基于价值—风险的黄河上游生态功能区生态分区建设

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20210113

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

黄河上游地区生态环境脆弱,水土流失和土地退化等生态环境问题不断威胁着生态系统健康与人居环境质量。为探究黄河上游生态功能区生态环境安全状况,本文基于2000年、2010年和2018年的土地利用数据,借助生态系统服务模型、生态风险模型,定量分析了生态系统服务价值和生态风险指数的时空演变规律,并通过Z-score标准化的方法建设了四类生态分区。结果表明：（1）研究期内,各土地利用类型均发生不同程度变化,其中建设用地由于耕地和草地的转入增加最显著,增长面积为118 km²,增长率为46.36%。（2）研究区总体服务价值变化程度较小,生态系统服务以调节服务为主且草地提供价值最高。高服务价值区主要分布于临夏州西南部和卓尼县等植被覆盖度较高的地区。（3）研究区生态风险水平总体偏低,整体呈现“南北两端高、中间低”的分布特征,其中低、较低生态风险区占总面积的76%以上。（4）四类生态分区均发生了较小的变化,表明生态分区处于较为稳定的发展状态。不同生态分区的空间分布连续性差,其中以高生态系统服务价值—高生态风险区（I）最为典型。通过生态系统服务与生态风险（价值—风险）建设生态分区,可为协调区域人地关系与明确未来发展方向提供理论基础。

关键词: 生态系统服务, 生态风险, 生态分区, 黄河上游生态功能区

Abstract:

The ecological environment in the upper reaches of the Yellow River is fragile, and ecological and environmental problems such as soil erosion and land degradation continue to threaten the health of the ecosystem and the quality of human settlements. In order to explore the safety status of the ecological environment in the ecological function area in the upper reaches of the Yellow River, this article quantitatively analyzed the spatio-temporal distribution of ecosystem service value and ecological risk index based on land use data in 2000, 2010 and 2018, with the help of ecosystem service models and ecological risk models, and built four types of ecological divisions through z-score standardized methods. The results show that: (1) During the study period, various land use types changed to varying degrees. Among them, construction land increased most significantly due to the transfer of cultivated land and grassland, with an increase area of 118 km² and a growth rate of 46.36%. (2) The overall service value of the study area has a small degree of change, the ecosystem services are mainly regulating services and the grassland provides the highest value. High service value areas are mainly distributed in areas with high vegetation coverage such as the southwestern part of Linxia prefecture and Zhuoni county. (3) The ecological risk level of the study area is generally low, showing the characteristics of "high in the north and south, but low in the middle". The low and low ecological risk areas account for more than 76% of the total area. (4) Little changes have taken place in the four types of ecological zoning, indicating that the ecological zoning is in a relatively stable state of development. The continuity of the spatial distribution of different ecological zones is poor, among which high ecosystem service value-high ecological risk area (I) is the most typical. Constructing ecological zoning through ecosystem services and ecological risks (value-risk) can provide a theoretical basis for coordinating the relationship between humans and land in the region and clarifying future development directions.

Key words: ecosystem services, ecological risk, ecological zoning, ecological function area in the upper reaches of the Yellow River

谢丽霞, 白永平, 车磊, 乔富伟, 孙帅帅, 杨雪荻. 基于价值—风险的黄河上游生态功能区生态分区建设[J]. 自然资源学报, 2021, 36(1): 196-207.

XIE Li-xia, BAI Yong-ping, CHE Lei, QIAO Fu-wei, SUN Shuai-shuai, YANG Xue-di. Construction of ecological zone based on value-risk ecological function area in the Upper Yellow River[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2021, 36(1): 196-207.

