PDF Download

[1]DING Yuanxin,LIU Chunlan,PEI Sha,et al.Analysis of Different Stakeholders' Cognition on Ecosystem Services in Ecological Conservation Areas[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2023,30(05):453-461.[doi:10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.05.048.]

Copy

Analysis of Different Stakeholders' Cognition on Ecosystem Services in Ecological Conservation Areas

Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume: 30 Number of periods: 2023 05 Page number: 453-461 Column: Public date: 2023-08-10

Title:: Analysis of Different Stakeholders' Cognition on Ecosystem Services in Ecological Conservation Areas

Author(s):: DING Yuanxin^1,2, LIU Chunlan¹, PEI Sha¹, ZHANG Jiping¹, LIU Xiaona¹; (1.National Urban Environmental Pollution Control Engineering Research Center, Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Eco-Environmental Protection Beijing 100037, China; 2.College of Resource Environment and Tourism, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China)

Keywords:: stakeholders; ecosystem services; cognitive analysis; multiple Logistic regression analysis; ecological conservation area; Beijing City

CLC:: X171.4; X826

DOI:: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2023.05.048.

Abstract:: [Objective] Stakeholders' cognition on ecosystem services affects decision-making. Carrying out research and analysis on people's cognition for ecosystem services in ecological conservation areas and its influencing factors among different stakeholders can lie the solid foundation for ecosystem management, the optimal supply of ecosystem services as well as comprehensive compensatory policy formulation for ecological protection in ecological conservation areas. [Methods] Types and spatial differences of ecosystem services cognition and influencing factors among managers and farmers in Beijing's ecological conservation areas were analyzed by means of questionnaire survey. [Results](1)Both managers and farmers believed that the regulating service was the main role of ecosystem. Their cognition levels on gas regulation, environmental purification and cultural services were low. They had significant differences in water conservation, biodiversity maintenance and cultural education. However, farmers only held a fairer perception on supply services than managers.(2)There were obvious cognition differences on the dominant services provided by different ecosystems. Managers held a fairer perception than farmers of water conservation, biodiversity maintenance and cultural education of different ecosystems. Farmers had higher cognition than managers concerning supply services of grassland and farmland, water and soil conservation of forest, gas regulation and leisure and entertainment of wetlands and farmland.(3)Stakeholders in different districts had different perspectives of gas regulation and cultural services in different regions. Managers' knowledge in gas regulation was comparatively less in Miyun District, while farmers' perceptions in biodiversity maintenance in Fangshan and Mentougou District were superficial to a certain extent.(4)Education level, intensity of ecological supervision and income level were the main factors affecting managers' cognition. Two factors of education level and intensity of ecological supervision were in direct proportion to managers' cognition. Educational level, intensity of ecological supervision and ecological environment training were the main factors affecting the cognition of farmers. Educational level and ecological environment training were the positive correlative factors for farmers. [Conclusion] There were obvious differences in the types and regions of different stakeholders' cognition of ecosystem services. Education level, intensity of ecological supervision, income level and ecological environment training were the main influencing factors. Ecological environment training, exchange of experiences in different districts for managers, and publicity and education for farmers should be strengthened emphatically in the future. Enhancing the participation of different stakeholders will be conducive to formulating differentiated ecosystem management and service supply policies, and promoting the implementation of ecological protection policies.

