knowledge. With this aim, we held two workshops in 2011 in the National Parks of Doana and Sierra Nevada, Andalusia (Spain), with researchers and managers from the protected areas at different organizational levels: local, regional and national. Taking the participative mental model technique as an inspiration, we developed a tool that was used as a means to allow a holistic analysis of ecosystem services from an interdisciplinary and participative perspective. We found that participatory mental models, help integrating ecosystem services into EBM as it includes stakeholders' proposals and knowledge. For the implementation of ecosystem services for management, we discuss the necessity of navigating a process that requires considerable changes, not only in using new concepts such as ecosystem services, but also in the management structures that govern the services. This process would require closer interaction between citizens, researchers and managers, and the creation of new participation spaces that include ecosystem service beneficiaries located beyond protected areas.

[73] Zhan Guobin. On the effectiveness, challenges and path-choice of Jiaxing's "multiple planning integration" reform
Chinese Public Administration, 2017(11):33-38.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 詹国彬. “多规合一”改革的成效、挑战与路径选择: 以嘉兴市为例
中国行政管理, 2017(11):33-38.]
[本文引用: 1]

[74] Lin Jian, Chen Shihong, Xu Chaoyi, et al. Game analysis of spatial planning
Urban Planning Forum, 2015(1):10-14.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 林坚, 陈诗弘, 许超诣, 等. 空间规划的博弈分析
城市规划学刊, 2015(1):10-14.]
[本文引用: 1]

[75] Termorshuizen J W, Opdam P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development
Landscape Ecology, 2009,24(8):1037-1052.
DOI:10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8URL [本文引用: 1]
Landscape ecology is in a position to become the scientific basis for sustainable landscape development. When spatial planning policy is decentralised, local actors need to collaborate to decide on the changes that have to be made in the landscape to better accommodate their perceptions of value. This paper addresses two prerequisites that landscape ecological science has to meet for it to be effective in producing appropriate knowledge for such bottom-up landscape-development processes—it must include a valuation component, and it must be suitable for use in collaborative decision-making on a local scale. We argue that landscape ecological research needs to focus more on these issues and propose the concept of landscape services as a unifying common ground where scientists from various disciplines are encouraged to cooperate in producing a common knowledge base that can be integrated into multifunctional, actor-led landscape development. We elaborate this concept into a knowledge framework, the structure–function–value chain, and expand the current pattern–process paradigm in landscape ecology with value in this way. Subsequently, we analyse how the framework could be applied and facilitate interdisciplinary research that is applicable in transdisciplinary landscape-development processes.]]>

[76] Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, et al. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: Proposing a balanced score card
Landscape Ecology, 2014,29(8):1435-1446.
DOI:10.1007/s10980-014-0052-9URL [本文引用: 2]
The application of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in land use planning has great potential to enhance the awareness of planning actors on their interactions. At the same time it can contribute to improve the linkage between the role of land use patterns and the understanding of land system functioning and its contribution to human well-being. The concept should be developed in a way that can be applicable in socio-ecological systems where nature and society are capable of enhancing their roles mutually. The objective of this paper is to suggest a standardized scheme and generalizable criteria to assess how successful the application of the ES concept contributed to facilitate participatory planning. We consider three potential advantages and three critical aspects for how to improve the applicability and relevance of the ES concept in planning. Hereon based, we present a balanced score card tool for which we broke down to advantages and risks into concrete questions. We illustrate the application of this approach with two case studies, representatives of two major governance schemes in relation to land use planning. We demonstrate that the balanced score card approach helps to reveal potential imbalances regarding the consideration of different ES groups. It supports testing the potential of the ES concept to enhance or not interactions of local and regional actors. We conclude that the framework should be reconsidered after a set of case studies to be developed into a monitoring tool for supporting planning practices.

[77] Ravar Z, Zahraie B, Sharifinejad A, et al. System dynamics modeling for assessment of water-food-energy resources security and nexus in Gavkhuni Basin in Iran
Ecological Indicators, 2020,108. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105682.
URLPMID:31903047 [本文引用: 1]
The ratio of building permits to population is a key indicator to evaluate land consumption. However, few researchers focus on land consumption and its environmental spillovers, for developing countries. The aim of our study, using a Bayesian comparison approach applied to a spatial panel, is to analyse the existence of an inverted U-shaped curve relationship between land consumption and economic development, namely the environmental Kuznets curve, with data that ranges from 2007 to 2015 for 221 cantons in Ecuador. The Bayesian comparison approach allows us to identify: i) the spatial weight matrix that best fits the data, and ii) the best spatial model according to the type of spatial spillovers (local or global). These are both of extreme interest because a knowledge of the extent to which the spatial spillovers spread over space, and their functional form, supports the planning of effective land use policies. The results do not support the inverted U-shaped hypothesis of the Kuznets curve. By contrast, the curvature is convex, which means higher levels of land consumption for higher levels of wealth. Spatial spillovers spread to a limited extent, highlighting an imitation game among agents, both institutions and private agents, in the neighbour locations. Policy implications go from the strengthening of the institutional framework and local tax management, to the urban regeneration to limit real estate speculation. All these interventions should be coordinated among neighbours to avoid freeriding behaviours.