图/表 11

图1

表1

图2

表2

表3

图3

表4

图4

表5

图5

表6

参考文献 28

[1]	LI S C, ZHANG H, ZHOU X W, et al. Enhancing protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Ecosystem Services, 2020,43(6):101090, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101090.
[2]	HUANG A, XU Y Q, SUN P L, et al. Land use/land cover changes and its impact on ecosystem services in ecologically fragile zone: A case study of Zhangjiakou city, Hebei province, China. Ecological Indicators, 2019,104(9):604-614.
[3]	KANG P, CHEN W P, HOU Y, et al. Linking ecosystem services and ecosystem health to ecological risk assessment: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration. Science of the Total Environment, 2018,636:1442-1454.
[4]	杜悦悦, 彭建, 赵士权, 等. 西南山地滑坡灾害生态风险评价: 以大理白族自治州为例. 地理学报, 2016,71(9):1544-1561.
	[ DU Y Y, PENG J, ZHAO S Q, et al. Ecological risk assessment of landslide disasters in mountainous areas of Southwest China: A case study in Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016,71(9):1544-1561.]
[5]	肖武, 张文凯, 吕雪娇, 等. 西部生态脆弱区矿山不同开采强度下生态系统服务时空变化: 以神府矿区为例. 自然资源学报, 2020,35(1):68-81.
	[ XIAO W, ZHANG W K, LYU X J, et al. Spatio-temporal patterns of ecological capital under different mining intensities in an ecologically fragile mining area in Western China: A case study of Shenfu Mining Area. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020,35(1):68-81.]
[6]	刘焱序, 王仰麟, 彭建, 等. 基于生态适应性循环三维框架的城市景观生态风险评价. 地理学报, 2015,70(7):1052-1067.
	[ LIU Y X, WANG Y L, PENG J, et al. Urban landscape ecological risk assessment based on the 3D framework of adaptive cycle. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2015,70(7):1052-1067.]
[7]	耿甜伟, 陈海, 张行, 等. 基于GWR的陕西省生态系统服务价值时空演变特征及影响因素分析. 自然资源学报, 2020,35(7):1714-1727.
	[ GENG T W, CHEN H, ZHANG X, et al. Spatiotemporal evolution of land ecosystem service value and its influencing factors in Shaanxi province based on GWR. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020,35(7):1714-1727.]
[8]	JOHNSON D N, VAN RIPER C J, CHU M, et al. Comparing the social values of ecosystem services in US and Australian marine protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 2019,37(6):100919, Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100919.
[9]	CHEN D S, LI J, YANG X N, et al. Quantifying water provision service supply, demand and spatial flow for land use optimization: A case study in the Yanhe watershed. Ecosystem Services, 2020, 43(3): 101117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101117.
[10]	康鹏, 陈卫平, 王美娥. 基于生态系统服务的生态风险评价研究进展. 生态学报, 2015,36(5):1192-1203.
	[ KANG P, CHEN W P, WANG M E. Advancesin ecosystem service-based ecological risk assessment Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2015,36(5):1192-1203.]
[11]	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. 地理学报, 2018,73(5):843-855.
	[ CAO Q W, ZHANG X W, MA H K, et al. Review of landscape ecological risk and an assessment framework based on ecological services: ESRISK. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2018,73(5):843-855.]
[12]	WAYNE R M J, ANNE W R, GLENN W S, et al. Ecosystem services as assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2016,12(3):522-528. pmid: 26331725
[13]	陈峰, 李红波, 张安录. 基于生态系统服务的中国陆地生态风险评价. 地理学报, 2019,74(3):26-39.
	[ CHEN F, LI H B, ZHANG A L. Ecological risk assessment based on terrestrial ecosystem services in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2019,74(3):26-39.]
[14]	KANG P, CHEN W P, HOU Y, et al. Linking ecosystem services and ecosystem health to ecological risk assessment: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration. Science of the Total Environment, 2018,636:1442-1454.
[15]	欧阳晓, 朱翔, 贺清云. 基于生态系统服务和生态系统健康的生态风险评价: 以长株潭城市群为例. 生态学报, 2020,40(16):1-12.
	[ OUYANG X, ZHU X, HE Q Y. Incorporating ecosystem services with ecosystem health for ecological risk assessment: Case study in Changsha-Zhuzhou-Xiangtan Urban Agglomeration, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2020,40(16):1-12.]
[16]	XU X B, YANG G S, TAN Y, et al. Ecological risk assessment of ecosystem services in the Taihu Lake Basin of China from 1985 to 2020. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 554-555:7-16.
[17]	王慧芳, 林子雁, 肖燚, 等. 基于生态系统服务潜在损失的滑坡灾害生态风险评价. 应用生态学报, 2019,30(10):3553-3562.
	[ WANG H F, LIN Z Y, XIAO Y, et al. Ecological risk assessment of landslide disasters based on potential loss of ecosystem services. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2019,30(10):3553-3562.]
[18]	DONG T, XU W H, ZHENG H, et al. A framework for regional ecological risk warning based on ecosystem service approach: A case study in Ganzi, China. Sustainability, 2018,10(8):2699, Doi: 10.3390/su10082699.
[19]	李俊翰, 高明秀. 滨州市生态系统服务价值与生态风险时空演变及其关联性. 生态学报, 2019,39(21):7815-7828.
	[ LI J H, GAO M X. Spatiotemporal evolution and correlation analysis of ecosystem service values and ecological risk in Binzhou. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2019,39(21):7815-7828.]
[20]	金凤君. 黄河流域生态保护与高质量发展的协调推进策略. 改革, 2019, (11):304-310.
	[ JIN F J, Coordinated promotion strategy of ecological protection and high-quality development in the Yellow River Basin. Reform, 2019, (11):304-310.]
[21]	乔旭宁, 王林峰, 牛海鹏, 等. 基于NPP数据的河南省淮河流域生态经济协调性分析. 经济地理, 2016,36(7):173-181.
	[ QIAO X N, WANG L F, NIU H P, et al. The Eco-economic coordinate analysis of Huaihe River Basin in Henan province based on NPP data. Economic Geography, 2016,36(7):173-181.]
[22]	朱会义, 孙明慧. 土地集约化研究的回顾与未来工作的重点. 地理学报, 2014,69(9):1346-1357.
	[ ZHU H Y, SUN M H. Main progress in the research on land use intensification. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2014,69(9):1346-1357.]
[23]	陆大道. 关于黄河流域高质量发展的认识与建议. 中国科学报, 2019-12-10(7). http://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dznews_photo.aspx?id=33727.
	[ LU D D. Cognition and suggestions about the high-quality development of the Yellow River Basin. China Science Journal, 2019-12-10(7). http://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dznews_photo.aspx?id=33727.]
[24]	谢高地, 甄霖, 鲁春霞, 等. 一个基于专家知识的生态系统服务价值化方法. 自然资源学报, 2008,23(5):911-919.
	[ XIE G D, ZHEN L, LU C X, et al. Expert knowledge based valuation method of ecosystem services in China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2008,23(5):911-919.]
[25]	王万同, 孙汀, 王金霞, 等. 基于多源遥感数据的区域生态系统服务价值年际动态监测: 以中原城市群为例. 地理科学, 2019,39(4):680-687.
	[ WANG W T, SUN T, WANG J X, et al. Annual dynamic monitoring of regional ecosystem service value based on multi-source remote sensing based on multi-source remote sensing data: A case of central plains urban agglomeration region. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2019,39(4):680-687.]
[26]	徐羽, 钟业喜, 冯兴华, 等. 鄱阳湖流域土地利用生态风险格局. 生态学报, 2016,36(23):7850-7857.
	[ XU Y, ZHONG Y X, FENG X H, et al. Ecological risk pattern of Poyang Lake Basin based on land use. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2016,36(23):7850-7857.]
[27]	白立敏, 修春亮, 冯兴华. 基于土地利用变化的长春市生态风险评价. 生态科学, 2019,38(3):26-35.
	[ BAI L M, XIU C L, FENG X H. Ecological risk assessment for Changchun based on land use change. Ecological Science, 2019,38(3):26-35.]
[28]	彭建, 杨旸, 谢盼, 等. 基于生态系统服务供需的广东省绿地生态网络建设分区. 生态学报, 2017,37(13):4562-4572.
	[ PENG J, YANG Y, XIE P, et al. Zoning for the construction of green space ecological networks in Guangdong province based on the supply and demand of ecosystem services. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2017,37(13):4562-4572.]