References:: [1] Bidegain I, Cerda C, Catalan E, et al. Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America [J]. Plos One, 2019,14(4):e0215715.
[2] Rodriguez J P, Beard T D, Bennett E M, et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services[J]. Ecology and Society, 2005,11(1):709-723.
[3] Martin-Lopez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcia-Llorente M, et al. Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences [J]. Plos One, 2012,7(6):e0038970.
[4] 李鹏,姜鲁光,封志明,等.生态系统服务竞争与协同研究进展[J].生态学报,2012,32(16):5219-5229.
[5] 符家铭.广州市生态系统服务变化的利益相关者及其影响研究[D].广州:广州大学,2020.
[6] 任婷婷,周忠学.农业结构转型对生态系统服务与人类福祉的影响:以西安都市圈两种农业类型为例[J].生态学报,2019,39(7):2353-2365.
[7] Wilhelm J A, Smith R G, Jolejole-Foreman M C, et al. Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020,45:e101153.
[8] 冯漪,曹银贵,李胜鹏,等.生态系统服务权衡与协同研究:发展历程与研究特征[J].农业资源与环境学报,2022,39(1):11-25.
[9] 甄霖,刘雪林,李芬,等.脆弱生态区生态系统服务消费与生态补偿研究:进展与挑战[J].资源科学,2010,32(5):797-803.
[10] 郑海霞,张陆彪,张耀军.金华江流域生态服务补偿的利益相关者分析[J].安徽农业科学,2009,37(25):12111-12115.
[11] Raum S. A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research:Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2018,29:170-184.
[12] Felipe-Lucia M R, Martin-Lopez B, Lavorel S, et al. Ecosystem services flows:Why stakeholders' power relationships matter [J]. Plos One, 2015,10(7):e0132232.
[13] 阿依努尔·艾尼,玉米提·哈力克,塔依尔江·艾山,等.利益相关者对塔里木河下游荒漠河岸林生态系统服务的认知度分析[J].水土保持研究,2016,23(1):205-209.
[14] 贺娟,舒晓波,于秀波.鄱阳湖区农户对湿地生态系统服务认知的调查与分析[J].资源科学,2010,32(4):776-781.
[15] Ahmed Y, Tesfye E. Determinates of farmer's preference for watershed ecosystem services: The case of Belesa districts, Amhara region of Ethiopia[J]. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2021,7(1):e1917135.
[16] Wei X, Khachatryan H, Zhu H G. Poyang lake wetlands restoration in China:An analysis of farmers'perceptions and willingness to participate [J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021,284(1):e125001.
[17] 胡越,陈晓丽,张安录,等.农民对农田生态系统服务价值认知的二重偏差及影响因素[J].土地经济研究,2014(2):64-78.
[18] Bernues A, Alfnes F, Clemetsen M, et al. Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios [J]. Ecosystem Services, 2019,39:e101002.
[19] Cai Y, Zhao M J, Shi Y X, et al. Assessing restoration benefit of grassland ecosystem incorporating preference heterogeneity empirical data from Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region [J]. Ecological Indicators, 2020,117:e106705.
[20] 毛碧琦,敖长林,宁家靖,等.基于潜在分类模型的湿地生态系统服务公众生态偏好异质性研究[J].自然资源学报,2018,33(5):747-760.
[21] 李青,薛珍,陈红梅,等.基于CVM理论的塔里木河流域居民生态认知及支付决策行为研究[J].资源科学,2016,38(6):1075-1087.
[22] 史恒通,赵敏娟.生态系统服务功能偏好异质性研究:基于渭河流域水资源支付意愿的分析[J].干旱区资源与环境,2016,30(8):36-40.
[23] Kotchen M J, Reiling S D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values:a case study involving endangered species [J]. Ecological Economics, 2000,32(1):93-107.
[24] 傅斌,徐佩,郭滢蔓.山区多元化生态补偿挑战与对策[J].中国国土资源经济,2019,32(7):18-24.
[25] 陈新云,王甜,李宝健.北京市西北部生态涵养区未来土地利用及生态系统服务变化情景模拟[J].西北林学院学报,2021,36(1):86-95.
[26] 杨文杰,巩前文,林震.北京市生态涵养区生态资产时空格局及驱动因素[J].生态学报,2021,41(15):6051-6063.
[27] 石巧玲,薛发彪,陈钦.森林公园游客重游意愿影响因素实证研究:以福建省莆田市九龙谷国家森林公园为例[J].林业经济,2021,43(8):50-61.
[28] 李玉新,魏同洋,靳乐山. 牧民对草原生态补偿政策评价及其影响因素研究:以内蒙古四子王旗为例[J].资源科学, 2014,36(11):2442-2450.
[29] 王济川,郭志刚. Logistic回归模型:方法与应用[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2001:190-194.
[30] 张宏锋,欧阳志云,郑华.生态系统服务功能的空间尺度特征[J].生态学杂志,2007,26(9):1432-1437.
[31] 刘华妍,肖文发,李奇,等.北京市生态系统服务时空变化与权衡分析[J].生态学杂志,2021,40(1):209-219.
[32] 陈瑶,蔡广鹏,韩会庆,等.居民对城市湿地公园生态系统服务功能认知的分析[J].南京林业大学学报:自然科学版,2017,41(6):147-152.
[33] 张红丽,仝文静.生态脆弱区农户对农田防护林生态系统服务功能认知的分析[J].北方园艺,2019,(19):160-167.
[34] 贺祥,姚尧.基于生态系统服务供需对喀斯特山区生态风险分析[J].水土保持研究,2020,27(5):202-212+220.

Similar References:

Memo

Last Update: 2023-08-10