[78] Roldan V A, Lopes P F M, et al. Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept
Ecosystem Services, 2019,38. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100966
[本文引用: 1]

[79] Martin L. The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. National Estuary Programs
Ecosystem Services, 2014,9:139-154.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.004URL [本文引用: 1]

[80] B?rger T, Beaumont N J, Pendleton L, et al. Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation
Marine Policy, 2014,46(2):161-170.
DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019URL [本文引用: 2]

[81] Abson D J, von Wehrden H, Baumg?rtner S, et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability
Ecological Economics, 2014,103(3):29-37.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012URL [本文引用: 1]

[82] van Oudenhoven A P E, Petz K, Alkemade R, et al. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services
Ecological Indicators, 2012,21:110-122.
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012URL [本文引用: 1]
Land management is an important factor that affects ecosystem services provision. However, interactions between land management, ecological processes and ecosystem service provision are still not fully understood. Indicators can help to better understand these interactions and provide information for policy-makers to prioritise land management interventions. In this paper, we develop a framework for the systematic selection of indicators, to assess the link between land management and ecosystem services provision in a spatially explicit manner. Our framework distinguishes between ecosystem properties, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. We tested the framework in a case study in The Netherlands. For the case study, we identified 12 property indicators. 9 function indicators and 9 service indicators. The indicators were used to examine the effect of land management on food provision, air quality regulation and recreation opportunities. Land management was found to not only affect ecosystem properties, but also ecosystem functions and services directly. Several criteria were used to evaluate the usefulness of the selected indicators, including scalability, sensitivity to land management change, spatial explicitness, and portability. The results show that the proposed framework can be used to determine quantitative links between indicators, so that land management effects on ecosystem services provision can be modelled in a spatially explicit manner. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

[83] Lin Y S, Dong Z F, Zhang W, et al. Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China's Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example
Ecological Economics, 2020,168. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106514.
[本文引用: 1]

[84] Li R Q, van den Brink M, Woltjer J. Market-based instruments for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: An analysis based on the Chinese case
Ecosystem Services, 2017,23:71-81.
[本文引用: 1]

[85] Bryan B A, Grandgirard A, Ward J R. Quantifying and exploring strategic regional priorities for managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder perspectives
Ecosystems, 2010,13(4):539-555.
[本文引用: 1]

[86] Schr?ter M, van der Zanden E H, van Oudenhoven A P E, et al. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments
Conservation Letters, 2014,7:514-523.
DOI:10.1111/conl.12091URL [本文引用: 1]

[87] Leslie H M, McLeod K L. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2007,5(10):540-548.
DOI:10.1890/060093URL

[88] McKinley E, Pagès J F, Wyles K J, et al. Ecosystem services: A bridge or barrier for UK marine stakeholders?
Ecosystem Services, 2019,37. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100922.
[本文引用: 1]

[89] Feng Weilin, Li Shuzhuo, Li Cong. Overview and frame work for ecosystem services and human well-being
Resources Science, 2013,35(7):1482-1489.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 冯伟林, 李树茁, 李聪. 生态系统服务与人类福祉: 文献综述与分析框架
资源科学, 2013,35(7):1482-1489.]
[本文引用: 1]

[90] Grêt-Regamey A, Celio E, Klein T M, et al. Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning
Landscape & Urban Planning, 2013,109(1):107-116.
[本文引用: 1]

[91] Dick J, Verweij P, Carmen E, et al. Testing the ecosystem service cascade framework and QUICKScan software tool in the context of land use planning in Glenlivet Estate Scotland
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services & Management, 2017,13(2):12-25.
[本文引用: 1]

[92] Ding Yuchen, Feng Changchun, Wang Liwei. Determination of ecological red line of mountainous areas: A case study of Yihe town in Chongqing municipality
Progress in Geography, 2016,35(7):851-859.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 丁雨賝, 冯长春, 王利伟. 山地区域土地生态红线划定方法与实证研究: 以重庆市涪陵区义和镇为例
地理科学进展, 2016,35(7):851-859.]
[本文引用: 1]

[93] Ma Qi, Liu Kang, Liu Wenzong, et al. Zoning the ecological redline in arid and semiarid regions: Taking Yulin city as an example in the context of an integrated multi-planning
Geographical Research, 2018,37(1):158-170.
[本文引用: 1]

[ 马琪, 刘康, 刘文宗, 等. 干旱半干旱区生态保护红线划分研究: 以“多规合一”试点榆林市为例
地理研究, 2018,37(1):158-170.]
[本文引用: 1]

[94] Bai Y, Wong C P, Jiang B, et al. Developing China's Ecological Redline Policy using ecosystem services assessments for land use planning
Nature Communications, 2018,9:3034. Doi: http://www.geog.com.cn/article/2020/0375-5444/10.1038/s41467-018-05306-1.
URLPMID:30072771 [本文引用: 1]
Ecosystems services (ES) assessment is a significant scientific topic recognized for its potential to address sustainability issues. However, there is an absence of science-policy frameworks in land use planning that lead to the ES science being used in policy. China's Ecological Redline Policy (ERP) is one of the first national policies utilizing multiple ES, but there is no standardized approach for working across the science-policy interface. We propose a transdisciplinary framework to determine ecological redline areas (ERAs) in Shanghai using: ES, biodiversity and ecologically fragile hotspots, landscape structure, and stakeholder opinions. We determine the five criteria to identify ERAs for Shanghai using multi-temporal, high resolution images (0.5 m) and biophysical models. We examine ERP effectiveness by comparing land use scenarios for 2040. Compared to alternative land uses, ES increase significantly under the ERP. The inclusion of ES in spatial planning led stakeholders to increase terrestrial habitat protection by 174% in Shanghai. Our analysis suggests that strategic planning for ES could reduce tradeoffs between environmental quality and development.