	土地利用类型	2018年土地利用面积
	土地利用类型	耕地	林地	草地	水域	建设用地	未利用地
2000年土地利用面积	耕地	2114.14	150.45	435.33	23.84	164.63	4.88
	林地	76.71	5673.69	1699.40	13.02	7.50	27.19
	草地	430.09	1700.33	17764.13	63.72	55.40	355.81
	水体	19.11	11.30	45.21	159.73	3.70	6.53
	建设用地	79.51	7.40	24.56	1.52	141.74	0.59
	未利用地	1.79	17.13	419.01	17.76	0.92	1873.29

土地利用类型	2000年		2010年		2018年
土地利用类型	ESV/万元	占比/%	ESV/万元	占比%	ESV/万元	占比/%
耕地	2540.30	4.69	2435.63	4.48	2389.22	4.40
林地	23501.80	43.40	23630.93	43.43	23683.46	43.61
草地	26443.82	48.83	26365.92	48.45	26440.19	48.68
水体	1305.01	2.41	1622.96	2.98	1451.96	2.67
未利用地	359.22	0.66	358.22	0.66	348.58	0.64
供给服务	5057.63	9.12	5058.49	9.03	5058.49	9.07
调节服务	28695.17	51.74	29177.65	52.07	29177.65	52.32
支持服务	17638.66	31.81	17677.45	31.55	17677.45	31.70
文化服务	4064.53	7.33	4123.84	7.36	4123.84	7.39

生态风险	风险水平
生态风险	低生态风险	较低生态风险	中等生态风险	较高生态风险	高生态风险
等级	I	II	III	IV	V
生态风险值	0.15<ERI	0.15≤ERI<0.25	0.25≤ERI<0.35	0.35≤ERI<0.45	ERI ≥0.45

生态风险等级	2000年		2010年		2018年
生态风险等级	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%	面积/km²	占比/%
低生态风险区	10529.58	31.48		10263.95	30.69		8337.05	24.96
较低生态风险区	16421.78	49.10		16343.19	48.86		17310.04	51.81
中等生态风险区	4196.73	12.55		4390.99	13.13		4826.17	14.45
较高生态风险区	1145.84	3.43		1295.84	3.87		1614.42	4.83
高生态风险区	1154.88	3.45		1154.88	3.45		1319.76	3.95

象限	分区类型	总数/个			变化率/%
象限	分区类型	2000年	2010年	2018年	2000—2010年	2010—2018年	2000—2018年
I	高生态系统服务价值— 高生态风险区	121	138	135	14.05	-2.14	11.57
II	低生态系统服务价值— 高生态风险区	390	398	382	2.05	-4.02	-2.05
III	低生态系统服务价值— 低生态风险区	336	327	350	-2.68	7.03	4.17
IV	高生态系统服务价值— 低生态风险区	675	659	655	-2.37	-0.61	-2.96