[1]LI Lubing,LIN Wenpeng,REN Chenyang,et al.Comparative Study on Two Assessment Methods of Ecosystem Service Value[J].Research of Soil and Water Conservation,2022,29(03):228-234+243.
Copy
Comparative Study on Two Assessment Methods of Ecosystem Service Value
Research of Soil and Water Conservation[ISSN 1005-3409/CN 61-1272/P] Volume:
29
Number of periods:
2022 03
Page number:
228-234+243
Column:
Public date:
2022-04-20
- Title:
- Comparative Study on Two Assessment Methods of Ecosystem Service Value
- Keywords:
- ecosystem service value; net primary productivity; equivalent factor evaluation method; functional value evaluation method; Hangzhou Bay Area
- CLC:
- X171.1
- DOI:
- -
- Abstract:
- Ecosystem service value can be used to measure the status of ecological environment, however there is no unified accounting method, and the calculation results are quite different. This paper aims to compare the differences between evaluation methods and calculation results. Therefore, the equivalent factor assessment method and the functional value assessment method were simultaneously used to calculate the ecosystem service value of the Hangzhou Bay area from 2000 to 2015, and the results were compared and analyzed. The results of equivalent factor evaluation method showed that the ecosystem service value was 77.958 billion yuan and 73.663 billion yuan in 2000 and 2015, respectively, and the results of functional value evaluation method were 78.186 billion yuan and 81.037 billion yuan, respectively. The results show that the outcomes of the two methods are relatively close, but present two opposite trends: rising and falling. In view of this difference, we compare the two calculation methods of ecosystem service value, and learn that the functional value evaluation method is more detailed for the evaluation of smaller spatial scale, which can fully evaluate the output of construction land in eco-cities with ecosystem service value being more balanced in the functional structure and spatial distribution, therefore, it is more suitable for the areas with higher urbanization degree, such as the Hangzhou Bay area.
- References:
-
[1] 邓永芳,刘国和.新时代中国特色社会主义生态文明建设的理论体系:关于十九大报告生态文明建设的十个理论层面[J].南京林业大学学报:人文社会科学版,2019,19(6):1-10.
[2] 胡鞍钢.中国:创新绿色发展[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.
[3] Shi X, Lingyue L, Zhixin Q. Toward a sustainable urban expansion:A case study of Zhuhai, China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019,230:276-285.
[4] Yong W, Qian D, Dafang Z. An eco-city evaluation method based on spatial analysis technology:A case study of Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2015,58:37-46.
[5] Wenpeng L, Jiawei C, Di X, et al. Wetland landscape pattern changes over a period of rapid development(1985—2015)in the ZhouShan Islands of Zhejiang province, China[J]. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2018,213:148-159.
[6] Wang X, Dong X, Liu H, et al. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being:A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2017,27:113-123.
[7] Lu X, Yingming Z, Junpeng W. Spatial spillover effects of urbanization on ecosystem services value in Chinese cities[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2021,121:doi.org/10,1016/j. ecolind.2020.107028.
[8] Constanza R. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2020,43:doi.org/10,1016/j. ecoser.2020.101096.
[9] 朱玉鑫,姚顺波.基于生态系统服务价值变化的环境与经济协调发展研究:以陕西省为例[J].生态学报,2021,41(9):331-342.
[10] 曹祺文,张曦文,马洪坤,等.景观生态风险研究进展及基于生态系统服务的评价框架:ESRISK[J].地理学报,2018,73(5):843-855.
[11] Zheneng H, Xin Y, Junjie Y, et al. Linking landscape pattern, ecosystem service value, and human well-being in Xishuangbanna, southwest China:Insights from a coupling coordination model[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2021,27:doi.org/10,1016/j.gecco.2021.e01583.
[12] 金贵,邓祥征,张倩,等.武汉城市圈国土空间综合功能分区[J].地理研究,2017,36(3):541-552.
[13] Uta S, Simon T, Erich T. Spatio-temporal changes in ecosystem service values:Effects of land-use changes from past to future(1860—2100)[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2020,272:doi.org/10,1016/j.jenvman.2020.111068.
[14] Cnstanza R, Darge R, De Groot R. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital[J]. Nature, 1997,387(6630):253-260.
[15] Srikanta S, Sandeep B, Shahid R. Estimating global ecosystem service values and its response to land surface dynamics during 1995—2015[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018,223:115-131.
[16] 刘慧明,高吉喜,刘晓.国家重点生态功能区2010—2015年生态系统服务价值变化评估[J].生态学报,2020,40(6):1865-1876.
[17] 谢高地,鲁春霞,冷允法.青藏高原生态资产的价值评估[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(2):189-196.
[18] Rui Xiao, Meng Lin, Xufeng Fei. Exploring the interactive coercing relationship between urbanization and ecosystem service value in the Shanghai-Hangzhou Bay Metropolitan Region[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020,253:doi.org/10,1016/j.jclepro.2019.119803.
[19] 赵同谦,欧阳志云,郑华.中国森林生态系统服务功能及其价值评价[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(4):480-491.
[20] 徐冉,过仲阳,叶属峰.基于遥感技术的长江三角洲海岸带生态系统服务价值评估[J].长江流域资源与环境,2011,20(S1):87-93.
[21] 宁潇,邵学新,胡咪咪.杭州湾国家湿地公园湿地生态系统服务价值评估[J].湿地科学,2016,14(5):677-686.
[22] 薛明皋,邢路,王晓艳.中国土地生态系统服务当量因子空间修正及价值评估[J].中国土地科学,2018,32(9):81-88.
[23] 何浩,潘耀忠,朱文泉.中国陆地生态系统服务价值测量[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(6):1122-1127.
[24] 周小平,冯宇晴,罗维.两种生态系统服务价值评估方法比较研究:以四川省金堂县三星镇土地整治工程为例[J].生态学报,2020,40(5):1799-1809.
[25] 郭璞璞.基于遥感的环杭州湾地区生态系统服务价值评价[D].上海:上海师范大学,2016.
[26] 谢高地,张彩霞,张雷明,等.基于单位面积价值当量因子的生态系统服务价值化方法改进[J].自然资源学报,2015,30(8):1243-1254.
[27] 朱文泉,潘耀忠,张锦水.中国陆地植被净初级生产力遥感估算[J].植物生态学报,2007,31(3):413-424.
[28] 仲晓春,陈雯,刘涛.2001—2010年中国植被NPP的时空变化及其与气候的关系[J].中国农业资源与区划,2016,37(9):16-22.
[29] 许旭,郜昂,朱萍萍,等.基于多源遥感数据的生态系统服务价值评估:以河北省为例[J].国土资源遥感,2013,25(4):180-186.
[30] Constanza R, De Groot, R, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2014,26:152-158.
[31] 浙江在线.解读环杭州湾地区城市群空间发展战略规[EB/OL]. https://zjnews.zjol.com.cn/05zjnews/system/2003/12/11/002199161.shtml.2003.12.11/2021.12.03.
[32] 薛明皋,邢路,王晓艳.中国土地生态系统服务当量因子空间修正及价值评估[J].中国土地科学,2018,32(9):81-88.
- Similar References:
Memo
-
Last Update:
2022-04-20